Evoque MPG ISSUES!!!!
Discussion
V6Pushfit said:
Ridiculous
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.
Not so obvious troll has become obvious.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.
gizlaroc said:
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.
You just look a bit silly now.
Sorry to disappoint but not at all.You just look a bit silly now.
Edited by gizlaroc on Saturday 26th September 20:57
No one has been able to justify the chasm between the published mpg and actual. It's not headwinds, air con, tyre pressures, haircut, inside keg measurement or air pressure. It's not the dark recesses of the testing method as argued by those who don't even understand it themselves but are desperate to accept it and clasp onto it as the answer.
It's not the smoke screens which have kippered the red herrings either.
If I bought an Evoque does the salesman make it clear that the figures are wrong? No
Is there a caveat in the brochure? No
One major thing no one has mentioned is a new tight engine as that has more detrimental effect on mpg than the other flimsy ideas put forward and wins hands down. Maybe +/- 10% would be acceptable but no + at all and - 50%?? There are a number of levels here but the original query remains beyond the personal jibes and agendas, what would be acceptable to those that are defending LR?? 99% less mpg? At what point would they agree?
V6Pushfit said:
Ridiculous
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.
Your not changing the rolling diameter you moron. 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.
You are just changing the width, and using a lower profile sidewall to compensate for the bigger rim.
V6Pushfit said:
Sorry to disappoint but not at all.
No one has been able to justify the chasm between the published mpg and actual. It's not headwinds, air con, tyre pressures, haircut, inside keg measurement or air pressure. It's not the dark recesses of the testing method as argued by those who don't even understand it themselves but are desperate to accept it and clasp onto it as the answer.
It's not the smoke screens which have kippered the red herrings either.
If I bought an Evoque does the salesman make it clear that the figures are wrong? No
Is there a caveat in the brochure? No
One major thing no one has mentioned is a new tight engine as that has more detrimental effect on mpg than the other flimsy ideas put forward and wins hands down. Maybe +/- 10% would be acceptable but no + at all and - 50%?? There are a number of levels here but the original query remains beyond the personal jibes and agendas, what would be acceptable to those that are defending LR?? 99% less mpg? At what point would they agree?
I'm not sure if you're pretending to be thick? No one has been able to justify the chasm between the published mpg and actual. It's not headwinds, air con, tyre pressures, haircut, inside keg measurement or air pressure. It's not the dark recesses of the testing method as argued by those who don't even understand it themselves but are desperate to accept it and clasp onto it as the answer.
It's not the smoke screens which have kippered the red herrings either.
If I bought an Evoque does the salesman make it clear that the figures are wrong? No
Is there a caveat in the brochure? No
One major thing no one has mentioned is a new tight engine as that has more detrimental effect on mpg than the other flimsy ideas put forward and wins hands down. Maybe +/- 10% would be acceptable but no + at all and - 50%?? There are a number of levels here but the original query remains beyond the personal jibes and agendas, what would be acceptable to those that are defending LR?? 99% less mpg? At what point would they agree?
The official test is based on 33mph. Drive at 33mph and you will achieve the figures.
Drive faster and you will not.
FFS!
I'm out of here. Apparently LR must have used different tyres for the test, or it's been decided they did by someone who failed a maths O Level, and I've got to drive at 33mph to achieve the mpg figure when I don't recall that being a caveat on the 'extra urban' figure. In fact that's little more than urban speed.
I wish all LR employees a happy Christmas if the sh*t doesn't hit the fan before then. And if it doesn't then happy days.
I wish all LR employees a happy Christmas if the sh*t doesn't hit the fan before then. And if it doesn't then happy days.
V6Pushfit said:
I'm out of here.
Apparently LR must have used different tyres for the test, or it's been decided they did by someone who failed a maths O Level, and I've got to drive at 33mph to achieve the mpg figure when I don't recall that being a caveat on the 'extra urban' figure. In fact that's little more than urban speed.
I wish all LR employees a happy Christmas if the sh*t doesn't hit the fan before then. And if it doesn't then happy days.
You do realise when you go up from a 16 to 17 to an 18 to a 19 to a 20" wheel you reuce the sidewall so the rolling diameter is the same regardless of wheel size? Apparently LR must have used different tyres for the test, or it's been decided they did by someone who failed a maths O Level, and I've got to drive at 33mph to achieve the mpg figure when I don't recall that being a caveat on the 'extra urban' figure. In fact that's little more than urban speed.
I wish all LR employees a happy Christmas if the sh*t doesn't hit the fan before then. And if it doesn't then happy days.
And if you go wider, which is normally the case with a larger wheel, you then reduce the profile again to make sure it matches too?
So, a car that has a 205 wide tyre on a 17" rim with a 60 profile tyre can take 19" wheel which has a 275 wide tyre, however, you would need a 30 profile to keep the gearing the same.
The profile is a percentage if the tyre width btw.
The difference on mpg comes from rolling resistance.
So that is that cleared up and you have learned something.
The fact of the matter regarding the test is you need to understand what the test entails.
A car can be geared to do very well on the test, 33mph, but if you don't drive at 33mph then it is best to take the car out you are looking to buy and drive it at the speeds you drive at. This will tell you what to expect at those speeds.
It isn't rocket science, it isn't a conspiracy, it is just the way it is.
A 1.6 diesel could well do 80mpg at 33mph, but at 80mph it may only do 30mpg if it is geared poorly for that speed. An 8 speed 2 litre Merc that is doing 1800rpm may see twice that when sat at 80mph.
It is a case of buying the right car for your needs. Throwing your toys out because you're ignorant isn't going to help.
So throw as many insults as you want at everyone, people have explained it to you and you still act like a bit of a tit. So I'm glad you're out.
V6Pushfit said:
Absolutely tut tut what an outrage to query a 60+mpg manufacturers claim when the max on a long run is only low 40's. Blind acceptance should clearly be applied at all times, after all the car industry can always be relied on for correct data can't they....
No, blind acceptance shouldn't be relied on at all times, this is exactly what you seem to be doing. And once again, the claim for 60+mpg is the consumption based on 33mph. You seem to take a while to take in info?
You can't slag off official figures when you don't understand them.
Look, I agree it needs to be changed, the problem is 99% of the population don't understand them either, so every one gets pissed off when their car doesn't hit the figures 'they' think they should be hitting because 'they' think extra urban is motorway speeds.
It is stupid, we all agree that, but no point banging on about it, and in future maybe do a little homework before making a purchase that is going to rile you as much?
gizlaroc said:
You do realise when you go up from a 16 to 17 to an 18 to a 19 to a 20" wheel you reuce the sidewall so the rolling diameter is the same regardless of wheel size?
And if you go wider, which is normally the case with a larger wheel, you then reduce the profile again to make sure it matches too?
So, a car that has a 205 wide tyre on a 17" rim with a 60 profile tyre can take 19" wheel which has a 275 wide tyre, however, you would need a 30 profile to keep the gearing the same.
The profile is a percentage if the tyre width btw.
The difference on mpg comes from rolling resistance.
So that is that cleared up and you have learned something.
The fact of the matter regarding the test is you need to understand what the test entails.
A car can be geared to do very well on the test, 33mph, but if you don't drive at 33mph then it is best to take the car out you are looking to buy and drive it at the speeds you drive at. This will tell you what to expect at those speeds.
It isn't rocket science, it isn't a conspiracy, it is just the way it is.
A 1.6 diesel could well do 80mpg at 33mph, but at 80mph it may only do 30mpg if it is geared poorly for that speed. An 8 speed 2 litre Merc that is doing 1800rpm may see twice that when sat at 80mph.
It is a case of buying the right car for your needs. Throwing your toys out because you're ignorant isn't going to help.
So throw as many insults as you want at everyone, people have explained it to you and you still act like a bit of a tit. So I'm glad you're out.
Perfectly summed up. End of thread IMOAnd if you go wider, which is normally the case with a larger wheel, you then reduce the profile again to make sure it matches too?
So, a car that has a 205 wide tyre on a 17" rim with a 60 profile tyre can take 19" wheel which has a 275 wide tyre, however, you would need a 30 profile to keep the gearing the same.
The profile is a percentage if the tyre width btw.
The difference on mpg comes from rolling resistance.
So that is that cleared up and you have learned something.
The fact of the matter regarding the test is you need to understand what the test entails.
A car can be geared to do very well on the test, 33mph, but if you don't drive at 33mph then it is best to take the car out you are looking to buy and drive it at the speeds you drive at. This will tell you what to expect at those speeds.
It isn't rocket science, it isn't a conspiracy, it is just the way it is.
A 1.6 diesel could well do 80mpg at 33mph, but at 80mph it may only do 30mpg if it is geared poorly for that speed. An 8 speed 2 litre Merc that is doing 1800rpm may see twice that when sat at 80mph.
It is a case of buying the right car for your needs. Throwing your toys out because you're ignorant isn't going to help.
So throw as many insults as you want at everyone, people have explained it to you and you still act like a bit of a tit. So I'm glad you're out.
Did you ever think that the Evoque was going to get anywhere near those figures?? I'm sorry, but you are very naive. Also, its not an issue really and certainly not one that requires CAPITALS! Surely you didn't buy the car for economy.
That 2.2 in the Evoque is now incredibly dated technology compared to the latest engines from VAG and BMW. The latest JLR Hot Fire engines should be much better.
As someone else said, Honest John is a really good source for real world MPGs, but even those figures should be taken with a pinch of salt. I had a Saab 9-3 TID for two years and despite use of cruise control and mostly A road commuting, my average rarely went over 43. Other people on here were doing much better and getting 48 on a regular basis.
That 2.2 in the Evoque is now incredibly dated technology compared to the latest engines from VAG and BMW. The latest JLR Hot Fire engines should be much better.
As someone else said, Honest John is a really good source for real world MPGs, but even those figures should be taken with a pinch of salt. I had a Saab 9-3 TID for two years and despite use of cruise control and mostly A road commuting, my average rarely went over 43. Other people on here were doing much better and getting 48 on a regular basis.
bakerstreet said:
Did you ever think that the Evoque was going to get anywhere near those figures?? I'm sorry, but you are very naive. Also, its not an issue really and certainly not one that requires CAPITALS! Surely you didn't buy the car for economy.
That 2.2 in the Evoque is now incredibly dated technology compared to the latest engines from VAG and BMW. The latest JLR Hot Fire engines should be much better.
As someone else said, Honest John is a really good source for real world MPGs, but even those figures should be taken with a pinch of salt. I had a Saab 9-3 TID for two years and despite use of cruise control and mostly A road commuting, my average rarely went over 43. Other people on here were doing much better and getting 48 on a regular basis.
To accept ridiculously overstated fuel efficiency figures lying down and accuse others of being naive in questioning it is very odd. That 2.2 in the Evoque is now incredibly dated technology compared to the latest engines from VAG and BMW. The latest JLR Hot Fire engines should be much better.
As someone else said, Honest John is a really good source for real world MPGs, but even those figures should be taken with a pinch of salt. I had a Saab 9-3 TID for two years and despite use of cruise control and mostly A road commuting, my average rarely went over 43. Other people on here were doing much better and getting 48 on a regular basis.
We will try the 33mph idea but I doubt very much it will account for it although if it does then there's a point learned. Its also clear that there are LR/RR 'sales execs'
on here who have to knock back any ideas others have on their product.In regard to fuel efficiency to say that a buyer of an Evoque shouldn't be bothered about mpg is bizarre. People rant about tiny glitches with their cars, but this is about a massive ongoing mpg difference and its not just the £ the emissions difference will be huge too.
sunnydude said:
I had a Land Rover RR Evoque 2.0-litre turbo (petrol) engined one in Dynamic form (20" wheels) last year, and I literally got no more than 16 mpg. That was mostly in town driving, but still.
You need to get out of the traffic!"Currently have an Evoque (Mrs Get's car). 2014 SD4 tdi manual. On a run it gets's 48 mpg, over a thousand miles it gets about 36.6. Nowhere near what was advertised, but better than I expected."
I understand the OPs frustration and had links some 20 plus years ago with the industry (with those concerned now well out of the main dealer network) when mpg was nowhere near as topical/important as it is now. However, I think that the mpg details on the manufacturer websites can be misleading as they test the models for each engine/gearbox generally with the optimum wheel/tyre packages and also with the least options possible for each car. The mpg tests are carried out in a temperature controlled environment with a computer driving the car and hence the real life mpg tests of the car magazines have so much greater relevance to the ownership of the general public.
I'm not sufficiently well versed on the topic to be able to say whether the test cars used are already at optimum engine temperatures and how many miles that have on them, although the smallest changes can be quite significant as some of the other replies have stated.
I'll be interested to hear how the OP gets on with changing driving style and the results as there's a brand new Evoque auto heading for our household (when it's finally built!), albeit it will be a company car and somebody else's fuel - I will happily add the fuel consumption of SWMBO when we get it as she suffers the medical condition known as "lead foot" when it comes to driving
I'm not sufficiently well versed on the topic to be able to say whether the test cars used are already at optimum engine temperatures and how many miles that have on them, although the smallest changes can be quite significant as some of the other replies have stated.
I'll be interested to hear how the OP gets on with changing driving style and the results as there's a brand new Evoque auto heading for our household (when it's finally built!), albeit it will be a company car and somebody else's fuel - I will happily add the fuel consumption of SWMBO when we get it as she suffers the medical condition known as "lead foot" when it comes to driving
Gassing Station | Land Rover | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff