well, the fuel thing i can understand... can't give it a nine or ten when there are vehicles that get better... just because we assume it should do worse due to hp and such, doesn't mean it gets a bye in actual fuel economy read outs.
some people just look at scores like that from the magazines and will assume, "well, this car gets a 7 and this other one is a 6, therefore the 7 gets better fuel economy"... scores need to be factual, not based on impressions or comparisons. claiming, the "fuel economy was fantastic considering the power", then giving a lower number is how it should be done. also, why compare the dinosaur compass? gotta be the "oldest" car out right now from anyone. using the same chart you posted and a review here, the more modern cherokee (tested in 2016 here and given a 6 rating for fuel), rated at 11.1/7.4 city/hwy and uses 87 octane. using that as a "compass" (pardon the pun), the 7 that this macan gets is way too favourable.
anywho, onto the car. I like these guys. i've never loved the porsche way of making 4-5 different variants of powerplants, so i never know whether to scoff at the driver for buying a slow porsche, or give a knowing nod and kudos to them as they pass... not until you see the back do you really know whether it is a soccer mom or a track car on it's way home... and even then, catch me on an early monday and i'll forget... is an S faster than a turbo?... wait?... is there some kind of package that makes one faster? i forget...
all i think is that this needs a louder colour. there is a matte bright blue turbo that cruises through my town... love it.
