Real world mpg

(20-01-2012 12:29am)Dave_T Wrote:  I think I have posted my consumption figures, and tips for others to improve theirs, thanks.

As for "whining" I reserve the right to "whine" to my hearts content until such time as the mods cancel my membership - and given that this thread is titled "Real world mpg" I suspect that this is an entirely appropriate thread, rather than creating another one, thanks.

Would I give up my Evoque because of it?
Maybe. Waste and Inefficiency annoy me.
We have 'corporate responsibility' targets, one element of which is carbon reduction, which manifests as a need to achieve 42mpg.
Should I lie? sneak a sly gallon of fuel into the tank whilst no one is looking??
Or should I just throw the towel in and carry on driving my D3 given that theres only about 4mpg difference between them?

My approach has been to question whether it is right to accept that the car doesn't do what it's supposed to - to check whether it is set up correctly (it wasn't)
- to find out whether anything more can be done about it (apparently not!)
- to establish what claims the manufacturer made

This isn't "moaning" - it's trying to do something about it.

To progress will involve highlighting the issue to make Landrover accept that there is a problem, and do something about it.

Perhaps it would help if someone 'official' from Landrover were to post on here the parameters under which we might expect to achieve something equivalent to a combined figure out there in the real world. My view, FWIW, is that a constant 48mph cruise will yield about 50mpg in an SD4 manual. Anyone care to try it for a few hundred miles & report back

agree one hundred percent!

(20-01-2012 12:29am)Dave_T Wrote:  Perhaps it would help if someone 'official' from Landrover were to post on here the parameters under which we might expect to achieve something equivalent to a combined figure out there in the real world. My view, FWIW, is that a constant 48mph cruise will yield about 50mpg in an SD4 manual. Anyone care to try it for a few hundred miles & report back

The parameters are contained in the test protocol - google 'em, they are out there...

---

(19-01-2012 11:30pm)Dave_T Wrote:  Go and read landrovers web site. They make the claim. For convenience i quoted it a few posts back - read before you gob off!

Ooh - get him!

Look, if you are that upset about all this, then "gobbing off" - as you so eloquently put it - to me, is serving you no purpose whatsoever. Why not take this up with Land Rover and post their reply on this forum.

I'm sure we would all love to hear what LR have to say on the matter.

OK after 3 months and 2000 miles of ownership and we are averaging 26 MPG. I think the trick to getting good urban mpg in the auto is to be slow. By that I found if I make sure the revs never go above 2K then I can get perfectly acceptable MPG. Unfortunatley my wife is struggling to get to grips with this.

- would i consider handing the car back = no
- am i pi$$ed at the inaccuracy of the claimed MPG = yes
- was MPG a factor in the buying decision = yes
- would I have puchased the evoque know the real world mpg = maybe
- will the weak real life mpg figures impact residuals = yes
- does the mpg effect enjoyability = no
- does mpg effect my back pocket = yes
- does mpg effect the environment = yes

Whatever spin anyones wants to put on it.....everyone knows quoted MPG figures are overstated. You factor that into the equation. You would normally allow for 10-15% reduction on quoted figures. 25% = no.

The beef is that every other car I have ever driven - quoted figures were physically achievable in the real world - on a long run, taking your time, turning everything off, etc.

They are not even achievable in the evoque. I chellenge anyone to do a 100mile run - even mainly motorway - and achieve 49.9mpg.

Hell - even in my TTRS which has a combined figure of 29.9 - and with it mapped and increased horse power - i can still get 32-33 on a long run. Overall average 24 - which is about right seeing as its mostly town use.

The evoque can be bragged up as much as everyone wants, and for many reasons rightly so. But fuel economy and advertising accuracy - certainly not.

Hell - if its an estimate - I will sell my TTRS to anyone who wants to buy it - £99k - estimate it will do 200mpg to the gallon ....no comeback as you cant sue me if it dont - its an 'estimate'!

+1: I wholeheartedly agree (and I've not got my car yet!). The point about residuals in particular will adversely effect us all in due course. In itself this is not enough for me to cancel my order, but I am in the very fortunate position of being able to take the hit to my purse as my mileage is so low. Others may be in a less fortunate position, having taken possession of the car to be left with higher fuel bills than anticipated. It certainly takes the shine off what otherwise seems to be a fantastic car.

The first thing to say is I love my car .... but I am disappointed by the fuel economy (there’s no denying) however the indulgent nature of the car and the way it makes me feel every time I get in does help mitigate this as my only area of disappointment with the car ..... and so far the rest of the car makes me think it’s a luxury worth paying for..... but when diesel is £1.75 - £2.00 a litre...... who knows.

However ....... I must say this is the first car I've ever had that I've not been able to achieve even the lowest official consumption figure .... or even come close. My normal take is that I look at the Urban MPG of a car that I'm buying and think well, if I achieve the Urban figure + 2-3mpg then that’s a good guide to what I will achieve in the real world and this formula has stood me in good stead over the past 10+ years. All I know is if I was achieving 35mpg (+2-3mpg) in my RRE I would be over the moon. My average MPG so far is 27mpg and has only once gone over 30mpg in 2500 miles! OK LR may say that "official figures" are not representative BUT all the press (LR included) around this car does say its the "most economical" Range Rover ever ....... well I'm not so sure. I recon a FFRR V8 diesel is probably as economical .... which considering its extra height, weight & engine size is not good. Let’s put it this way it’s certainly not head and shoulders above the diesel FFRR & RRS which is very disappointing and rather misleading of LR.

I do feel conned.

I just wish someone from JLR would tell us come 10k miles on the clock we would all be getting 35+mpg ... as this is what their development cars are now achieving ... if they did I’d feel fine & dandy but I’m not so sure that is going to happen.

Here is another long term road test that concurs with our findings. http://www.carbuzz.co.uk/blog/Evoque-Owner-Review-120

LR over to you...........

(20-01-2012 09:56am)FujiSan Wrote:  ... Why not take this up with Land Rover and post their reply on this forum.

I'm sure we would all love to hear what LR have to say on the matter.

If you bothered to read, you'd see that I have taken it up with LR. If they ever bother to reply I'll let you know

I was thinking about this thread while driving around in my Freelander. It's been telling me I've got 354-359 miles left in the tank for the last 3 days. And I've driven some mileage. Obviously I'm being more conservative which is why it is being super generous to me.

Which got me thinking.

Monday morning - all those disappointed with the MPG in their Evoques should fill their tanks to brimming. They should then reset all the instruments. They should then stick religiously to the speed limits on every road. They should change up a gear as soon as they can, I guess 1500-2000 RPM (although the Freelander 2 can change up at 1250 - 1500 happily) - coupled with changing up gears at low revs they should also accelerate slowly, and not accelerate faster to change up quicker. That is something I am very guilty of in the BMW. But in the Freelander, probably due to lack of power, I seem to easily manage a much more sedate attitude to driving and gear changes. The Monday morning people should also not accelerate from any junction or any stationary place too quickly, the moving off stage should be serene and peaceful and not hurried and rushed.

Any more tips for economical driving?

(if you can't manage resetting the instruments and filling up on Monday morning, try Sunday night)

(20-01-2012 09:29pm)leveller Wrote:  Any more tips for economical driving?

(if you can't manage resetting the instruments and filling up on Monday morning, try Sunday night)

You forgot to mention checking wheel alignment, tyre pressure, switching off lights, aircon, carry no passengers, coasting downhill, cruise control, switching off engine at long intersection stops, etc...

And if you have an Auto box, select neutral at lights or in stationary traffic etc. Stops the car trying to move with the brakes on.