First field report E-Hybrid

  • After a brief abstinence from Porsche, I got myself a Porsche again - an e-hybrid. Here is my first experience report.

    But first my "background": I started about 20 years ago with a Boxster, then Boxster-S, then one of the first diesel Cayenne purchased and about 4 years ago the 4.2 Diesel-S and now the E-Hybrid. We also drive a Mini SE (pure electric car). We have our own large PV system and produce electricity "in abundance" and therefore like to drive purely electric as much as possible.


    - Porsche has made enormous progress with the electric assistance systems. That (most) works flawlessly and intuitively.

    - great driving experience and the suspension is top class

    - the whole quality in the interior is just great


    - the battery capacity is a joke - we live in the mountains, pure electric we drive about 30 km.

    - the 7.2 Kw charging power is embarrassing and charging takes forever! My little Mini charges with 50 Kw, the battery is full again in no time. Here Porsche is simply not competitive! Especially in combination with the small battery.

    - On longer distances I consume about 10.5l gasoline. My "old" Diesel-S only consumed 8.5 Diesel, with a similar torque.

    Kind regards from Switzerland

    This post has been automatically translated.

  • Interesting assessment.

    The advantages of the diesel are of course without any doubt, bad enough that politics follows stupid ideologies.

    And the consumption advantages of the hybrid are then quickly evaporated, if only the starter battery alone must be replaced for 1700 euros, as someone else has already written here.

    A hybrid does not pay off in my eyes

    This post has been automatically translated.

  • I'm curious - get ours in about 8 weeks. Living on the mountain, but drive during the week much short distance. Think the hybrid can already fit - even if he then needs 10 liters on longer highway stages.

    Of course diesel remains unbeaten - but unfortunately Porsche no longer offers it.

    My current Macan GTS has needed 13/14 liters on the short haul - that's really no fun. Since a hybrid would already have clear advantages

    This post has been automatically translated.

  • Hello MV99

    Look forward to your new E-Hybrid. It's a great car!

    My complaint (at a high level) is the combination of small battery with a very, very slow charger (7.2 Kw). There you have to recharge very often and the full charge with 7.2 Kw takes about 3 hours. My Mini SE charges with 50 Kw. You can charge 80% during a coffee break. And Hyundai and Co charge with the right fast charging station even with 150 Kw.

    With the E-Hybrid you become a nuisance at the public charging stations, because you occupy the charger for hours to drive 40 km electrically afterwards.

    But everything else is great and I don't want to give away the E-Hybrid anymore.

    This post has been automatically translated.

  • Isn't it so that fast charging uaf the durability of the batteries.

    Of course, not interested in short-term owners or lessees, but otherwise.....

    This post has been automatically translated.

  • Hello JuergenL

    Yes, constant fast charging will harm the battery. But you don't have to fast charge all the time, but it's great if you can when you need to. Moreover, with the E-Hybrid, with Max 7.2 Kw, we are probably talking more about "ultra-slow" charging. And other manufacturers can do it and also give a warranty on the battery of 8 years and / or 100,000 km. After that, the battery must still have at least 80%.

    In addition, constant 100% full charge also harms the battery. The ideal would be to charge only to 80%. But that makes with the small battery of the E-Hybrid probably nobody.

    You can turn it any way you want, the battery/charger combination in the E-Hybrid is not "state of the art" ... but the rest is top!

    This post has been automatically translated.

  • I've been driving a Turbo S E-Hybrid since December. For me, the decision was relatively easy, since I get a tax advantage in Germany (until the end of 2021) and I no longer have to torture the cold V8 on short trips. Then it runs oil (was at least with my old Turbo so).

    I currently drive the V8 Hybrid with 9.9l/100 km. Sensational for a 680 hp monster. I also live in the mountains, but in the low mountain range, and at the current temperatures I can drive about 40 km on pure electric power.

    Currently, I'm still charging at home on a household socket, since my PV system is still waiting. This takes agonizingly slow; still 0 to 100% it takes over 13 hours. For comparison: at the 22KW charger in the company, the battery is full again in 2 hours.

    This post has been automatically translated.

  • I can't contribute much to the Cayenne - but with a Panamera 4 E-Hybrid - a similar combination.

    The statement stupid ideologues hits it more than perfectly.

    I don't drive the Panamera under 10l/100km - more like 11, which I am very disappointed about.

    And I wear the car more than drive it.

    My previous A6 3.0 TDI with 286 hp didn't go much worse subjectively - but was happy with 6.0l/100km.

    This engine in the Panamera combined with hybrid would need - I would bet - 5l/100km.

    I calculated anyway with 8.5l/100 km - but 11 are just 2.5l more on 100km - at 35,000km are almost 2000€ extra costs per year.

    Not that would bother me mega, but I find it very disappointing, from the modern technology.

    E range between 37-48km varies the display - well, at home loaded over my mountain up remain at the display realistic 25 km. that converted to about 14 kWh capacity gives an insane consumption of 56 kW/100km.

    So honestly I have to say, I think I will soon switch back to a 3.0 TDI. Although the driving experience of the Porsche really convinces me.

    This post has been automatically translated.

  • Well, it doesn't make much sense to compare a gasoline engine with a TDI diesel.

    The broken diesel is now the most efficient way to drive a car, only a diesel hybrid would be more efficient.

    diesel hybrid would be even more efficient, if you leave out the additional costs for the electric drive, which eat up all the savings in the long run anyway.

    That is the nonsense in the system, to demonize the diesel but comparable gasoline with 30-40% more consumption as environmentally friendly to call.

    The same applies to the resource-guzzling hybrid.

    The E-drive in the hybrid but only has a saving effect if you drive ultra-many short distances and then everywhere you stand also has charging options again. On long distances, the low possible e-drive share brings as good as no savings.

    As long as the purely electric hybrid does not have a range of at least 100km, it is just a pointless and expensive gimmick.

    This post has been automatically translated.

  • The electric drive in the hybrid only has a savings effect if you drive ultra-many short distances and then have charging options everywhere you go. On long distances, the low possible e-drive share brings as good as no savings.

    As long as the hybrid purely electric does not have at least 100km range, it is only pointless and expensive gimmick.

    I can confirm this. On long distances, the hybrid has no decisive advantage. My Turbo S consumes about 13.9 l/100km, the Turbo consumed 14.9 l/100km.

    The pure purchase price does not pay for itself either. Since I have leased the hybrid, I can immediately deduct the leasing costs and do not have to write off, still save half of the imputed income and by the many short trips I come with the average consumption 5l below that of the Turbo.

    In addition, I have the same engine and the boost effect of the electric motor at kickdown, which I have bought with a higher weight.

    For me personally, the hybrid is currently ideal, but I would not object to more el. range.

    This post has been automatically translated.