Improve your Fuel Economy and Performance

Fujisan, well i'll tell you what. Maybe if the Evoques did the mpg that was claimed by LR then we wouldn't need to use them?

(13-10-2012 08:45pm)THEMACS Wrote:  Another One blown the Warranty for the sake of a couple of quids worth of diesel and probably invalidated the insurance too!!

How does it blow the warranty if it is taken off prior to any servicing? Its not registered by the ECU and this has been confirmed by an engineer who works for LR

---

(13-10-2012 10:41pm)ceebee Wrote:  Fujisan, well i'll tell you what. Maybe if the Evoques did the mpg that was claimed by LR then we wouldn't need to use them?

My point too. Was told by the Dealership to expect anything between 40 - 56 MPG. Now if this crap then why are they still promoting these statistics? I know it's been posted before but for me this is the major reason for me buying this car in the first place.

(13-10-2012 09:26pm)FujiSan Wrote:  Well, I'll tell you what. Why don't you take it along to your friendly LR dealer and let him know you have just found the answer to all LR's MPG woes right across all their vehicle range. They will thank you profusely because they could not possibly have invented something as tremendously important as this all by themselves. The company selling the Bluespark will immediately be acquired by TATA Automotive as a valuable R&D partner and LR owners the world over will rejoice.

On the other hand...

These units improve both performance and mpg (marginally), but i suspect at he expense of emissions. LR standard settings are a compromise between performance, economy and CO2 figures. These units probably boost performance and economy at the expense of CO2 and LR would not go the same route as it would cripple the CO2 figures which are a major fleet/tax selling point.

Cheers

Mark H

I wasn't sure about mine. There was a slight noise increase in the engine, even though the revs stayed the same. There was no improvement in the mpg.
At braking, the car still seemed to carry on forward. I assume that there is no feedback to the module, that brakes have been applied, and the pressure to the rail to be reduced..
Not sure about this, but need assurance that it will not damage the engine in the long run... Any advice, before I think about refitting it back on..

A few comments here that I just don't get - 1) it invalidates your insurance - I told mine (aviva multicar) they added onto policy no problem 2) it just tricks the display - I have done the maths myself, mine went from 38 to 42 mpg this broadly matches the display.

I have the crt1 module, I paid 75 quid for mine, and attached to a 2.2 td4 pure. Performance wise its definitely more responsive, am still playing with the settings and have cranked it up a notch yesterday and has improved acceleration further.

I had my last audi remapped and in my opinion I am getting a similar experience with a tuning box I am getting a similar experience (remaps vs tuning boxes are widely debated on every car forum) - the reason I went for a box this time is that I wanted something removable at service, that said audi never detected the remap.

These boxes have a wide range of applications, a farmer friend of mine has one on his 13.5L combine harvester, these have a fuel capacity of 1250 litres and drink fuel like it's going out of fashion.

In summary and in my opinion they work, am not sure about the long term effects but the risk I chose to take was based on the assumption that the engine can cope with higher tolerances - with the sd4 coping with 190bhp.

Would suggest disconnecting battery when fitting, my engine light came on at first but cleared on restart. Would be interested to hear what setting people use (both jumper and dial).

Beyond above, my conservative 70 yr old dad fitted one to his 2.2tdci mondeo and has had a similar experience.

(14-10-2012 08:43am)stodman Wrote:  These boxes have a wide range of applications, a farmer friend of mine has one on his 13.5L combine harvester, these have a fuel capacity of 1250 litres and drink fuel like it's going out of fashion.

.... and he still gets better mpg than the Evoque ! (Someone had to write it ! )

(14-10-2012 08:54am)cjfp Wrote:  .... and he still gets better mpg than the Evoque ! (Someone had to write it ! )

LOL - brilliant, the best review I have heard from my farmer friend is that the evoque is only good for "going back and forth to the tanning shop".

(13-10-2012 10:41pm)ceebee Wrote:  Fujisan, well i'll tell you what. Maybe if the Evoques did the mpg that was claimed by LR then we wouldn't need to use them?

That is not my point.

My point is why not advise LR of this miracle cure and let them fit it as standard for the benefit of all?

(14-10-2012 02:42pm)FujiSan Wrote:  That is not my point.

My point is why not advise LR of this miracle cure and let them fit it as standard for the benefit of all?

I think what LR should do is add an "eco" setting to the terrain response, a driving programme mapped to give better economy at the cost of reduced performance or whatever the down side of these 3rd party remapping devices is. Maybe by doing this they could get round the possibility of this mode perhaps producing increased emissions as it wouldn't be the 'standard' driving mode. Ok, so that wouldn't exactly be 'eco', but at least it would be a bit cheaper to run!

Fujisan, I am sure that LR (and most other manufacturers) are well aware of these types of tuning boxes and remaps etc....and as others have stated they will have to tune the engines to meet certain criteria when developing these cars with regards to emissions/tax bands etc,

At no point did I state that the box was a miracle cure etc, etc, so I am a bit confused as to why you would respond in such a patronising and condescending tone to my post when all I did was simply state that I fitted one to my car in response to a fellow forum member asking for advice.