New Evoque TD4 - bad drive & terrible mpg?
Discussion
sealtt said:
Cruising at 70mph on the motorway and getting 27mpg average... quite frankly I find that terrible, even in my big L405 SDV8 and even 560bhp BMW M6 V8 petrol I get at least 20% better MPG doing 70mph on the motorway... this surely can't be normal... can it?
See:http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Ours is a disaster on MPG. We have emailed LR several times and not received a reply. Very disappointing its tantamount to fraud.
V6Pushfit said:
See:
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Ours is a disaster on MPG. We have emailed LR several times and not received a reply. Very disappointing its tantamount to fraud.
Hi, thanks for linking your thread, I had not seen it. Whilst a lot of people seem to think that seeing well below the officially quoted MPG is par for the course, I personally do not - at least, not when it is this extreme.http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Ours is a disaster on MPG. We have emailed LR several times and not received a reply. Very disappointing its tantamount to fraud.
The 4.4 SDV8 L405 is quoted at extra Urban - 37.2mpg. Cruise control at 70mph I can very easily be within 5% of the Extra Urban figure, no problem. Even 15% under would be perfectly fine to me.
However, the 2.0 TD4 Evoque is quoted at extra urban - 62.8mpg. That's OVER DOUBLE what I got at 70mph with cruise control on... I truly believe that to be defective. Imagine buying a brand new Ferrari with "all the latest technology" only to find that your 0-60 is actually 8 seconds!!
I just don't even understand how it is possible to be this bad. It's not that I expect the car to live up to the official figures, but it should at least have some relevance to actual performance. No other car I've ever owned has underperformed like this - including as I frequently mention, another car from the same brand & era.
sealtt said:
Hi, thanks for linking your thread, I had not seen it. Whilst a lot of people seem to think that seeing well below the officially quoted MPG is par for the course, I personally do not - at least, not when it is this extreme.
The 4.4 SDV8 L405 is quoted at extra Urban - 37.2mpg. Cruise control at 70mph I can very easily be within 5% of the Extra Urban figure, no problem. Even 15% under would be perfectly fine to me.
However, the 2.0 TD4 Evoque is quoted at extra urban - 62.8mpg. That's OVER DOUBLE what I got at 70mph with cruise control on... I truly believe that to be defective. Imagine buying a brand new Ferrari with "all the latest technology" only to find that your 0-60 is actually 8 seconds!!
I just don't even understand how it is possible to be this bad. It's not that I expect the car to live up to the official figures, but it should at least have some relevance to actual performance. No other car I've ever owned has underperformed like this - including as I frequently mention, another car from the same brand & era.
I have emailed LR again and they have actually responded with a standard email saying they will respond in 3 days. Personally, like you I think its diabolical, although some would say 'well dont buy a car like that' its not the point which is its misleading information put out by LR for the purposes of selling cars. I cannot understand in my case why new technology is worse MPG than old (the 07 BMW X3) The 4.4 SDV8 L405 is quoted at extra Urban - 37.2mpg. Cruise control at 70mph I can very easily be within 5% of the Extra Urban figure, no problem. Even 15% under would be perfectly fine to me.
However, the 2.0 TD4 Evoque is quoted at extra urban - 62.8mpg. That's OVER DOUBLE what I got at 70mph with cruise control on... I truly believe that to be defective. Imagine buying a brand new Ferrari with "all the latest technology" only to find that your 0-60 is actually 8 seconds!!
I just don't even understand how it is possible to be this bad. It's not that I expect the car to live up to the official figures, but it should at least have some relevance to actual performance. No other car I've ever owned has underperformed like this - including as I frequently mention, another car from the same brand & era.
V6Pushfit said:
No response from LR at all. Did 240 miles at the weekend driving like Miss Daisy to get 39mpg.
The instant mpg on motorway inclines drops to sub 15mpg and only improved the average by foot totally off on downhill.
That is really disappointing, especially the lack of response from them.The instant mpg on motorway inclines drops to sub 15mpg and only improved the average by foot totally off on downhill.
I have decided I'm just going to get a Macan instead. The Evoque steering & engine just is not nearly as good, even though I prefer the packaging (shorter, wider car) and even prefer the interior. So off to Porsche and their waiting lists I go.
I didn't even manage that! The Wife loves it though so that's more important.
Sorry about the poor photo...
Sorry about the poor photo...
V6Pushfit said:
No response from LR at
all. Did 240 miles at the weekend driving like Miss Daisy to get 39mpg.
The instant mpg on motorway inclines drops to sub 15mpg and only improved the average by foot totally off on downhill.
all. Did 240 miles at the weekend driving like Miss Daisy to get 39mpg.
The instant mpg on motorway inclines drops to sub 15mpg and only improved the average by foot totally off on downhill.
Had an almost cut and paste response from LR citing that the Evoque was tested in accordance with the requirements although not giving the test results.
So I have asked for the test results document. At this point I do wonder whether the test results match their literature as they seem to be trying to avoid the issue.
Still getting 48mpg ++ on similar long runs with a knackered 9 year old BMW X3
So I have asked for the test results document. At this point I do wonder whether the test results match their literature as they seem to be trying to avoid the issue.
Still getting 48mpg ++ on similar long runs with a knackered 9 year old BMW X3
There are a couple of points worthy of mention here.
Firstly, your car only appears to have just over a 1000 miles on it, so give it a chance to loosen up a bit.
Secondly, our 163bhp FL2 managed 40 on a motorway jaunt, whereas our current FL2 190bhp 6-speed auto sits at around 36/7 for the same run. Given it's usually laden with three kids, and is not designed to be particularly aerodynamic, I think it's pretty good.
All these SUV type things are a massive compromise, and, given that the Macan et al have extremely limited off road ability, I'd stick with my LR.
That having been said, I prefer the capabilities and capacity of the FL2 over the Evoque.
Firstly, your car only appears to have just over a 1000 miles on it, so give it a chance to loosen up a bit.
Secondly, our 163bhp FL2 managed 40 on a motorway jaunt, whereas our current FL2 190bhp 6-speed auto sits at around 36/7 for the same run. Given it's usually laden with three kids, and is not designed to be particularly aerodynamic, I think it's pretty good.
All these SUV type things are a massive compromise, and, given that the Macan et al have extremely limited off road ability, I'd stick with my LR.
That having been said, I prefer the capabilities and capacity of the FL2 over the Evoque.
mickyveloce said:
There are a couple of points worthy of mention here.
Firstly, your car only appears to have just over a 1000 miles on it, so give it a chance to loosen up a bit.
Secondly, our 163bhp FL2 managed 40 on a motorway jaunt, whereas our current FL2 190bhp 6-speed auto sits at around 36/7 for the same run. Given it's usually laden with three kids, and is not designed to be particularly aerodynamic, I think it's pretty good.
All these SUV type things are a massive compromise, and, given that the Macan et al have extremely limited off road ability, I'd stick with my LR.
That having been said, I prefer the capabilities and capacity of the FL2 over the Evoque.
Eh? Our Evoque has just over 10,000 miles on it.Firstly, your car only appears to have just over a 1000 miles on it, so give it a chance to loosen up a bit.
Secondly, our 163bhp FL2 managed 40 on a motorway jaunt, whereas our current FL2 190bhp 6-speed auto sits at around 36/7 for the same run. Given it's usually laden with three kids, and is not designed to be particularly aerodynamic, I think it's pretty good.
All these SUV type things are a massive compromise, and, given that the Macan et al have extremely limited off road ability, I'd stick with my LR.
That having been said, I prefer the capabilities and capacity of the FL2 over the Evoque.
mickyveloce said:
There are a couple of points worthy of mention here.
Firstly, your car only appears to have just over a 1000 miles on it, so give it a chance to loosen up a bit.
Secondly, our 163bhp FL2 managed 40 on a motorway jaunt, whereas our current FL2 190bhp 6-speed auto sits at around 36/7 for the same run. Given it's usually laden with three kids, and is not designed to be particularly aerodynamic, I think it's pretty good.
All these SUV type things are a massive compromise, and, given that the Macan et al have extremely limited off road ability, I'd stick with my LR.
That having been said, I prefer the capabilities and capacity of the FL2 over the Evoque.
Yes, but don't you think there is something very strange going on when the 2.5 tonne, 5 metre long L405 4.4SDV8 with >500lbft and 334bhp, which does 0-60 in 6.5s, can do 33mpg (off a quoted 37.2mpg).Firstly, your car only appears to have just over a 1000 miles on it, so give it a chance to loosen up a bit.
Secondly, our 163bhp FL2 managed 40 on a motorway jaunt, whereas our current FL2 190bhp 6-speed auto sits at around 36/7 for the same run. Given it's usually laden with three kids, and is not designed to be particularly aerodynamic, I think it's pretty good.
All these SUV type things are a massive compromise, and, given that the Macan et al have extremely limited off road ability, I'd stick with my LR.
That having been said, I prefer the capabilities and capacity of the FL2 over the Evoque.
Whilst on the same road the 1.7 tonne, 4.4 metre long Evoque 2.0TD4 with >300lbft and 177bhp, which does 0-60 in 10.0s, struggles to get 30mpg (off a quoted 58.9mpg).
In other words, the smaller, lighter, less powerful, more modern car with Extra Urban MPG nearly double that of the comparison car, gets LESS mpg on the same dual carriageway driving at 70mph on cruise control.
This car isn't just under performing other cars in it's category or quoted figures, it's underperforming it's big BIG brother in the one area it should win, fuel efficiency. It makes no sense how more modern technology and every variable in it's favour for fuel efficiency, could lead to a car which gets less MPG. The whole thing is weird and it seems like there must be some serious design flaw causing this disparity in realised MPG.
andysgriff said:
Pioneer said:
This drives well, bit cold though
No
You move on with your life.
Put it down to experience.
It will save you the heart ache of worrying every time you have to use the car and put fuel in.
My SD4 is returning 34mpg around town on the read out
Try to stop fretting either enjoy the car or get another.
Get the dealer to let you have an extended test drive so you can check the consumption meets your needs.
You move on with your life.
Put it down to experience.
It will save you the heart ache of worrying every time you have to use the car and put fuel in.
My SD4 is returning 34mpg around town on the read out
Try to stop fretting either enjoy the car or get another.
Get the dealer to let you have an extended test drive so you can check the consumption meets your needs.
Edited by V40TC on Tuesday 9th February 23:35
V40TC said:
No
You move on with your life.
Put it down to experience.
It will save you the heart ache of worrying every time you have to use the car and put fuel in.
My SD4 is returning 34mpg around town on the read out
Try to stop fretting either enjoy the car or get another.
Get the dealer to let you have an extended test drive so you can check the consumption meets your needs.
I agree with this. If it bugged me that much I`d shift it. They fetching good prices used, sell it private and get something elseYou move on with your life.
Put it down to experience.
It will save you the heart ache of worrying every time you have to use the car and put fuel in.
My SD4 is returning 34mpg around town on the read out
Try to stop fretting either enjoy the car or get another.
Get the dealer to let you have an extended test drive so you can check the consumption meets your needs.
Edited by V40TC on Tuesday 9th February 23:35
My dad`s auto new engined evoque is getting 36mpg. He`s happy with that. His old MY12 SD4 auto (one of the first) only did 27mpg with the same style of driving. Now that wasn`t good!! Then diesel was more expensive too!!!
Gassing Station | Land Rover | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff