FT review

Financial Times review
Nothing much you didn't know, but the writer did make a comment that he achieved 38mpg which it was assumed would improve "once the engine is bedded-in"
There's a link to an older article reviewing off-road driving days, the history of Range Rover and a nice pic of the Evoque in the tunnel they all drove through.

Why do people think the engine will be more efficient after a while? As i remember, it was stated in my last Merc owner's manual there is no need to break into the engine ( i don't know the proper term) as every engine is tested in factory and broken into... I think this is some older myth...

True, with most of the modern engines it's not necessary to run them in before you apply full load/power (or at least the manufacturers claim that). Engines will still give better fuel economy once they have a few thousand mile on the clock though.

What Land Rover (and most other makers) say in the handbook is that for the first 1000 miles or so not to make the engine labour at low revs in a high gear or rev the engine hard in a low gear. These days the makers can do some very clever things with ECUs and also engine tolerances are much finer than they were 30 years ago. What to watch with the engine in the Evoque is OIL consumption - the diesel engine material has a high carbon content in the casting and they tend to absorb a couple of litres in the first 1000-1500miles and then in my experience the consumption stops, so do monitor oil consumption carefully for the first month or so. The engine in the Evoque isn't a JLR design it is a modified Ford/Peugeot-Citroen engine - the air intake, lubrication and ECU are modified to suit the offloading that the car is capable of. The same engine in the new 2.2 Jag XF will not stand being run at anywhere near the 45 degrees your Evoque is capable of running at, the Jag, various Citroens, Pugs and Fords will also not wade in 500mm of water................

That website is totally unreadable.

Works for me ok on IE9

(03-09-2011 06:07pm)cjfp Wrote:  Works for me ok on IE9

it works, its just an utterly crap hard to use site design