Evoque MPG ISSUES!!!!
Discussion
Given the current VW problem with faked test results what on earths the score with LR:
Our Evoque spec: 46.3mpg Urban, 62.8mpg Extra Urban and Combined 55.5mpg
ON A LONG RUN WE GET 43mpg ABSOLUTE MAX . There is no way on Gods Earth it would do 55.5mpg on 'combined'. Unless the engine was turned off on every downhill, it was push started form every light and towed for part of every journey - Is that how LR achieve the sales specs?????
Whats this all about then? We cant be the only ones to notice the published specs being 30% out (45% if its 'extra urban') ??
Our Evoque spec: 46.3mpg Urban, 62.8mpg Extra Urban and Combined 55.5mpg
ON A LONG RUN WE GET 43mpg ABSOLUTE MAX . There is no way on Gods Earth it would do 55.5mpg on 'combined'. Unless the engine was turned off on every downhill, it was push started form every light and towed for part of every journey - Is that how LR achieve the sales specs?????
Whats this all about then? We cant be the only ones to notice the published specs being 30% out (45% if its 'extra urban') ??
And the sad thing is, I assume you are getting your figures from the on-board computer? Which is probably over egging it anyway.
As said, the way they calc the figures is a joke, and why you have to pay extra for a spare wheel, because it reduces the weight during the test. And yes, suspect it will be another thing that may now be investigated. Doubt we have heard the last of the VW thing, suspect they are just the first ones to be found out.
As said, the way they calc the figures is a joke, and why you have to pay extra for a spare wheel, because it reduces the weight during the test. And yes, suspect it will be another thing that may now be investigated. Doubt we have heard the last of the VW thing, suspect they are just the first ones to be found out.
Yes it would have been test bed data, however unlike the VW issue anyone driving can see it's nowhere near the published figures. When we test drove an Evoque the 5 mile run was 20mpg and I queried it as being low but the salesman showed us an 'earlier' run on the memory at 50mpg but I noticed it was a 2 mile run and there's a long steep hill near the garage so I now know how that was done!!!
Is this an utter con? I have emailed LR to see what their response is.
Has anyone else got better mpg from a 2015 model??
Is this an utter con? I have emailed LR to see what their response is.
Has anyone else got better mpg from a 2015 model??
I've bought about 15 new cars in my time. None have got anywhere near the 'pretend' figures.
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'll pretty much forgive it as it doesn't break down (nor did the previous Evoque - that's over 4 years and 50k miles without a breakdown!. All other LR's I've owned have spent much of their life being repaired.
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'll pretty much forgive it as it doesn't break down (nor did the previous Evoque - that's over 4 years and 50k miles without a breakdown!. All other LR's I've owned have spent much of their life being repaired.
Edited by GetCarter on Thursday 24th September 15:47
36mpg on same engine Freelander 2.2 SD4 Auto
I just enjoy the drive and add fuel when empty.
expecting mpg figures is a waste of time,
they are not representative or the Conditions we all drive daily, traffic driving styles etc, as the notes on all the brochures advise they are test bed figures.
I just enjoy the drive and add fuel when empty.
expecting mpg figures is a waste of time,
they are not representative or the Conditions we all drive daily, traffic driving styles etc, as the notes on all the brochures advise they are test bed figures.
V40TC said:
36mpg on same engine Freelander 2.2 SD4 Auto
I just enjoy the drive and add fuel when empty.
expecting mpg figures is a waste of time,
they are not representative or the Conditions we all drive daily, traffic driving styles etc, as the notes on all the brochures advise they are test bed figures.
Sounds like VW's defence I just enjoy the drive and add fuel when empty.
expecting mpg figures is a waste of time,
they are not representative or the Conditions we all drive daily, traffic driving styles etc, as the notes on all the brochures advise they are test bed figures.
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.
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 had an old FL2 that I could never get over 32mpg, what ever I did, admittedly it was a TD4 not a SD4.
I currently run a VAG! a Touareg with a 262bhp V6 that averages 36mpg on the same local commute. Better still on a 120 mile journey to Bristol I have managed a best of 49mpg but have averaged 46mpg over half a dozen trips. They must be doing something right, the thing weighs 2.8t....
I currently run a VAG! a Touareg with a 262bhp V6 that averages 36mpg on the same local commute. Better still on a 120 mile journey to Bristol I have managed a best of 49mpg but have averaged 46mpg over half a dozen trips. They must be doing something right, the thing weighs 2.8t....
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...
Edited by V6Pushfit on Friday 25th September 08:08
...but as a little asside, have you tried with the following:
As an example; On my 1st gen RRS TDV8, I can get anywhere between 21mpg & 32mpg. Normally, I average 26mpg but to get 32mpg, I have to be very light on the throttle, commandshift and turn everything off!!
M
- Aircon - off
- ICE - Off
- Lights - Off
- Driver only.
- 1/4 Tank of fuel (Remember, a full tank is un-necessary weight!!)
- Proper tyre pressures.
- CommandShift
As an example; On my 1st gen RRS TDV8, I can get anywhere between 21mpg & 32mpg. Normally, I average 26mpg but to get 32mpg, I have to be very light on the throttle, commandshift and turn everything off!!
M
camel_landy said:
...but as a little asside, have you tried with the following:
As an example; On my 1st gen RRS TDV8, I can get anywhere between 21mpg & 32mpg. Normally, I average 26mpg but to get 32mpg, I have to be very light on the throttle, commandshift and turn everything off!!
Yes all of those. And very careful driving. The point is its nowhere near the published figures. An even taking into account a tight engine (and all the if's and but's) its way way different to what its 'supposed' to be. I also have a 2007 BMW X3 which knocks the spots off the Evoque and is a 2.0D 100K engine and 9 year old technology.- Aircon - off
- ICE - Off
- Lights - Off
- Driver only.
- 1/4 Tank of fuel (Remember, a full tank is un-necessary weight!!)
- Proper tyre pressures.
- CommandShift
As an example; On my 1st gen RRS TDV8, I can get anywhere between 21mpg & 32mpg. Normally, I average 26mpg but to get 32mpg, I have to be very light on the throttle, commandshift and turn everything off!!
So whats going on??
Has ANYONE got vaguely near the mpg figures??
Edited by V6Pushfit on Friday 25th September 15:35
V6Pushfit said:
Yes all of those. And very careful driving. The point is its nowhere near the published figures. An even taking into account a tight engine (and all the if's and but's) its way way different to what its 'supposed' to be. I also have a 2007 BMW X3 which knocks the spots off the Evoque and is a 2.0D 100K engine and 9 year old technology.
So whats going on??
Has ANYONE got vaguely near the mpg figures??
I think you keep missing the point. No car gets it's published figures. Some cars are wildly off the mark, some are closer. It's hardly a 'con', it's just the way things are because of the way the economy tests are carried out. So whats going on??
Has ANYONE got vaguely near the mpg figures??
Edited by V6Pushfit on Friday 25th September 15:35
Apparently my Civic Type R can get 30-odd miles to the gallon. I see average 26-28. I don't think I've had the wool pulled over my eyes, I just fill it up whenever it needs fuel and get on with my life.
I'd at least wait until the engine has loosened up after a couple of thousand miles and around the same time, the auto box would have had time to harmonise with the engine and your driving style. Analysing your MPG too much with a new car just seems a bit premature.
V6Pushfit said:
Yes all of those. And very careful driving. The point is its nowhere near the published figures. An even taking into account a tight engine (and all the if's and but's) its way way different to what its 'supposed' to be. I also have a 2007 BMW X3 which knocks the spots off the Evoque and is a 2.0D 100K engine and 9 year old technology.
So whats going on??
Has ANYONE got vaguely near the mpg figures??
If you seriously expected to get anywhere near the goverment figures you were at best naive. So whats going on??
Has ANYONE got vaguely near the mpg figures??
Edited by V6Pushfit on Friday 25th September 15:35
A pal of mine has the same daily driver as me, I dont give a flying f
k what it does to the gallon, I just use it and fill it up when its empty. He has just started contracting and has to now provide his own car and pay for the fuel. He is also on his hourly rate when he leaves home so drives like an old granny when "working". He averages about 15mpg more than me, still a few mpg below the goverment figure but a lot closer than me. Edited by oldnbold on Friday 25th September 20:16
the NEDC is done on a Dyno !!
no unless I need glasses, an Evoque is a SUV ... so by far an away the biggest factor behind the variance is the air resistance and drag, let alone the countless other factors.
FWIW - I once drove like nun in a 2013/63 Freelander 2.2TD4 and managed 50MPG....this included using the slip stream of lorries in Lane 1 as the air resistance made a HUGE difference on a car like the Freelander
In fact I was a passenger in a 2015/65 Evoque 2.2d 190 from Brum to York and it got 49mpg as my colleague was driving like miss daisy (60-70mph), I imagine adding in some lorry slip streaming and taking the speed down to 50-60mph would have seen 55mpg at least
no unless I need glasses, an Evoque is a SUV ... so by far an away the biggest factor behind the variance is the air resistance and drag, let alone the countless other factors.
FWIW - I once drove like nun in a 2013/63 Freelander 2.2TD4 and managed 50MPG....this included using the slip stream of lorries in Lane 1 as the air resistance made a HUGE difference on a car like the Freelander
In fact I was a passenger in a 2015/65 Evoque 2.2d 190 from Brum to York and it got 49mpg as my colleague was driving like miss daisy (60-70mph), I imagine adding in some lorry slip streaming and taking the speed down to 50-60mph would have seen 55mpg at least
....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.
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
Gassing Station | Land Rover | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff