Anyone getting more than 2.8m/kwh on the Macan GTS EV?

[sor]

I don’t know why GTS would be worse, unless there are some aero issues.

My Turbo got 2.5-2.7 throughout the winter months, and that includes having drag from a ski rack and snow tires. I only had the car in the fall last year so we will see what it does but it was doing 3.2 miles per kWh roughly in September/October.

Fourth EV and I have to say the Macan is quite efficient. There’s a long trip I usually make in the winter and it knocked a whole charging stop off from my other EVs, and that stop was only 18 minutes compared to 25+ in my others.

Sponsored

 

[W1NGE]

I don’t know why GTS would be worse, unless there are some aero issues.

My Turbo got 2.5-2.7 throughout the winter months, and that includes having drag from a ski rack and snow tires. I only had the car in the fall last year so we will see what it does but it was doing 3.2 miles per kWh roughly in September/October.

Fourth EV and I have to say the Macan is quite efficient. There’s a long trip I usually make in the winter and it knocked a whole charging stop off from my other EVs, and that stop was only 18 minutes compared to 25+ in my others.

I don't think that's the reason.

Porsche quote the same WLTP mi / kWh) numbers for both GTS and Turbo.

The differences will be due to selection of rim size (and style) beyond the standard fit, driving style and ambient temps.

 

[Tacoman]

SoFlo. 95% city/suburb driving. 25 4S. 22's. 5400 miles. 3.2kWh.

 

[W1NGE]

SoFlo. 95% city/suburb driving. 25 4S. 22's. 5400 miles. 3.2kWh.

Miami ambient helps - query is specific to GTS.

 

[PastaSource]

Also, other than the sport design bits, other options (including, significantly their weight, or any other measurable impact they may have on WLTP as measured by whomever) are different as standard, and these all have a bearing... I've always been a little interested in how much options like thermal glass, ventilated seats, four-zone climate, ACC, might affect WLTP calculations.

Looking at different configurations on approved used demonstrates this somewhat (all 22" wheels below):

 

[Fly4ever]

MY'25 4S.20' winter tires (still).City driving almost exclusively, 3.8-4 miles/kWh (6-6.5 Km/kWh, 15.5-16.5kWh/100Km.OAT low to mid 20's °C.

 

[W1NGE]

Also, other than the sport design bits, other options (including, significantly their weight, or any other measurable impact they may have on WLTP as measured by whomever) are different as standard, and these all have a bearing... I've always been a little interested in how much options like thermal glass, ventilated seats, four-zone climate, ACC, might affect WLTP calculations.

Looking at different configurations on approved used demonstrates this somewhat (all 22" wheels below):

The primary main differentiator will be the wheel rim size and tyre selection on these cars. The options list won't all materially impact actual range but bear in mind options such as a towbar will have a bearing but most other things not. Noise Insulated glass is actually lighter (around 2kg) - Unlike the conventional single-layer safety glass used for the sides and rear, this glass features five layers: glass, three layers of film, and then glass again. The middle layer of the three polyvinyl butyral (PVB) films has special acoustic properties that absorb much of the oscillation of the surrounding glass.

WLTP is best ignored and just apply simple logic - large rims and fat tyres = increased drag = reduced range + low ambient temps = makes things worse.

Depending on Model Year (MY) there will also be small changes if the WLTP has been recalculated. There are MY25 / MY26 in your samples.

In any event, as you're UK based deduct +/- 15% from these numbers to get a more or less realistic real world range for ambients 15C or more. You will never achieve these range numbers.

Passenger weight is another factor too - obviously.

Porsche used to have a range calculator where you could provide wheel choice, ambient temp, AC ON or OFF, type of driving - City, Motorway, Country Roads which was really useful and quite accurate.

Audi still provide this - have a play to get the idea - https://www.audi.co.uk/en/electric/driving-range-calculator/ - Q6 is the sibling so use that model.

 

[krissrock]

That’s good to hear that it’s not unusual.
TBF, it still gives me enough range for our regular 200 mile round trips.

you never told us exactly what your set up is (wheel size)
as others have noted, it's really temperature dependent.

I think you said you were getting 2.8 over the winter? and that's actually good compared to my 2.5 avg over my winter.
as soon as it warms up (above 50*) my consumption shoots up to about 3.2-3.5 mi/kwh.
i noticed that it highly effected by braking regen, which is NOT available at the start of drives when the car is cold.

 

[ianDB]

you never told us exactly what your set up is (wheel size)
as others have noted, it's really temperature dependent.

I think you said you were getting 2.8 over the winter? and that's actually good compared to my 2.5 avg over my winter.
as soon as it warms up (above 50*) my consumption shoots up to about 3.2-3.5 mi/kwh.
i noticed that it highly effected by braking regen, which is NOT available at the start of drives when the car is cold.

we’ve got the 22” wheels.
2.8m/kwh is in current temperatures (15-17 c)

doesn’t seem to make a difference whether I have regen on as standard or switching it off through the pcm.

 

[W1NGE]

we’ve got the 22” wheels.
2.8m/kwh is in current temperatures (15-17 c)

doesn’t seem to make a difference whether I have regen on as standard or switching it off through the pcm.

Take care with reading forum responses and quoted range as many are for non-GTS models (despite being specific in the thread title) and therefore not comparative.

Best recuperation is when braking rather then overrun recuperation (recuperation on auto / on and lifting off the throttle). Coasting (no recuperation enabled) is more efficient).

 

[MMR]

Take care with reading forum responses and quoted range as many are for non-GTS models (despite being specific in the thread title) and therefore not comparative.

Best recuperation is when braking rather then overrun recuperation (recuperation on auto / on and lifting off the throttle). Coasting (no recuperation enabled) is more efficient).

Agreed

 

[ianDB]

Take care with reading forum responses and quoted range as many are for non-GTS models (despite being specific in the thread title) and therefore not comparative.

Best recuperation is when braking rather then overrun recuperation (recuperation on auto / on and lifting off the throttle). Coasting (no recuperation enabled) is more efficient).

TBF, That's what I've started doing and its even nicer to drive like that.

Personally, I'm not fussed with old getting 250 miles in the spring as I charge every night.
My wife has range anxiety (coming from a diesel pug in hybrid Mercedes GLC). I've promised to show her how to charge at public chargers!

I was just a bot surprised at the significant difference between this and my iX50 BMW (I know it had a larger battery but still achieved 330 consistently in to).

Looking forward to seeing what the Cayenne Turbo does when I get it in May!

 

[hulz99]

If you’re looking for better efficiency, turn the regen (referred to as thrust recuperation in the owners manual) off so the car coasts. My efficiency was immediately better, and coasting is optimal particularly on the highway.

Sponsored