ipse dixit

In a comparo with the Audi and the Mercedes, R&T sums it up this way:

"After several days of highway cruising, in-town commuting, and flat-out back-road debauchery, it was clear that the Mercedes is the most fun and the Audi the most rational, but the Porsche is the one you'd go to jail for."

Read it all here:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-comparison-tests/features/a24791/comparison-test-porsche-macan-turbo-vs-audi-sq5-vs-mercedes-benz-gla45-amg/

Jeffdehr

Good article but I would have preferred they used a Macan S instead of the Turbo. The S is a more realistic competitor to those cars in terms of $.

tcsracing1

they should have tested the Macan S... but I guess they wanted to test best offering of each brand. That or the Macan S is too close to the Audi to compare....

roule

Poor article. A longtime complaint of mine is automotive journalists who spend more time making up stupid metaphors than they do driving the cars. Based on the depth of review, it appears the author may have spent a grand total of 15 minutes in each car.


That said, R&T did point out one indisputable truth: The Macan needs to lose weight. There is simply no reason for the SQ5 to be the lighter vehicle -- it's lower mass almost completely makes up for the Macan's greater horsepower in acceleration times, braking, etc. For all the work Porsche did to develop the Macan, they clearly forgot discipline in keeping a lid on weight.

tcsracing1

would like the Chris Harris take on it.

sclemmons

I completely agree. He has the most constructive take on everything and is just like us.

WJGreer

I read every word of this because all three of these cars are on my cross-shop list when my 5 series lease ends later this year.

It does seem like the Macan S would have been the more appropriate choice; usually the magazines have to review whatever the car company sends; they apparently sent a Macan Turbo this time. The Macan S would have been within a few % of the price of both other entrants instead of $20K more, but it would have been half a second or so slower to 60.

I wonder whether it still would have won. Probably. Everyone seems to like these, and every dealer in Colorado seems to have mysteriously non-detailed descriptions of Macans in stock, which tells me that they really don't have any and you'd have to order one on a waitlist and at or close to MSRP. Maybe I don't like the Macan that much.

The SQ5 is really nice; it looks a little frumpy in this group but whenever I see one coming and going I always look twice. I had horrible maintenance experience with the two Audis I owned in the past. The newer of the two was a 2004 model though, so maybe things have changed.

I do look forward to driving the GLA45. I suspect that the test drive on that one will tell the tale as to whether it's ridiculously unique and fun or a little less substantial than it should be as a Mercedes.

I'm usually a BMW guy, but the X3 is too cute by half. I would not drive one.

997xpress

Here you go...

https://grrc.goodwood.com/road/drive...o-chris-harris

Slow Guy

Ouch!

fincher

Funny read.

K-A

Haha, Harris' read was great. I don't agree with all of it and it's clear he has a prejudice which the cars even admitted brilliance won't shake (i.e "I prefer Estate Cars and always will"), but there are some gems:

"Forget class classification, forget the usual motoring-media qualifications for an SUV it is very talented etc, the Macan Turbo, on a damp, twisty A-road is an outright weapon that will stay with pretty much anything on four wheels."

"And wouldn’t you just know it, the chassis is even better. The driving position is very clever, with legs more horizontal than rival machines and a feeling of not sitting too high. Beyond detailed technical descriptions of how a car behaves over specific road surfaces one subjective behavioural trait matters far more: how confident a driver feels and how quickly that confidence manifests itself. The Macan Turbo is freakish in this respect: you turn the wheel and you have a sixth sense of where the car will be placed on the road. Not many sports cars can manage that."

Rubik

Guys, I'm not well-read on Chris Harris and who made him the voice of authority?

K-A

He's not. He's just entertaining and a respected car nut like the rest of us, and verbalizes himself rather eloquently if not funnily.

He's got an agenda, prejudice and preference towards his tastes like the rest of us.

Think Jeremy Clarkson with a lot more respect.

cviles

He's been an auto journalist for a while and made some really good videos that you can find on youtube. The only thing that made him "the voice of authority" is that people read and listen to him, myself included. He's an enthusiast that found a way to make his love for cars pay.

His opinion on the Macan is overlooking one important fact, imho: Estate cars don't sell in all markets, for whatever reason. Try to buy a "wagon" here in the U.S. -- you can't, really. Buyers here just don't want them. Hence, automakers created SUVs/CUVs to fill that role and that's why the Macan exists.

K-A

I'd say given that he fully disclosed a prejudice for the very nature of an Estate and against that of the Macan's genre-like nature (which is meaningless subjectivity), his actual objective review of the Macan is absolutely raving.