New Evoque TD4 - bad drive & terrible mpg?
Discussion
This is the point:
If a company produces a product and advertises its specification but the product CANNOT live up to that specification in a million years its misrepresentation.
It may be a kettle advertised as white but only comes in blue, a Ferrari at 0-100 in 10 seconds but its over 20 seconds or a VW that has 10 times the CO2 emissions than publicised - it doesn't matter what it is its totally wrong and would have been known about by the company who have chosen to ignore the bad news to get sales.
This also isn't about a 'margin of error' its about what seems to be a dramatic difference in mpg not accounted for by the test method and bizarrely much worse than cars 10 years older.
Many people take mpg into account when buying, some don't but even they should raise an eyebrow to the issue.
If a company produces a product and advertises its specification but the product CANNOT live up to that specification in a million years its misrepresentation.
It may be a kettle advertised as white but only comes in blue, a Ferrari at 0-100 in 10 seconds but its over 20 seconds or a VW that has 10 times the CO2 emissions than publicised - it doesn't matter what it is its totally wrong and would have been known about by the company who have chosen to ignore the bad news to get sales.
This also isn't about a 'margin of error' its about what seems to be a dramatic difference in mpg not accounted for by the test method and bizarrely much worse than cars 10 years older.
Many people take mpg into account when buying, some don't but even they should raise an eyebrow to the issue.
I think he is rightly annoyed, I'd want some explanation too.
I did not even buy one, just looked at buying one, and I thought the terrible MPG performance was pathetic. If I had bought one I'd feel somewhat ripped off, not because it makes any real financial difference, but because the company assures a certain level of performance and then the product massively underperforms.
And whilst I am an uneducated layman in such matters, it does not make any logical sense that the Evoque 2.0TD4 MPG figures underperform the L405 4.4SDV8 - it seems like there is some technical design issue with the Evoque for that to happen.
I did not even buy one, just looked at buying one, and I thought the terrible MPG performance was pathetic. If I had bought one I'd feel somewhat ripped off, not because it makes any real financial difference, but because the company assures a certain level of performance and then the product massively underperforms.
And whilst I am an uneducated layman in such matters, it does not make any logical sense that the Evoque 2.0TD4 MPG figures underperform the L405 4.4SDV8 - it seems like there is some technical design issue with the Evoque for that to happen.
The figures int he brochure will be the figures from the test. Manufactures have to print the test result figures by law so that they are all publishing figures from the same test criteria. The idea being that although the figures are not comparable to real world you have a set of of test criteria results you can compare across different brands/models.
It's all of course utterly useless and even the manufacturers don't like the system they have to follow. JLR will not refund you any money for your car. Sell it and move on or keep it and put up with it.
It's all of course utterly useless and even the manufacturers don't like the system they have to follow. JLR will not refund you any money for your car. Sell it and move on or keep it and put up with it.
V6Pushfit said:
I have just heard from LR - they cant issue the test figures(!) So the only mpg stats are what they have in the brochure, which appear to be wildly wrong. It will just be a matter of time before the motoring press pick up on this and it becomes a full scale issue.....
Yeah all out nuclear onslaught. Have you not sold this yet?
You actually bothered driving at 33mph yet to see what you get under test conditions?
HorneyMX5 said:
The figures int he brochure will be the figures from the test. Manufactures have to print the test result figures by law so that they are all publishing figures from the same test criteria. The idea being that although the figures are not comparable to real world you have a set of of test criteria results you can compare across different brands/models.
It's all of course utterly useless and even the manufacturers don't like the system they have to follow. JLR will not refund you any money for your car. Sell it and move on or keep it and put up with it.
It doesn't even let you compare cars, the only way to do that is drive them. It's all of course utterly useless and even the manufacturers don't like the system they have to follow. JLR will not refund you any money for your car. Sell it and move on or keep it and put up with it.
The test is conducted at 33mph for extra urban and combined so that is all the test tells you, what the car will do at 33mph. Unless you drive everywhere at 33mph it tells you nothing.
gizlaroc said:
Yeah all out nuclear onslaught.
Have you not sold this yet?
You actually bothered driving at 33mph yet to see what you get under test conditions?
Yes, a Driving Miss Daisy session (again) and in the flat - 42.5 mpg. No where near test. If it was 10% or even 20% to take into account tyre pressures, wind, air pressure, haircut etc then fair enough but 40% different??? Have you not sold this yet?
You actually bothered driving at 33mph yet to see what you get under test conditions?
It's a farce this, and if it was the same across manufacturers why aren't other makes so wildly off too?
LR won't release test results and I presume as they pay for the testing they are their property so it's difficult to find out the facts but TBH I think there are questions for them to be answering.
sealtt said:
That is really disappointing, especially the lack of response from them.
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.
