Mercedes-Benz AMG GT 63 S e Performance vs Porsche Cayenne Turbo S E-Hybrid: real-world fuel use
In real life the Porsche Cayenne Turbo S E-Hybrid uses 4.5 L/100 km less fuel than the Mercedes-Benz AMG GT 63 S e Performance — about £951 a year at 15,000 km and £1.40/L.
966 cars in the data
Mercedes-Benz AMG GT 63 S e Performance2.1×the official figure
Official
7.8
Real world
16.7
0715 L/100 km
890 cars in the data
Porsche Cayenne Turbo S E-Hybrid3.2×the official figure
Official
3.8
Real world
12.2
0715 L/100 km
| Mercedes-Benz AMG GT 63 S e Performance | Porsche Cayenne Turbo S E-Hybrid | |
|---|---|---|
| Real fuel use (L/100 km) | 16.7 | 12.2 |
| Official fuel use (L/100 km) | 7.8 | 3.8 |
| Gap vs official | 2.1× | 3.2× |
| Distance with engine off | — | 18% |
| Real CO2 from fuel (g/km) | 385 | 281 |
| Official electric range (km) | 13 | 43 |
| Average kerb weight (kg) | 2,378 | 2,592 |
| Cars in the data | 966 | 890 |
Bold = better. Source: EEA OBFCM real-world data, reporting year 2024, CC BY 4.0.
Which one is cheaper to run?
On fuel alone, the Porsche Cayenne Turbo S E-Hybrid comes out ahead for the average owner. Your own result depends mostly on how often you charge. Run the calculator with your own driving.
More comparisons
BMW M5 vs Mercedes-Benz AMG GT 63 S e PerformanceBMW M5 vs Porsche Cayenne Turbo S E-HybridBMW XM 50e vs Porsche Cayenne Turbo S E-HybridBMW XM Label vs Porsche Cayenne Turbo S E-HybridBMW XM vs Porsche Cayenne Turbo S E-HybridMercedes-Benz AMG GLC 63S e Performance vs Porsche Cayenne Turbo S E-Hybrid