Evoque MPG ISSUES!!!!
Discussion
V6Pushfit said:
....all of these figures are well below what they 'should' be.
I'm not expecting to get the exact mpg stated, and also couldn't give a monkeys about how often I fill up - if I did I wouldn't be rammed out with classic cars with no space left at the moment for the next acquisition.
My query originated from a notion that LR are taking the p*ss out of everyone and expecting to continue doing so. At what point do LR figures become an issue - 50% more than people experience - 90% - 100% ??
The VW issue is about infinitely lesser and not easily quantifiable (to the user) discrepancies and the net is closing on other manufacturers with Mercedes mpg figures now being queried as false. It seems to me from this post that LR are at fault just on basic user figures without the need for any 'white coat and clipboard' lab checking.
Have a look at honest johns real world mpg http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/I'm not expecting to get the exact mpg stated, and also couldn't give a monkeys about how often I fill up - if I did I wouldn't be rammed out with classic cars with no space left at the moment for the next acquisition.
My query originated from a notion that LR are taking the p*ss out of everyone and expecting to continue doing so. At what point do LR figures become an issue - 50% more than people experience - 90% - 100% ??
The VW issue is about infinitely lesser and not easily quantifiable (to the user) discrepancies and the net is closing on other manufacturers with Mercedes mpg figures now being queried as false. It seems to me from this post that LR are at fault just on basic user figures without the need for any 'white coat and clipboard' lab checking.
Edited by V6Pushfit on Saturday 26th September 08:35
Interestingly a quick 2 minute review tells me that early to mid noughties cars are a lot closer to their claimed mpg across industry, latest variants are worse. That to me is indicative of the claims improving faster than the cars actually can deliver. Also in general The smaller engined cars, LR Evoque included, struggle more than the bigger engined versions of the marques.
HarryW said:
Have a look at honest johns real world mpg http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/
Interestingly a quick 2 minute review tells me that early to mid noughties cars are a lot closer to their claimed mpg across industry, latest variants are worse. That to me is indicative of the claims improving faster than the cars actually can deliver. Also in general The smaller engined cars, LR Evoque included, struggle more than the bigger engined versions of the marques.
Very interesting, thanks for that. The more it seems its just marketing flannel, but its still totally out of order as people look at mpg more than they do emissions!!! Interestingly a quick 2 minute review tells me that early to mid noughties cars are a lot closer to their claimed mpg across industry, latest variants are worse. That to me is indicative of the claims improving faster than the cars actually can deliver. Also in general The smaller engined cars, LR Evoque included, struggle more than the bigger engined versions of the marques.
V6Pushfit said:
akadk said:
the fact the car does not get near the NEDC is not the fault of LR, it is the fault of the test
the test prescribes the conditions (which does not reflect real world driving) and OEM's MUST advertise these figures
this is nothing new, and if you want to rant and rave at LR then I suggest you do some proper research rather than an ignorant rant.
Does a vague woolly response like this mean anything at all? the test prescribes the conditions (which does not reflect real world driving) and OEM's MUST advertise these figures
this is nothing new, and if you want to rant and rave at LR then I suggest you do some proper research rather than an ignorant rant.
I have stated the facts so to call it an ignorant rant is unwarranted.
So if you aren't ignorant yourself then what were the 'conditions' how do they vary from 'real world' driving, what variance is allowed, what exactly were the parameters involved etc?? Do these aspects fully justify a 20mpg variance??
To respond my post saying the tests themselves are flawed is stating the obvious but (as we are seeing at the moment with other manufacturers) it's not the end of the trail...
This is done with the car fully up to optimum temperature and with an ambient air temp of 21ºc.
Go out and find an empty very flat road, and sit at 33mph and reset your OBC, drive for 4 miles with out any interruptions and see what your car is getting MPG wise.
This will then tell you how far out your cars MPG is with official figures.
No point driving around at 70mph, or through traffic etc. etc. and moaning that you don't get official figures.
Try and replicate the test and then see what your car achieves.
This is why the test is totally pointless, and why you have to test each car doing the journeys you do, the official test tells you nothing.
Our Toyota Aygo got 80mpg combined officially, and if you drive at 33mph it would do that, put drive at 80mph and it would struggle to hit 30mpg.
You can't blame Land Rover at all I'm afraid.
Ignorant just means you don't 'know' something by the way.
- I use mph and the figures are approx. calculated from the kmph and km figures.
It's not just an LR thing, just about every manufacturer has much lower real world figures. As mentioned, it's an issue with the test not really the manufacturers. Why do you think all the magazines have a "real-world" mpg test?
Until a situation arises regarding mpg testing similar to the current emissions scandal, you're just going to have to suck it up and carry on with your life.
Also I'd like to see another similar size, similar weight, similar engined small SUV pull substantially better real world figures than an Evoque... They're all going to be around the same.
Until a situation arises regarding mpg testing similar to the current emissions scandal, you're just going to have to suck it up and carry on with your life.
Also I'd like to see another similar size, similar weight, similar engined small SUV pull substantially better real world figures than an Evoque... They're all going to be around the same.
akadk said:
its you
when a diesel engine is cold its economy is rubbish. try being extra feather footed for first 10 mins, will make a BIG difference to your overall average at end of journey
Show me an Evoque driver that gets the MPG Land Rover say is 'normal' and I'll show you a liar. when a diesel engine is cold its economy is rubbish. try being extra feather footed for first 10 mins, will make a BIG difference to your overall average at end of journey
(I've owned many cars from new and it doesn't matter how 'feather footed' you drive, you'll never reach their ridiculously hopeful figures).
BTW... almost zero traffic here, so no traffic jams or city driving!
Turkish91 said:
I'd like to see another similar size, similar weight, similar engined small SUV pull substantially better real world figures than an Evoque... They're all going to be around the same.
Our BMW X3 for a start.... and its a several generations earlier engine. Must be the ambient temperature then
What X3 have you got?
E83 with a manual or auto 'box?
How many miles do you get from a tank on it?
My mates is excellent, he gets 47mpg from it according to the OBC.
However, when he then said he gets between 500-600 miles to a tank between fill ups I kept quiet.
550 miles is only 40mpg, 500 miles is only 36mpg.
So make sure you are actually comparing it properly and not just going by what it says on the dash.
E83 with a manual or auto 'box?
How many miles do you get from a tank on it?
My mates is excellent, he gets 47mpg from it according to the OBC.
However, when he then said he gets between 500-600 miles to a tank between fill ups I kept quiet.
550 miles is only 40mpg, 500 miles is only 36mpg.
So make sure you are actually comparing it properly and not just going by what it says on the dash.
akadk said:
also what size wheels does your Evoque have ? 20" ???
you'll want 18's for best economy.
The wheels will be correct for the speedo calibration. Smaller wheels will make the car think it's doing a greater mileage and greater speed but reduce actual mpg further as each rotation is less so that won't work. you'll want 18's for best economy.
gizlaroc said:
What X3 have you got?
E83 with a manual or auto 'box?
How many miles do you get from a tank on it?
My mates is excellent, he gets 47mpg from it according to the OBC.
However, when he then said he gets between 500-600 miles to a tank between fill ups I kept quiet.
550 miles is only 40mpg, 500 miles is only 36mpg.
So make sure you are actually comparing it properly and not just going by what it says on the dash.
E83 manual. On a good run 45mpg easily. This is one reason why the LR is odd - much newer technology and leaner engine etc, years ahead, along with published figures that one would believe possible because of this. E83 with a manual or auto 'box?
How many miles do you get from a tank on it?
My mates is excellent, he gets 47mpg from it according to the OBC.
However, when he then said he gets between 500-600 miles to a tank between fill ups I kept quiet.
550 miles is only 40mpg, 500 miles is only 36mpg.
So make sure you are actually comparing it properly and not just going by what it says on the dash.
However the LR figures are a fantasy - and they are the same for manual and auto.
V6Pushfit said:
So if you aren't ignorant yourself then what were the 'conditions' how do they vary from 'real world' driving, what variance is allowed, what exactly were the parameters involved etc?? Do these aspects fully justify a 20mpg variance??
Seriously, have you no idea where the Official MPG figures come from?Your ranting and lack of understanding is pretty staggering on car forum.
Sheepshanks said:
Seriously, have you no idea where the Official MPG figures come from?
Your ranting and lack of understanding is pretty staggering on car forum.
I haven't queried where they originate! The fact is they've been published as an indication of mpg to be expected. You have sought, for some agenda known only to you, to defend LR when you don't know yourself the detail. If you had a VW would you be defending the emission issue in the same way? - I doubt it but it would certainly carry more clout as we the users have no way of judging emissions as owners. Your ranting and lack of understanding is pretty staggering on car forum.
The LR figures are blatantly a lie, no matter how they have come about and it does nothing to justify them by your using an argument that it's wrapped up in the method of testing and it's perfectly OK for the mpg figures to be MIN 20mpg out.
Sorry to write like this but if your bonce came out of the sand it would be a good thing. You clearly have an interest in this - LR employee??
V6Pushfit said:
The wheels will be correct for the speedo calibration. Smaller wheels will make the car think it's doing a greater mileage and greater speed but reduce actual mpg further as each rotation is less so that won't work.
You what?! Smaller wheels are also narrower and have far less rolling resistance, it makes a hell of a difference.
I went from 225 wide 17s on our old 320d touring to 19" wheels with 245 fronts and 275 rears and my mpg dropped from 48 to 42 immediately.
V6Pushfit said:
I haven't queried where they originate! The fact is they've been published as an indication of mpg to be expected. You have sought, for some agenda known only to you, to defend LR when you don't know yourself the detail. If you had a VW would you be defending the emission issue in the same way? - I doubt it but it would certainly carry more clout as we the users have no way of judging emissions as owners.
The LR figures are blatantly a lie, no matter how they have come about and it does nothing to justify them by your using an argument that it's wrapped up in the method of testing and it's perfectly OK for the mpg figures to be MIN 20mpg out.
Sorry to write like this but if your bonce came out of the sand it would be a good thing. You clearly have an interest in this - LR employee??
I have explained that the figures are based on doing 33mph, however, you have now been explained why you will not see official figures and you are still going on ignoring the facts. The LR figures are blatantly a lie, no matter how they have come about and it does nothing to justify them by your using an argument that it's wrapped up in the method of testing and it's perfectly OK for the mpg figures to be MIN 20mpg out.
Sorry to write like this but if your bonce came out of the sand it would be a good thing. You clearly have an interest in this - LR employee??
You just look a bit silly now.
Edited by gizlaroc on Saturday 26th September 20:57
Which also makes me think you have not calculated what the proper MPG is on your X3 either.
I bet you look at the OBC see 45mpg and take it as gospel.
45mpg on an E83 is just under 650 miles on a tank. It will take 15 gallons, 14.5 officially and an extra 2 litres.
Does you car really do 650 miles between fill ups? You will be the first if it does.
I bet you look at the OBC see 45mpg and take it as gospel.
45mpg on an E83 is just under 650 miles on a tank. It will take 15 gallons, 14.5 officially and an extra 2 litres.
Does you car really do 650 miles between fill ups? You will be the first if it does.
gizlaroc said:
You what?!
Smaller wheels are also narrower and have far less rolling resistance, it makes a hell of a difference.
I went from 225 wide 17s on our old 320d touring to 19" wheels with 245 fronts and 275 rears and my mpg dropped from 48 to 42 immediately.
RidiculousSmaller wheels are also narrower and have far less rolling resistance, it makes a hell of a difference.
I went from 225 wide 17s on our old 320d touring to 19" wheels with 245 fronts and 275 rears and my mpg dropped from 48 to 42 immediately.
If you ran on the disk diameter you would somehow be getting incredible mpg?? This despite the revs are higher at any given speed???
Its larger wheels that give better mpg, as they give lower revs. Been proved countless times although it doesn't even need proving it's so obvious. The less rolling resistance theory isn't even bad pub joke level.
Gassing Station | Land Rover | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff