New Evoque TD4 - bad drive & terrible mpg?
Discussion
mk2driver said:
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.
V6Pushfit said:
mk2driver said:
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.
The Evoque is significantly more efficient on the test than the FFRR as per the published figures required by law
Girlfriend has just bought a black 2013 Evoque SD4, I really like it. Handles well, rides well, enough poke and I like the interior. OK not much about it screams Range Rover (my parents are on their 7th and 8th currently, a 2006 L322 S/C and a 2014 L404 S/C) apart from maybe aspects of the interior but it's a quality product IMHO and not the disservice to the brand that some are making it out to be.
I think she's averaging about 40mpg in it so far, and she's enjoying the low road tax given by the stupid Euro test figures. To be honest I'd expect high 30's from it, I only used to get 40ish from my old 123d which had a similar power output and was a fair chunk lighter.
I don't get why people are so out of their pram about these cycle figures, they're well known to be cobblers. Also my Cayenne V8 diesel averages about 30mpg with my heavy right foot which is actually better than my old V6 Lotus; petrol but a significantly smaller engine, almost half the weight and far more aerodynamic. The Cayenne is also pretty much as quick in a straight line! These big diesels do appear to get disproportionately good mpg, it just goes to show what a load of crap the mandated test cycle is.
I think she's averaging about 40mpg in it so far, and she's enjoying the low road tax given by the stupid Euro test figures. To be honest I'd expect high 30's from it, I only used to get 40ish from my old 123d which had a similar power output and was a fair chunk lighter.
I don't get why people are so out of their pram about these cycle figures, they're well known to be cobblers. Also my Cayenne V8 diesel averages about 30mpg with my heavy right foot which is actually better than my old V6 Lotus; petrol but a significantly smaller engine, almost half the weight and far more aerodynamic. The Cayenne is also pretty much as quick in a straight line! These big diesels do appear to get disproportionately good mpg, it just goes to show what a load of crap the mandated test cycle is.
Edited by The Wookie on Wednesday 23 March 10:40
My Si4 petrol Evoque seems to average 27 MPG (UK figures) however you drive it and spends a lot of time in town which I think is fine for a 240bhp petrol 4x4. 40 odd from an SD4 sounds pretty good.
Everyone knows the Evoque doesn't get close to the published figures, and is far from the only car where they are almost unreachable in real world conditions. However, they are reachable if you drive on a flat road, with all the accessories turned off, at the speeds shown in the test, and that's what matters.
If you want to complain about fuel consumption there are a number of cars which are even worse - any Fiat with the TwinAir engine, Ford 1.0 Ecoboost powered cars, Prius, Jag XF 2.2d, pretty much every single 'downsized' 1.0 petrol turbo 3 pot.....
Everyone knows the Evoque doesn't get close to the published figures, and is far from the only car where they are almost unreachable in real world conditions. However, they are reachable if you drive on a flat road, with all the accessories turned off, at the speeds shown in the test, and that's what matters.
If you want to complain about fuel consumption there are a number of cars which are even worse - any Fiat with the TwinAir engine, Ford 1.0 Ecoboost powered cars, Prius, Jag XF 2.2d, pretty much every single 'downsized' 1.0 petrol turbo 3 pot.....
The Wookie said:
Girlfriend has just bought a black 2013 Evoque SD4, I really like it. Handles well, rides well, enough poke and I like the interior. OK not much about it screams Range Rover (my parents are on their 7th and 8th currently, a 2006 L322 S/C and a 2014 L404 S/C) apart from maybe aspects of the interior but it's a quality product IMHO and not the disservice to the brand that some are making it out to be.
2013 is previous gen, same as which I bought for my fiancee now. I find the handling much nicer than on the TD4 facelift version. Also getting better mpg in this MY13 SD4 than in the new TD4 at 70mph on the motorway. In all likelihood then there will be a move towards finding good pre current emissions cars, like the pre ECU cars/pre cat cars moves in the past. With most marques there are defining points with some models beyond where the technology became difficult/too expensive to maintain/increased tax etc
Been driving my wife's new Evoque off and on for 5 thousand miles now. It's a nice car, handles well, comfortable, a bit of turbo lag but easy to get used to, nothing like as bad as my old Pug 508. Steering is a bit on the light side but again easy to get used to, the lane change alarm, vibration through the steering wheel is very useful when not fully concentrating. Fuel economy is not wonderful, averaging 34 ish over 5k. Has anybody had problems with getting the Ad Blue warning to reset?
Put 4.5ltrs in and still not reset?
Put 4.5ltrs in and still not reset?
Gassing Station | Land Rover | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff