Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

An SUV Purchase Is an Emotional Decision After All - 2015 Porsche Macan S Long-Term Road Test

Edmunds.comEdmunds.com Posts: 10,059
edited November 2014 in Porsche
imageAn SUV Purchase Is an Emotional Decision After All - 2015 Porsche Macan S Long-Term Road Test

It turns out not every utility vehicle needs to be a Honda CR-V. If you're buying a crossover just to drive around in it by yourself, why not get one like our 2015 Porsche Macan S that's actually a joy to drive.

Read the full story here


Comments

  • grijongrijon Posts: 147
    Erin, you're back! I've always enjoyed your writing on here.
  • I agree with your analysis of the Macan's buyers. They're affluent singles and couples, maybe even small families. They want luxury sports car performance but not in a typical, low-slung sport coupe. The compact CUV body style provides easier entry/exit, a better view of the road, and more utility for hauling around things like a dog or bicycle.
  • fordson1fordson1 Posts: 1,512
    "If you're buying a smallish crossover SUV just to drive around in it by yourself or with your significant other..." It's a 4,300+ lb vehicle to drive around with maybe just me in it. This is where these people lose me. I get that it drives nice and all, but with that weight and getting 16.5 mpg on premium, it has to be more than a one-trick pony.

    Sorry for the excessively logical analysis. Welcome back!
  • socaldrvrsocaldrvr Posts: 4
    edited November 2014
    BMW 4 Series Gran Coupe has comparable functionality, luxury and driving dynamics but less weight, far better mpg (25-27 mpg) and significantly lower price tag/running costs. Also offered with xDrive (although hasn't it been proven that tires are more important than AWD for snow anyway?).

    For the use-case described above, you may be paying a pretty steep premium for the extra height (and InsideLine even says the Macan h-point is low for a CUV: http://www.edmunds.com/porsche/macan/2015/long-term-road-test/2015-porsche-macan-abnormal-seat-height.html). Maybe a non-S, diesel or (better yet) non-S or diesel RWD Macan will answer this.

    Until Porsche offers any of those - and unless you really need to off-road or show off, the Gran Coupe seems worth a look at least. Even if money is no object, inefficiency and inappropriateness to task can rankle over time.

    Anyone cross-shopped Macan with Gran Coupe?
  • connorholconnorhol Posts: 1
    edited November 2014
    socaldrvr said:

    BMW 4 Series Gran Coupe has comparable functionality, luxury and driving dynamics but less weight, far better mpg (25-27 mpg) and significantly lower price tag/running costs. Also offered with xDrive (although hasn't it been proven that tires are more important than AWD for snow anyway?).

    For the use-case described above, you may be paying a pretty steep premium for the extra height (and InsideLine even says the Macan h-point is low for a CUV: http://www.edmunds.com/porsche/macan/2015/long-term-road-test/2015-porsche-macan-abnormal-seat-height.html). Maybe a non-S, diesel or (better yet) non-S or diesel RWD Macan will answer this.

    Until Porsche offers any of those - and unless you really need to off-road or show off, the Gran Coupe seems worth a look at least. Even if money is no object, inefficiency and inappropriateness to task can rankle over time.

    Anyone cross-shopped Macan with Gran Coupe?

    I can definitely see the argument for a wagon/GT (3 series GT or Wagon, Audi Allroad, etc.) instead of this or another small luxury SUV, but a lot of people want an SUV because of the higher ride hight. Even though the 3 GT (and I think the Allroad too) have a higher seating position than their sedan counterparts, they don't provide the same commanding view of the road as an X3, Q5, etc.

    My mother drives a VW Tiguan and previously had an Explorer for 10 years, and a Pathfinder before that. She doesn't absolutely need an SUV, but she's shorter and likes the higher seating position. True, a Jetta SportWagon, Audi Allroad, etc. would have had plenty of cargo space and would've been able to accommodate our dog, but they don't provide the same commanding view of the road. Plus, most car-based SUVs and crossovers have been able to provide that desirable seating position while still keeping the vehicle low enough to the ground, which makes it easy enough to get in and out of and keeps running boards from being a necessity.
  • connorhol said:

    socaldrvr said:

    BMW 4 Series Gran Coupe has comparable functionality, luxury and driving dynamics but less weight, far better mpg (25-27 mpg) and significantly lower price tag/running costs. Also offered with xDrive (although hasn't it been proven that tires are more important than AWD for snow anyway?).

    For the use-case described above, you may be paying a pretty steep premium for the extra height (and InsideLine even says the Macan h-point is low for a CUV: http://www.edmunds.com/porsche/macan/2015/long-term-road-test/2015-porsche-macan-abnormal-seat-height.html). Maybe a non-S, diesel or (better yet) non-S or diesel RWD Macan will answer this.

    Until Porsche offers any of those - and unless you really need to off-road or show off, the Gran Coupe seems worth a look at least. Even if money is no object, inefficiency and inappropriateness to task can rankle over time.

    Anyone cross-shopped Macan with Gran Coupe?

    I can definitely see the argument for a wagon/GT (3 series GT or Wagon, Audi Allroad, etc.) instead of this or another small luxury SUV, but a lot of people want an SUV because of the higher ride hight. Even though the 3 GT (and I think the Allroad too) have a higher seating position than their sedan counterparts, they don't provide the same commanding view of the road as an X3, Q5, etc.

    My mother drives a VW Tiguan and previously had an Explorer for 10 years, and a Pathfinder before that. She doesn't absolutely need an SUV, but she's shorter and likes the higher seating position. True, a Jetta SportWagon, Audi Allroad, etc. would have had plenty of cargo space and would've been able to accommodate our dog, but they don't provide the same commanding view of the road. Plus, most car-based SUVs and crossovers have been able to provide that desirable seating position while still keeping the vehicle low enough to the ground, which makes it easy enough to get in and out of and keeps running boards from being a necessity.
    I can absolutely understand the appeal of a higher ride height, but why must that necessarily come with AWD/off-road ability? BMW already offers RWD versions of most (all?) its SUV/CUVs. If it's just about returning to a higher, more upright (vintage-style) seating position - why not drop the rugged, rock-climbing pretense and its weight and fuel mileage penalties?
  • quadricyclequadricycle Posts: 827
    edited November 2014
    @socaldrvr: because we like the big expensive SUV image, and because we get sucked into thinking AWD puts a halt to physics, and because minivans are uncool. Oh wait, that last one also falls under being image conscious.
  • The Macan's really a sports oriented hatchback that should be perfect for status seeking owners comfortable with Porsche's purchase price (hello, $$$$ options !!! )) and ownership cost (for starters, different sized tires front and rear).
    Incidentally, are Macan's drivers leasers or buyers?
  • legacygtlegacygt Posts: 599
    Praise for the Macan has been nearly universal here. It reminds me of the last car that received one great post after another: the CX-5. That was another practical little crossover with a fun-to-drive component. Obviously the CX-5 is no Macan but it's also about half the cost and more efficient.
  • Also, as the Macan is based on a FWD platform, I doubt there'll ever be a non-AWD version.
  • I ended up buying my Macan for the following reasons:
    1. My wife and I wanted an SUV for the higher ride and the ease of getting in-and-out of the vehicle.
    2. This was my first SUV, so I wanted something sporty. I've traditionally owned roadsters, so having a sporty feel, excellent handling and overall speed was important to me.
    3. I've owned BMWs and Mercedes most my life (I love German engineering). One thing I am disappointed in both is that the interiors have not materially changed in the last 5-8 years (i.e., wouldn't feel like a new car/experience if I bought another one). The Porsche interior recently changed and I love it (feels like an airplane cockpit), plus I've always wanted to own a Porsche.
    4. We weren't going to use the car as a daily driver, so fuel efficiency was not as important.

    For these reasons, it just made sense to go with the Porsche Macan S.
    socaldrvr said:

    connorhol said:

    socaldrvr said:

    BMW 4 Series Gran Coupe has comparable functionality, luxury and driving dynamics but less weight, far better mpg (25-27 mpg) and significantly lower price tag/running costs. Also offered with xDrive (although hasn't it been proven that tires are more important than AWD for snow anyway?).

    For the use-case described above, you may be paying a pretty steep premium for the extra height (and InsideLine even says the Macan h-point is low for a CUV: http://www.edmunds.com/porsche/macan/2015/long-term-road-test/2015-porsche-macan-abnormal-seat-height.html). Maybe a non-S, diesel or (better yet) non-S or diesel RWD Macan will answer this.

    Until Porsche offers any of those - and unless you really need to off-road or show off, the Gran Coupe seems worth a look at least. Even if money is no object, inefficiency and inappropriateness to task can rankle over time.

    Anyone cross-shopped Macan with Gran Coupe?

    I can definitely see the argument for a wagon/GT (3 series GT or Wagon, Audi Allroad, etc.) instead of this or another small luxury SUV, but a lot of people want an SUV because of the higher ride hight. Even though the 3 GT (and I think the Allroad too) have a higher seating position than their sedan counterparts, they don't provide the same commanding view of the road as an X3, Q5, etc.

    My mother drives a VW Tiguan and previously had an Explorer for 10 years, and a Pathfinder before that. She doesn't absolutely need an SUV, but she's shorter and likes the higher seating position. True, a Jetta SportWagon, Audi Allroad, etc. would have had plenty of cargo space and would've been able to accommodate our dog, but they don't provide the same commanding view of the road. Plus, most car-based SUVs and crossovers have been able to provide that desirable seating position while still keeping the vehicle low enough to the ground, which makes it easy enough to get in and out of and keeps running boards from being a necessity.
    I can absolutely understand the appeal of a higher ride height, but why must that necessarily come with AWD/off-road ability? BMW already offers RWD versions of most (all?) its SUV/CUVs. If it's just about returning to a higher, more upright (vintage-style) seating position - why not drop the rugged, rock-climbing pretense and its weight and fuel mileage penalties?
Sign In or Register to comment.