Well bit of a U turn, insurance was mental on the Macan since my fiancée has only been driving a short while. So went and picked up a used Evoque. Find the steering on this car, a 2013 model, much better. However the vibrations at tick over (2.2SD4) are a long way from refined! Drives nice though, less turbo lag than the TD4 - or at least power delivery is smoother and less jerky than the TD4. I think it is a better combo of engine and steering, though it's less refined.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.
Now most interesting of all, the test stretch of road where the TD4 Evoque got 27mpg, my SDV8 L405 got 33mpg, this 2.2SD4 Evoque got 38mpg - all at 70mph on cruise control.
V6Pushfit said:
Yes, a Driving Miss Daisy session (again) and in the flat - 42.5 mpg. No where near test. If it was 10% or even 20% to take into account tyre pressures, wind, air pressure, haircut etc then fair enough but 40% different???
It's a farce this, and if it was the same across manufacturers why aren't other makes so wildly off too?
LR won't release test results and I presume as they pay for the testing they are their property so it's difficult to find out the facts but TBH I think there are questions for them to be answering.
Do you do a lot of miles? It's a farce this, and if it was the same across manufacturers why aren't other makes so wildly off too?
LR won't release test results and I presume as they pay for the testing they are their property so it's difficult to find out the facts but TBH I think there are questions for them to be answering.
I went from doing 30-40,000 miles a year to under 15k miles a year, so I have just swapped my X3 20d for a 3.5 litre V6 Mercedes Petrol.
The difference between 30 and 40mpg doing that is £7 a week. Not worth worrying about.
My old man had the X3 off me, he has literally just sent me a text as I am typing this reply as he has been to Gloucester and back in it over the weekend.
He said it cruised wonderfully at 80mph, to which I asked "What MPG did you get?" as his old ML350cdi would have been 29-31 on that run, his reply.....
So I agree low 30s is not good, but so many people seem to get that, it is well documented.
Have you checked your 'stats?
I do 30-40,000 a year, but it's not about the additional cost it's about LR being head and shoulders at odds with their published figures against actual. Not a 'testing margin' but almost a multiple out.
The 'under a tenner a week so it's ok' approach I understand but again as somebody said earlier if you bought a Ferrari that the manufacturer said did 0-100 in 10 seconds and you found it was at best 16 seconds it would be back to the dealer and that wouldn't have cost anything extra per week.
The 'under a tenner a week so it's ok' approach I understand but again as somebody said earlier if you bought a Ferrari that the manufacturer said did 0-100 in 10 seconds and you found it was at best 16 seconds it would be back to the dealer and that wouldn't have cost anything extra per week.
V6Pushfit said:
gizlaroc said:
Yeah all out nuclear onslaught.
Have you not sold this yet?
You actually bothered driving at 33mph yet to see what you get under test conditions?
Yes, a Driving Miss Daisy session (again) and in the flat - 42.5 mpg. No where near test. If it was 10% or even 20% to take into account tyre pressures, wind, air pressure, haircut etc then fair enough but 40% different??? Have you not sold this yet?
You actually bothered driving at 33mph yet to see what you get under test conditions?
It's a farce this, and if it was the same across manufacturers why aren't other makes so wildly off too?
LR won't release test results and I presume as they pay for the testing they are their property so it's difficult to find out the facts but TBH I think there are questions for them to be answering.
What exactly are you expecting LR to give you?
What exact questions do you want answered?
Why the test results are so far out?
Answer - The test is completely and utterly unrealistic of real world driving
Why is the test used then?
Answer - Its the standard test that has to be used to sell cars in the EU
Why is LR results further out than others?
Answer - loads of factors come into real world fuel economy and LR may suffer more from these than others simply down to design decisions and the way the car operates.
Why don't they use a different test?
Answer - The OEM's want a better test and there will be a change in the near future to a more representative test - it still won't be closer but may be better.
Why can't LR achieve the figures they publish?
Answer - They will if you use a vehicle that is representative of the one used in the test (no options, thinnest tyres from all the options available, base spec everything to be as light as possible) and then drive the test in a calibrated facility (no auxiliaries used, fully charged battery so the alternator is used as little as possible, 21 Celsius etc etc). Replicate that and you will get the figures published within a small engineering tolerance because if you couldn't then LR would not be allowed to sell vehicles in the EU.
Anything else?
Edited by mk2driver on Monday 21st March 18:41
If you read the thread and others on Evoque mpg you'll see your points raised and they're the same old chestnuts being trotted out. No offence but we're not interested in hearing the inside leg measurement of the testing methods etc etc etc
The question is why is the Evoque mpg so far out compared with other marques eg BMW X3 (which is spot on) against the LR figures and why is the Evoque struggling to achieve the mpg (ie nowhere near) the mpg of a 10 year old car of the same ilk.
The question is why is the Evoque mpg so far out compared with other marques eg BMW X3 (which is spot on) against the LR figures and why is the Evoque struggling to achieve the mpg (ie nowhere near) the mpg of a 10 year old car of the same ilk.
