As promised my initial thoughts and a few more pics

(23-01-2012 08:53pm)blacktrees1 Wrote:  Prestige SD4, manual, LUX, Orkney, Vibe, Ivory, Style 7s, Privacy

2. Interior colour - Very Very happy. It was my biggest dilemma and I am pleased I got this spot on. I really wanted a light colour but couldn't get the options with the 'brown' dash and the grey to work together in my own mind.
3. Headlining - Got this one so so wrong. In the showroom and test drives I was worried about the lack of light even though it has a pano roof. I so wish I had gone for the dark headlining to keep the flow of the colours in the car. It's not dark at all. It looks so odd with this combination.

I have an Orkney Grey Prestige SD4 coming in March (hopefully! - build date 24 Feb), and felt the same about the 'brown' or 'red' dashboards with the ivory upholstery. However, still wanting a light interior, I chose 'Element' which is the very pale grey ('cirrus') with a darker grey ('lunar') dash. Luckily, just in time to amend my order, I learned from this site that you can now get the matching cirrus headlining, which is what I've gone for.

my fuel average has started to creep up, i was getting 42mpg the other day.

(07-02-2012 02:38pm)XFullFatTim Wrote:  I really don't know where LR went wrong with the Evoque's fuel consumption calculation. I have now owned 9 previous Land Rover products and have easily achieved the Govt calculated fuel figures in all of them, even the petrol engined cars, but not the Evoque................ beginning to make me wonder if there was something underhand in the way the Govt figures were achieved to make the car look better than it is. I for one will now be warning anybody who asks me what I think about the car and it will be "great................ but it's real life fuel economy is dire compared to the claims of LR, but don't let that put you off buying one" LR has to stop hyping it as the most fuel efficient Land Rover yet, because it most certainly is not, I could get way better MPG figures out of my old Freelander 1TD4 auto which consistently achieved better than 35mpg from its 2.0ltr engine in everyday driving and more than 40mpg on a long motorway cruise.

Good comments Tim. I've posed similar questions on here, how can a modern aero dynamic design with weight saving materials be so poor compared to the FL2 which it is based on, my brain hurts working this one out.

(07-02-2012 10:26pm)Evo-king Wrote:  Good comments Tim. I've posed similar questions on here, how can a modern aero dynamic design with weight saving materials be so poor compared to the FL2 which it is based on, my brain hurts working this one out.

If you look at the post above from Rootsboy, you will realise that it is down to temperature.In the car I have now the MPG goes down 5 MPG in the cold weather.Also linked with a brand new engine and also a smaller engine than you are used to which you have to work harder to go the same speed and acceleration.Plus all the electrical drain from heated seats steering wheel etc.

(07-02-2012 10:41pm)broady43 Wrote:  If you look at the post above from Rootsboy, you will realise that it is down to temperature.In the car I have now the MPG goes down 5 MPG in the cold weather.

Wouldn't cold intake air thermodynamically increase the efficiency of the engine? (Higher mass of air per stroke).

I am one that is happy with the official LR claims, as the low MPG (L/100km) meant that I did not have to pay any luxury car tax over here. It is lucky they don't base the tax on real world comsuption though

Barney that is one advantage here too - better official figures mean lower annual tax. Even if reality isn't what is claimed I would sooner be paying 1/3 of the annual tax I was paying for the FFRR and have comparable comfort and slightly better fuel economy!

looks great!