Having just registered...
Just saw the thread earlier in my Google Now stream, so I registered to reply to the OP. Being a first or 100th post has nothing to do with what I wrote, considering I wasn't trolling or anything.
I like the Macan (I have a Turbo). While it's very fast and handles very well I don't consider it a real sports car, but it's a nice compromise of sportiness and practicality. Personally I like the looks and love the interior.
aracer - Member
.......but it doesn't stop marketing led engineering being a bit shit.
Just fancied a catch up on this thread and saw this nugget, which I'm sorry to say is nonsense.
I've worked in engineering since graduating and every product I've worked on has been market led. If you don't have a market, you don't have a product....doesn't matter if it's a whizzy car that some people deem to be a trinket adorned Chelsea tractor or some piece of industrial equipment for a factory.
The product and the engineering will be as a direct result of the market. If you don't have a market, you don't have a need for a product and if you don't have a product you don't have any engineering to do....
That has been the case in all 4 different companies I have worked at; marketing says what the customer want and once it's well defined enough, the engineers (and others) make it so.....
There are many, many products out there where the technology + marketing have created the "need" rather than the other way round. See Blu-Ray, hi-def anything and every stupid MTB 'standard' for the last 10 years
The product and the engineering will be as a direct result of the market. If you don't have a market, you don't have a need for a product and if you don't have a product you don't have any engineering to do....
Of course, but I don't think that contradicts what I wrote. I've also worked in engineering, and in marketing so I understand the principles quite well and how important requirements capture is. Fortunately not for things being sold to the 52% though, so the marketing was all about genuine benefits rather than just image.
Would it help if I wrote "image led engineering is a bit shit"?
It strikes me that new MTB standards are very sensible.
The front hub on that bike has a 15mm screw-in axle that will avoid accidents that broke a Bikemagic contributor's neck. Wheel ejection under braking is no longer possible.
That tapered headset is much stronger than a straight pivot.
The 31.8 bars are stronger too.
The big disc are less likely to fade.
The suspension works very well indeed and much better than old standards which had different geometry and less travel.
Now find me any way in which the Macan is superior to say a five-year old Volvo XC 90 apart from speed (which is dangerous in itself and futile in a congested speed-limited land) and style (which is subjective as this thread proves).
Now find me any way in which the Macan is superior to say a five-year old Volvo XC 90 apart from speed (which is dangerous in itself and futile in a congested speed-limited land) and style (which is subjective as this thread proves).
It's got a Porsche badge on it.
Good lord the Macan is ugly isn't it. Actually, come to think of it, all 'cars' of this ilk are pig ugly. They really are disgusting. I thought the BMW X6 was the ugliest 'car' ever, but the Macan isn't far behind. You can almost feel the pain in the designer's pen as he is told to draw it by his manager who says 'But Gunther... we know it looks crap... but this is what people want!". It wouldn't surprise me if one day they are actually adding sexy decals of the prices of each individual part onto the exterior so owners can meet and have a quick tot up on their calculators to find out who has the most expensive naff looking car. Nothing says nouveau riche quite like these cars do.
Porsche Macack IMHO.
aracer - MemberWould it help if I wrote "image led engineering is a bit shit"?
A bit....
People who buy things like the iPhone might disagree, but I know what you mean....
Now find me any way in which the Macan is superior to say a five-year old Volvo XC 90 apart from speed (which is dangerous in itself and futile in a congested speed-limited land)
OK....
1) It's much much better put together
2) It handles way better which 'can' actually make it safer
3) It's more fuel efficient
4) It's more comfortable
I speak as an owner of an XC90 for 12 years and am now a Porsche Cayenne owner with experience of driving a Macan for extended periods - so I think I'm fairly qualified.
Although the XC90 is a good car I can tell you that even after over two years of Porsche ownership it still makes me feel way better than than the Volvo ever could or did (even though the Volvo cost me almost as much as the Porsche did)
Just little things like the way the doors close (thud not clank), the lack of noise, the fact that there isn't a satellite delay between pressing the accelerator and the car actually starting to move (which was incredibly dangerous at junctions.... google xc90 gearbox lag).
A fast car isn't necessarily dangerous, it's the driver that is. With the Volvo I found myself in situations I'd much rather not have been in because it was too slow in that situation.
Because I now have a faster car I can confidently spend less time in dangerous situations and yet I drive no faster than the vast majority of the driving public.
I would draw a parallel between this thread and the Posh Watches thread where no one seems to mind people having a watch that costs thousands and yet it doesn't perform it's sole purpose (telling the time) ANY better than a watch that costs £20 (in fact arguably the more expensive watch is worse).
A fast car isn't necessarily dangerous, it's the driver that is. With the Volvo I found myself in situations I'd much rather not have been in because it was too slow in that situation.
Because I now have a faster car I can confidently spend less time in dangerous situations and yet I drive no faster than the vast majority of the driving public.
You sounds like a shit driver. A slow car does not put you in dangerous situations.
Good lord the Macan is ugly isn't it.
Totally subjective.
And does it matter?
I buy a car because of what it does, and how it does it, not how it looks. I really don't give a stuff about it's looks. I treat it as a tool. I'm sure this is the same for many people.
(But I agree that many people only look as far as the badge.)
You sounds like a shit driver.
Nice. Why?
For example, I'm behind a caravan on an A road with few overtaking opportunities, in my car now I can safely pass the caravan on a shortish section of road and be on my way. In the Volvo I would either try to overtake and risk running out of road, or (much more likely) sit behind the caravan while a queue of cars builds up behind leading to the inevitable hero having a go from the back ..... another dangerous situation.
There's plenty on here.(But I agree that many people only look as far as the badge.)
In the Volvo I would either try to overtake and risk running out of road
You are not helping yourself here. Step away from the keyboard and pat yourself on the back for being able to afford a nice car.
Seems fair comparing current Porch technology with a 14-year-old Volvo.
Don't ever drive a car with less than 200bhp per ton again, you'd be really dangerous if you can't pull out safely in a Volvo.
But seriously, you just adapt to a vehicles characteristics and don't expect a 40 ton truck to take off like a Caterham R-something.
These things are all total overkill on today's roads it's just the degree of overkill that varies. As for the klunk or thunk of the doors... . Perceived quality isn't it.
And yes, my watch is a Casio which I last wore several years ago, a watch band across my sun tan would be so embarrassing down the pool.
Nice. Why?
Poor judgement. I see it all the time on the road, and that's on a road bike where I'd rarely be going quicker than 25mph, yet alot of people still struggle to overtake in a safe manner; remember Most of the time it is not safe to overtake AT ALL.
Go for a G63......
stop everything; the Porsche's not as bad as you thought
I give you the Lamborghini [s]Hubris[/s] Urus:
[img] 
[/img]
... is that a dunce's hat ?
Just googled this car .It looks like something a footballer would buy his plastic babe of a wife
You're dead to me, DT 🙁where I'd rarely be going quicker than 25mph
yeah, but i mean obviously I'm not trying.
Now find me any way in which the Macan is superior to say a five-year old Volvo XC 90
It's far superior in marking you out to other motorists as a massive bell end 😉
I have no issue with people making fools of themselves in public. [b]I do have a problem with people feeling that it's ok to drive around in a car that produces far more pollution/uses far more finite resources than is necessary. I do have a problem with people driving around in massive heavy vehicles that pose a far greater risk of harm to other road users[/b] (anyone owning a Chelsea Tractor, feel free to let me drive it into you when you're out on your bike, see how well you come off). Etc.
I assume you are going to include all the big, dirty, polluting commercial vehicles on the road? Like the big vans that are hammering past me on the M5 in the dark doing at least 90-100mph?
Or are they exempt from your diatribe because they're not moving examples of middle-class consumerism, instead they're driven by good old salt-of-the-earth working-class individuals just earning a crust?
You do realise a two-ton van doing 100 mph is going to do easily as much damage as a Macan at the same speed?
You sounds like a shit driver. A slow car does not put you in dangerous situations.
That's got to be a troll, shirley? Of course it does, from not being able to pull away from junctions quickly, causing oncoming vehicles to over-estimate how quickly the car is pulling away and catch up much more quickly than anticipated, to attempting to overtake slower moving vehicles, then finding it a struggle to get past in the clear space available.
You [i]do[/i] drive a car, I take it?
Yeah. Cos it's all those slow, carefully driven cars that cause mayhem on the roads. Give everyone a minimum of 300 horses. That'll make the roads safer for sure...
That's got to be a troll, shirley? Of course it does, from not being able to pull away from junctions quickly, causing oncoming vehicles to over-estimate how quickly the car is pulling away and catch up much more quickly than anticipated, to attempting to overtake slower moving vehicles, then finding it a struggle to get past in the clear space available.
You do drive a car, I take it?
So what you're saying is, a fast car is more likely to make the driver take risks?
Richmars - yes it is subjective, but trust me, it really is as ugly as sin. And yes it does matter, because one more of these on the roads spoils the look of the country. The car industry coming up with these monstrosities could well be likened to the release of 27.5+?
Now find me any way in which the Macan is superior to say a five-year old Volvo XC 90 apart from speed
Far better design and engineering
Far better quality
The Volvo is a decent car but its not in the same league
Had a beer with a guy who buys second hand cars to order for people. When someone asks him for a Macan he advises them to buy new and if they don't want to wait to expect to pay close to or above new car money
but trust me, it really is as ugly as sin.
Sorry, just checked the photos again, and looks like a car to me. If it handles and goes as well as reported, that would make me interested. To be honest, people thinking it's ugly would make me buy one even more.
Forgive me but you can't really compare a Mecan to an XC90, they are both quite different vehicles. If you want a slightly better comparison then an XC60 is more in tune size wise. I've had both an XC90 and have an XC60 at present and it's odd trying to compare each to each other. Ones like a 7 man inflatable white water raft and the other a Canadian Canoe. I had the r-design 90 and despite its sporty look intentions it was by no means a sporty car. Volvo should have stuck to thier original design and left it in SELux spec and broke the 2b pencil, even the much improved 60 is no gunslinger, in SELux spec it's just a nice high estate car. "Making progress" in either is a chore and rather mind numbing.
If comparing cars to cars then the Mecan is closest to the Coupe on Viagra that is the X6/5/4 variants, where space inside isn't a consideration except for the driver and passenger, the rear for 10yr olds at best. But then, that's what the Mecan is designed for, small "upwardly mobile" youthful families with an aspiring nature and a few quid to burn.
IMO.
The ideas slow cars are dangerous is false. As accident statistics show:
[url= http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-2367194/Best-worst-manufacturer-brand-owners-revealed.html ]http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-2367194/Best-worst-manufacturer-brand-owners-revealed.html[/url]
The main criteria is whether they are driven by road hogs. The Volvo XC 90 gets well up there, Sharkbait. The Macan is the same sort of car, driven by aggressive types who like to be safe themselves while putting all the other road users at risk. The "nobody has died in a Volvo" fallacy gives a sense of invulnerability whilst driving dangerously.
Now find me any way in which the Macan is superior to say a five-year old Volvo XC 90 apart from speed (which is dangerous in itself and futile in a congested speed-limited land)
This comparison is rather meaningless, since they are so different. In any case the Macan has superior engines, a really good dual-clutch gearbox, completely different handling (even if it doesn't "feel" like a sports car it really handles like one, in Sport or Sport Plus mode), and the interior is practically identical to the 911. The biggest difference, interior-wise, apart from the lower sitting position, is that the 911 has 5 clocks and the Macan has 3. Otherwise, steering wheel/dash/seats/etc are almost identical. And you can get pretty much the same stuff as in a 911 in terms of options. We have another Porsche (a "proper" "sports" one) and we got the Macan because it's much more practical, especially with a child, and it's the closest thing to a 911 that can sit 5 people and have enough trunk space for a long trip.