V6Pushfit said:
If you read the thread and others on Evoque mpg you'll see your points raised and they're the same old chestnuts being trotted out. No offence but we're not interested in hearing the inside leg measurement of the testing methods etc etc etc
The question is why is the Evoque mpg so far out compared with other marques eg BMW X3 (which is spot on) against the LR figures and why is the Evoque struggling to achieve the mpg (ie nowhere near) the mpg of a 10 year old car of the same ilk.
Ok I will try and help - that is why I commented.The question is why is the Evoque mpg so far out compared with other marques eg BMW X3 (which is spot on) against the LR figures and why is the Evoque struggling to achieve the mpg (ie nowhere near) the mpg of a 10 year old car of the same ilk.
So the X3, what age and specification is it? I can guarantee a new X3 will not achieve anywhere near its published figures in the real world.
Why it doesn't achieve the same as a 10 year old car - quite simply they are not even close to being the same car.
The modern Evoque with the new engine has both high and low pressure EGR, an SCR system, a 9 speed auto transmission, far more technology such as geared and electric everything, a load more electrical modules that all need powered and use energy, climate control that is on all the time, wide heavy wheels that add to rolling resistance etc etc.
Older cars were simpler and the legislation allowed for more NOx emissions therefore better fuel economy, they allowed for more particulate emissions, therefore better fuel economy. Cars were lighter therefore better fuel economy etc.
The actual engine technology has not lived in greatly in 10 years for real world MPG but has improved for on test emissions hence the gap getting wider. Smaller more stressed highly turbocharged engines are better on the test because they never get used hard and will normally he just as good in the real world but that's why the gap is growing between test figures and real world.
When you say a car of the same ilk what are you referring to?
Legislation and taxation has forced OEM's to make cars that are suited to the cycle rather than achieving the best real world MPG hence the disparity.
Can you name me any new car at all produced in the last 12 months that will achieve its test figures? I certainly can't. My Fiesta Evobbost has a claimed 65.7mpg combined and achieves 42 on average - this is simply because the test is unrepresentative.
Also in terms of why the TDV8 FFRR is closer to test results than the Evoque is because in the real world the TDV8 engine will behave more like it does on the cycle ie low revs and load because it has mountains of torque. The 2.0D Evoque will be trying harder to pull that lighter Evoque than the TDV8 pulling the FFRR as the FFRR actually has a better power to weight ratio and in normal driving will barely get above 2000rpm to make good progress.
mk2driver said:
Also in terms of why the TDV8 FFRR is closer to test results than the Evoque is because in the real world the TDV8 engine will behave more like it does on the cycle ie low revs and load because it has mountains of torque. The 2.0D Evoque will be trying harder to pull that lighter Evoque than the TDV8 pulling the FFRR as the FFRR actually has a better power to weight ratio and in normal driving will barely get above 2000rpm to make good progress.
My concern though was that the SDV8 L405 was getting 20% better mpg results than the TD4 Evoque.This is at 70mph, cruise control on the same stretch of dual carriageway.
sealtt said:
My concern though was that the SDV8 L405 was getting 20% better mpg results than the TD4 Evoque.
This is at 70mph, cruise control on the same stretch of dual carriageway.
Yes, it's all anomalies. This is at 70mph, cruise control on the same stretch of dual carriageway.
I understand the 'modern' changes but strange how the fact of significant decreases in efficiency have been masked from
Joe Public. If what is said above is correct then manufacturers won't want testing methods changed as they can hide behind them.
Edited by V6Pushfit on Monday 21st March 20:27
sealtt said:
mk2driver said:
Also in terms of why the TDV8 FFRR is closer to test results than the Evoque is because in the real world the TDV8 engine will behave more like it does on the cycle ie low revs and load because it has mountains of torque. The 2.0D Evoque will be trying harder to pull that lighter Evoque than the TDV8 pulling the FFRR as the FFRR actually has a better power to weight ratio and in normal driving will barely get above 2000rpm to make good progress.
My concern though was that the SDV8 L405 was getting 20% better mpg results than the TD4 Evoque.This is at 70mph, cruise control on the same stretch of dual carriageway.
In a FFRR with a V8 diesel at that speed the V8 diesel will not be working very hard at all and will be at a very low engine speed. It will actually be more thermally efficient as the TD4 as the TD4 will be working a lot harder.
A bit like two people trying to maintain the same speed while running - even if a fit person is heavy they will more efficient at converting their energy into movement and as such will actually use less energy when maintaining a speed than a lighter but less fit person maintaining that speed.
V6Pushfit said:
sealtt said:
My concern though was that the SDV8 L405 was getting 20% better mpg results than the TD4 Evoque.
This is at 70mph, cruise control on the same stretch of dual carriageway.
Yes, it's all anomalies. This is at 70mph, cruise control on the same stretch of dual carriageway.
I understand the 'modern' changes but strange how the fact of significant decreases in efficiency have been masked from
Joe Public.
Gassing Station | Land Rover | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff