How many of you ordered Range Rover after seeing Macan?
11-21-2013, 01:35 PM
#16
Three Wheelin'
Exactly. Keep in mind Porsche's #1 business objective is margin. Anything below a 15% margin gets scrubbed. This car should easily satisfy that objective.
11-21-2013, 02:04 PM
#17
Nordschleife Master
rover is horrible.. traded back my new body sport and traded the autobiography for the TTS straight up (50k over on the autobiography!!!)
the only good thing was the 50k profit... get a 991TTS for the price of a 997TT.. lol.
the only good thing was the 50k profit... get a 991TTS for the price of a 997TT.. lol.
11-21-2013, 03:52 PM
#19
Burning Brakes
Apples and oranges....
Range Rover Sport has to be compared with a Cayenne, not with a Macan. Besides that, the RR is a completely different vehicle. Although the word "sport" is in the name, it's very far from sporty. A Cayenne drives circles around a RRS.
The Macan needs to be compared with the Evoque, at least when the base models come available nexy yaer. Evoque doesn't have powerful engines, so needs to be compared with Macan 2.0 Turbo and the base diesel.
But the interior built quality and expecially the multimedia systems of the RRs are far behind all German brands.
Got an Evoque for testdrive a whole weekend, about a year ago, but what a piece of ####! Car looks nice, the petrol engine is nice, but all the rest is crap. Interior looked very nice, but it feels cheap and it rattled everywhere already with only 4200km on it. The glovebox kept falling open, touchscreen reacted very, very slow and without the surround view, it's impossible to park the car in narrow parking spaces, because of the glassline. (At least for someone that's only 5'4" like me).
After that experience the brand has lost all my credits.... I will never ever buy one.
They are great terrain vehicles, but not many people are going to take a RRS or RR offroad, so I don't see any benefit in that. Cayenne has 80% of the terrain capabillities of the RR and that's more than enough for most people.
Macan has much less terrain capabillities, for that same reason, no one is taking that car off road.
Suzy (via iOS app)
Range Rover Sport has to be compared with a Cayenne, not with a Macan. Besides that, the RR is a completely different vehicle. Although the word "sport" is in the name, it's very far from sporty. A Cayenne drives circles around a RRS.
The Macan needs to be compared with the Evoque, at least when the base models come available nexy yaer. Evoque doesn't have powerful engines, so needs to be compared with Macan 2.0 Turbo and the base diesel.
But the interior built quality and expecially the multimedia systems of the RRs are far behind all German brands.
Got an Evoque for testdrive a whole weekend, about a year ago, but what a piece of ####! Car looks nice, the petrol engine is nice, but all the rest is crap. Interior looked very nice, but it feels cheap and it rattled everywhere already with only 4200km on it. The glovebox kept falling open, touchscreen reacted very, very slow and without the surround view, it's impossible to park the car in narrow parking spaces, because of the glassline. (At least for someone that's only 5'4" like me).
After that experience the brand has lost all my credits.... I will never ever buy one.
They are great terrain vehicles, but not many people are going to take a RRS or RR offroad, so I don't see any benefit in that. Cayenne has 80% of the terrain capabillities of the RR and that's more than enough for most people.
Macan has much less terrain capabillities, for that same reason, no one is taking that car off road.
Suzy (via iOS app)
11-21-2013, 09:49 PM
#20
Three Wheelin'
Apples and oranges....
Range Rover Sport has to be compared with a Cayenne, not with a Macan. Besides that, the RR is a completely different vehicle. Although the word "sport" is in the name, it's very far from sporty. A Cayenne drives circles around a RRS.
The Macan needs to be compared with the Evoque, at least when the base models come available nexy yaer. Evoque doesn't have powerful engines, so needs to be compared with Macan 2.0 Turbo and the base diesel.
But the interior built quality and expecially the multimedia systems of the RRs are far behind all German brands.
Got an Evoque for testdrive a whole weekend, about a year ago, but what a piece of ####! Car looks nice, the petrol engine is nice, but all the rest is crap. Interior looked very nice, but it feels cheap and it rattled everywhere already with only 4200km on it. The glovebox kept falling open, touchscreen reacted very, very slow and without the surround view, it's impossible to park the car in narrow parking spaces, because of the glassline. (At least for someone that's only 5'4" like me).
After that experience the brand has lost all my credits.... I will never ever buy one.
They are great terrain vehicles, but not many people are going to take a RRS or RR offroad, so I don't see any benefit in that. Cayenne has 80% of the terrain capabillities of the RR and that's more than enough for most people.
Macan has much less terrain capabillities, for that same reason, no one is taking that car off road.
Suzy (via iOS app)
Range Rover Sport has to be compared with a Cayenne, not with a Macan. Besides that, the RR is a completely different vehicle. Although the word "sport" is in the name, it's very far from sporty. A Cayenne drives circles around a RRS.
The Macan needs to be compared with the Evoque, at least when the base models come available nexy yaer. Evoque doesn't have powerful engines, so needs to be compared with Macan 2.0 Turbo and the base diesel.
But the interior built quality and expecially the multimedia systems of the RRs are far behind all German brands.
Got an Evoque for testdrive a whole weekend, about a year ago, but what a piece of ####! Car looks nice, the petrol engine is nice, but all the rest is crap. Interior looked very nice, but it feels cheap and it rattled everywhere already with only 4200km on it. The glovebox kept falling open, touchscreen reacted very, very slow and without the surround view, it's impossible to park the car in narrow parking spaces, because of the glassline. (At least for someone that's only 5'4" like me).
After that experience the brand has lost all my credits.... I will never ever buy one.