I do have a problem with people feeling that it's ok to drive around in a car that produces far more pollution/uses far more finite resources than is necessary. I do have a problem with people driving around in massive heavy vehicles that pose a far greater risk of harm to other road users
Then it's really a case of a very subjective "I hate those who have more than me", unless you're driving the least polluting car ever, or actually, you shouldn't be driving at all but cycling around or perhaps using public transport.
The whole pollution thing is heavily dependent on how much you drive. You can drive a little car a lot and pollute far more than the guy with the 911 Turbo S who takes it out on weekends.
Then it's really a case of a very subjective "I hate those who have more than me", unless you're driving the least polluting car ever, or actually, you shouldn't be driving at all but cycling around or perhaps using public transport.
On a bike forum? Never!
Sometimes this forum is more like pistonheads crossed with Conde Naste Traveller than a mountain bike forum. Apart from the wood-burning stoves of course.
it's the closest thing to a 911 that can sit 5 people and have enough trunk space for a long trip.
There's a whole multitude of fast estate cars that would do a far better job for this purpose so you really can't justify a Macan on practicality grounds. It's a vanity thing full stop.
The whole pollution thing is heavily dependent on how much you drive. You can drive a little car a lot and pollute far more than the guy with the 911 Turbo S who takes it out on weekends.
Most of the pollution associated with cars happens during the production phase.
It's a vanity thing full stop.
All cars are a vanity thing - that's why every manufacturer has different specs for every model and optional extras. Bikes are no different.
There's a whole multitude of fast estate cars that would do a far better job for this purpose so you really can't justify a Macan on practicality grounds. It's a vanity thing full stop.
You misread what I wrote. I didn't buy a Macan because I wanted the most practical car I could buy. Far from it. While the Macan is fairly practical, it's a rather small SUV and definitely not hugely practical. Just about good enough. But I specifically wanted the closest thing to a 911 that is also (much) more practical than a 911. In terms of build quality, driving experience, options and interior, this is it.
Most of the pollution associated with cars happens during the production phase.
In that case what really matters is how often you change cars. I personally keep mine for quite some time. Not because I'm particularly concerned with pollution, but because I buy good cars and take good care of them.
I saw a Macan parked up the other day, with a very similar type car parked next to it. And it dawned on me; the Macan isn't a glorified Audi, it's a glorified Nissan Juke! 😆
You misread what I wrote. I didn't buy a Macan because I wanted the most practical car I could buy. Far from it. While the Macan is fairly practical, it's a rather small SUV and definitely not hugely practical. Just about good enough. But I specifically wanted the closest thing to a 911 that is also (much) more practical than a 911. In terms of build quality, driving experience, options and interior, this is it.
I'd have bought a 911 and a Troopy.
Whe whole blingy SUV thing reminds me of [url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/mans-luxury-watch-successfully-impresses-fellow-****s-20161024115895 ]THIS[/url]
oh and [url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/short-men-to-spend-day-thinking-about-being-short-20161024115866 ]THIS[/url]
Haha 😆
Be prepared for everyone to hate you.
I bought a ten year old Cayman S six months ago, its a 2nd car so doesn't get used daily, but its staggering the amount of abuse that I have received from other car drivers.
All cars are a vanity thing
Pretty certain mine isnt.
we got the Macan because it's much more practical, especially with a child, and it's the closest thing to a 911 that can sit 5 people and have enough trunk space for a long trip.
Well they have similar interiors but you are deluding yourself a high SUV drives and handles like a 911. The Macan has the same Porsche Badge and a similar interior the similarities end there.
Did you not see this bit...?
We have another Porsche (a "proper" "sports" one)
Seems like quator is in a better position to make his statement than the majority of posters on this thread who seem to be experts even though they have probably never even sat in a Macan (or 911) let alone drive them.
I'm pretty well qualified thanks to known how a 911 and Macan drives. Check some of my previous posts if you want to confirm.
There are people on this forum that think a Transporter drives like a 911, and they've apparently driven both too.....
I bought a ten year old Cayman S six months ago, its a 2nd car so doesn't get used daily, but its staggering the amount of abuse that I have received from other car drivers.
Oh very nice, how much do they cost these days to buy and run? I would love to get one, just need to pursued the Mrs its a good idea !
