roule

On the Porsche USA site, the Macan S is claimed to achieve 17/23 mpg city/highway. Does this seem awfully low to you? With a relatively low displacement engine and a 7-speed transmission, one would expect Porsche to have turned in better numbers for the test runs. Everyone knows you can downshift and dip into the turbo when fuel economy is not the object, but is the Macan S incapable of any economical cruising???

rpilot

No. Seriously, what were you really expecting? Do you prefer Porsche fudge numbers like BMW (ie: retarding throttle response at tip in to game the EPA)? I thought it would be closer to 18/25 for S and 16/24 for Turbo, but it seems in line with expectations if a little on the lower side. And I guarantee you will get 2 mpg less if you go with the wider 20 or 21 inch tires.

Economy and Porsche should generally not be used in the same sentence (atleast compared to a Honda for instance). And if it is about social conscience, I can respect that, but again you are barking up the wrong tree. If you must have a Macan and economy cruise, wait for the Diesel.

KeninBlaine

While I assumed this will be the case, I'm glad you mentioned it. I've been wavering on 19 vs 20 inch wheels. Tires are cheaper on the 19's, but some of the 20's look so nice! One can rationalize all sorts of ways, but I expect the 19's will perform just as well as the 20's, and perhaps pay back a bit of fuel economy as well as cheaper tires. And maybe a little less road noise.

fincher

Ditto on the diesel. Great low-end torque and great mileage.

Buckfever

Buckfever

The 20s look awesome. Wait what were you saying?

KeninBlaine

LOL. Of course, emotions always trump logic in these choices!

PCA1983

I was surprised to see last night that the S and the Turbo have the same exact EPA fuel economy ratings. You know a 400Hp 3.6 Turbo can guzzle more gas than a 340Hp 3.0 Turbo, so what does that tell you about these ratings??

rpilot

I did not know that was the case (Porsche web site does not show it yet for the Turbo), but if it is I am happy since I may yet go for the S, I am actively considering the Turbo.

Honestly though, it does not surprise me. The 3.6 engine uses a slightly higher compression rate and puts out more torque for the 2% more fuel consumption and the EPA tests dictate acceleration in a precise regulated manner.. ie: just because the Turbo lets you get to 60 faster than the 3.0, does not mean the EPA test lets you do that.

KeninBlaine

The configurator on the Porsche USA website has shown the mpg data for both the S and Turbo for a number of weeks. These agree with the window stickers for each model.

rpilot

Huh... never thought to look in the configurator...where in the configurator? The technical specs for the Macan turbo still show EPA MPG as TBD vs the S which shows 17/23.. Oh well...

KeninBlaine

I just looked again, and it is there for the Turbo. Go to Build your Porsche. Select Macan, Turbo, then click on link for Technical Specifications on the right. It shows 17/23/19, just like the S. At least it does for me.

rpilot

It's there. Hopefully it's accurate.

vitaman

My Cayenne Turbo, according to Porsche, is supposed to get 15/22.
I do mixed driving and average 14.5
And, I rarely drive in Sport mode!
I would hope for the best but take little stock in that 17 around town figure.

rijowysock

cayenne v6 is NA says 16/23 and i would get over 30 on highway often...

macan S is FI and says 17/23 and the weight is less but obviously less displacement/tq... but i expect it (hopefully) in long run to be higher on long trips...

will find out soon, driving 1600 mile round trip in 2 weeks.