They are great terrain vehicles, but not many people are going to take a RRS or RR offroad, so I don't see any benefit in that. Cayenne has 80% of the terrain capabillities of the RR and that's more than enough for most people.
Macan has much less terrain capabillities, for that same reason, no one is taking that car off road.
Suzy (via iOS app)
11-21-2013, 11:46 PM
#21
Burning Brakes
You can get a reasonably well equipped Evoque in the mid $40's so yes it's apples and oranges. I've had a couple of fortune 500 clients in the passenger seat this year and the car seems to impress at any level, sorry you didn't have that experience. In terms of the multimedia system you're right it's way too slow, but the Meridian sound system absolutely kills and the Bose in my Porsche doesn't begin to compare.
Before that testdrive I almost fell in love with the car. In their showroom, they had a Red one with black roof, the dark wheels and the sporty interior, including the red bucket seats. That car looked amazing. But the car I drove was a really awful experience.
Besides that, the dealership didn't make a very good first impression either.
First I had to wait half an hour before a senior salesman came and ask me what I was doing there. when I said that I was interested in an Evoque, he mentioned that it was a very expensive car.... In other words, he was thinking I couldn't afford it. I may be younger than most of his regular customers, but I was not walking around in the showroom just for the fun! That's definitely not the way to start a conversation as a salesman!! Nirmally I would've turned around and walked away, but I was eager to try the car.
Worst experience with a car and dealership I've had so far. Unfortunately....
Suzy (via iOS app)
11-22-2013, 12:21 AM
#22
Three Wheelin'
The reviewer here, at the LA auto show - notice his focus on how tight he says the cabin is, and he's not a large fellow. My takeaway from this is that this car is really targeted more towards women:
http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2...can-video.html
http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2...can-video.html
11-22-2013, 05:04 AM
#23
Rennlist Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somewhere in a galaxy far, far away....
Posts: 17,106
Likes: 0
Received 256 Likes
on
172 Posts
The Evoque puzzles me. From a company known for 4x4, they go and build this little thing.
The styling is very out there.
However i cannot help but wonder how the Evoque designers came to agree on making the back window as small as possible…. Was the goal to create as many blind spots as possible?
The styling is very out there.
However i cannot help but wonder how the Evoque designers came to agree on making the back window as small as possible…. Was the goal to create as many blind spots as possible?
11-22-2013, 09:25 AM
#24
Nordschleife Master
The RRS is an over priced ford. It ruined the value of the RR name buy them including a cheap look a like to the wannabees. My RR was crap, very poorly built and put together mechanically and interior wise and that coming from someone who really takes car of their cars and doesn't treat it like crap. My Cayennes have been a lot better even with the coolant pipe failure, it hasn't had the problems the RR had.
When it comes to off road, nothing beats the short base Jeep, the RR is a beast of a car good for some off road trails but not for true off roading.
When it comes to off road, nothing beats the short base Jeep, the RR is a beast of a car good for some off road trails but not for true off roading.
11-22-2013, 12:41 PM
#25
Three Wheelin'
Having owned 11 Porsches and only 1 Range Rover, I don't want to go overboard defending the R.R., especially on a Porsche forum so I won't. I'll just say mine's been solid, it's a less expensive alternative than the Macan and has better off road capabilities. I like the Macan, but not at $25,000 more than the R.R.
The following users liked this post:
BLT (05-24-2021)
11-22-2013, 01:01 PM
#26
Nordschleife Master
You got the ford edge, FYI you don't have a Range Rover, it's a Land Rover Evoque with a marketing gimic calling it range rover. Btw those are some nice trails that even a VM golf can drive on. Not real off roading.
11-22-2013, 01:14 PM
#27
Three Wheelin'
As opposed to the thoroughbred Macan which is built on a Volkswagen platform with Audi parts? Call the evoque what you like, but 60 miles out in Death Valley (photo) or driving in town, it holds its own.
enjoy
11-22-2013, 04:14 PM
#29
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
The reviewer here, at the LA auto show - notice his focus on how tight he says the cabin is, and he's not a large fellow. My takeaway from this is that this car is really targeted more towards women:
http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2...can-video.html
http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2...can-video.html
I'm 6'2" and fit fine in a Q5, which is very similar to a Macan size-wise, with the exception of rear headroom.
And I don't fit in many cars.....
11-22-2013, 05:54 PM
#30
Rennlist Member
Porsche is laughing all the way to the bank with this one. It's definitely not an entry level car and priced above both the Cayenne and a Boxster.
The 50k base price is pretty deceptive, because you REALLY don't want this car in base form. Decently equipped, you're looking at 65k for the S and 85k for the turbo. ...for a compact SUV.
As much as I really like this car, based on how much it costs, here are my 2 cents:
The Macan is not a car for existing Porsche owners, but for those who have always aspired to own a Porsche. They are active or have a small family, so a Boxster won't fit the size requirement. They are also fairly young (or feel young), so the Cayenne is just not sporty enough. They can only own one car to do everything.
If you already have a 911 and want to add a utility vehicle to your stable...your money is better spent on something other than a Macan.
The 50k base price is pretty deceptive, because you REALLY don't want this car in base form. Decently equipped, you're looking at 65k for the S and 85k for the turbo. ...for a compact SUV.
As much as I really like this car, based on how much it costs, here are my 2 cents:
The Macan is not a car for existing Porsche owners, but for those who have always aspired to own a Porsche. They are active or have a small family, so a Boxster won't fit the size requirement. They are also fairly young (or feel young), so the Cayenne is just not sporty enough. They can only own one car to do everything.
If you already have a 911 and want to add a utility vehicle to your stable...your money is better spent on something other than a Macan.