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') ??
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??
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.
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
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
....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
HarryW said:
Have a look at honest johns real world mpg http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/
Interestingly a quick 2 minute review tells me that early to mid noughties cars are a lot closer to their claimed mpg across industry, latest variants are worse. That to me is indicative of the claims improving faster than the cars actually can deliver. Also in general The smaller engined cars, LR Evoque included, struggle more than the bigger engined versions of the marques.
Very interesting, thanks for that. The more it seems its just marketing flannel, but its still totally out of order as people look at mpg more than they do emissions!!! Interestingly a quick 2 minute review tells me that early to mid noughties cars are a lot closer to their claimed mpg across industry, latest variants are worse. That to me is indicative of the claims improving faster than the cars actually can deliver. Also in general The smaller engined cars, LR Evoque included, struggle more than the bigger engined versions of the marques.
Turkish91 said:
I'd like to see another similar size, similar weight, similar engined small SUV pull substantially better real world figures than an Evoque... They're all going to be around the same.
Our BMW X3 for a start.... and its a several generations earlier engine. Must be the ambient temperature then
akadk said:
also what size wheels does your Evoque have ? 20" ???
you'll want 18's for best economy.
The wheels will be correct for the speedo calibration. Smaller wheels will make the car think it's doing a greater mileage and greater speed but reduce actual mpg further as each rotation is less so that won't work. you'll want 18's for best economy.
gizlaroc said:
What X3 have you got?
E83 with a manual or auto 'box?
How many miles do you get from a tank on it?
My mates is excellent, he gets 47mpg from it according to the OBC.
However, when he then said he gets between 500-600 miles to a tank between fill ups I kept quiet.
550 miles is only 40mpg, 500 miles is only 36mpg.
So make sure you are actually comparing it properly and not just going by what it says on the dash.
E83 manual. On a good run 45mpg easily. This is one reason why the LR is odd - much newer technology and leaner engine etc, years ahead, along with published figures that one would believe possible because of this. E83 with a manual or auto 'box?
How many miles do you get from a tank on it?
My mates is excellent, he gets 47mpg from it according to the OBC.
However, when he then said he gets between 500-600 miles to a tank between fill ups I kept quiet.
550 miles is only 40mpg, 500 miles is only 36mpg.
So make sure you are actually comparing it properly and not just going by what it says on the dash.
However the LR figures are a fantasy - and they are the same for manual and auto.
Sheepshanks said:
Seriously, have you no idea where the Official MPG figures come from?
Your ranting and lack of understanding is pretty staggering on car forum.
I haven't queried where they originate! The fact is they've been published as an indication of mpg to be expected. You have sought, for some agenda known only to you, to defend LR when you don't know yourself the detail. If you had a VW would you be defending the emission issue in the same way? - I doubt it but it would certainly carry more clout as we the users have no way of judging emissions as owners. Your ranting and lack of understanding is pretty staggering on car forum.
The LR figures are blatantly a lie, no matter how they have come about and it does nothing to justify them by your using an argument that it's wrapped up in the method of testing and it's perfectly OK for the mpg figures to be MIN 20mpg out.
Sorry to write like this but if your bonce came out of the sand it would be a good thing. You clearly have an interest in this - LR employee??
gizlaroc said:
You what?!
Smaller wheels are also narrower and have far less rolling resistance, it makes a hell of a difference.
I went from 225 wide 17s on our old 320d touring to 19" wheels with 245 fronts and 275 rears and my mpg dropped from 48 to 42 immediately.
RidiculousSmaller wheels are also narrower and have far less rolling resistance, it makes a hell of a difference.
I went from 225 wide 17s on our old 320d touring to 19" wheels with 245 fronts and 275 rears and my mpg dropped from 48 to 42 immediately.
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?
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.
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.
Gassing Station | Land Rover | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff