MPG... What's the problem?

(14-01-2013 03:26pm)Samson Wrote:  Had a loan car - a Jaguar XF 2.2D - the same engine as the Evoque, although the XF has a 8-speed auto. Covered approximately 150 miles in 4 days (weekend driving included) and achieved according to the trip computer 33mpg. Covered 150 miles in my Evoque over 4 days (weekend included), same routes/driving conditions, although weather is a lot colder - trip reading after 150 miles was 29.3mpg. Both cars had similar mileage on them - Jaguar 1700 and mine 1500. Given the weight/size of the Evoque relative to the 'streamline XF', 6-speed vs 8-speed, 4 wheel drive vs 2wd, I am quite pleased with the Evoque's mpg.

Ah, i had misses this post, thanks Samson.
Yep, looks like in the real world fuel consumption comparison, the Evoque holds up pretty well against the much more streamlined Jag.

Motorists misled by fuel consumption claims....

"The worst-performing car was the Mercedes Benz B-Class (2005-12), which drivers report achieves 71% of its official fuel economy rating. The Range Rover Evoque and Lexus CT200h come a close second and third, achieving 73% and 73.6% respectively."

Ironically at the other end of the scale....
"However, it wasn't all bad news. The survey reveals that some cars actually post figures that are better than claimed. The Land Rover Defender achieves 105.1% of its official test result, and the Jaguar S-Type also exceeds expectations, achieving 3.6% better than official figures."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2013/jan...onsumption

I don't think too many drivers will be rushing out the buy Defenders to salve their conscious for wasting fuel. Defender fuel consumption is pretty grim, but in real life it drives best at 55-60 mph so you never go anywhere too fast! The fact that you can get 28mpg out of a car tested to give 25mpg isn't much to boast about. It does however back up my claim that all my previous Land Rovers and Range Rovers have got the official figures or better, but the Evoque is a bit disappointing only on that front, it excels everywhere else

Just completed 10,000 miles - the wife uses it during the week, 8 miles there and 8 back to work, plus 1 or 2 trips to up the motorway to the Marsden in Sutton to see our grandaughter.

Have had a few long distance, plus Europe etc.

Worst = 28.6
Best = 38.4
Average = 34.3

(all calculated on a spreadsheet, brim to brim)

Definately NOT what it said on the tin, but I love this car so much I can forgive it anything (well almost, the Sat Nav is C**P !!)

(05-02-2013 04:13pm)KaDargo Wrote:  Just completed 10,000 miles - the wife uses it during the week, 8 miles there and 8 back to work, plus 1 or 2 trips to up the motorway to the Marsden in Sutton to see our grandaughter.

Have had a few long distance, plus Europe etc.

Worst = 28.6
Best = 38.4
Average = 34.3

(all calculated on a spreadsheet, brim to brim)

Definately NOT what it said on the tin, but I love this car so much I can forgive it anything (well almost, the Sat Nav is C**P !!)

Similar to our profile, wifes car so she uses for work 30 mile round trip with mix of driving, plus had a few decent long runs, however I find all the motorway driving reduces the mpg somehwhat.

Worst = 27.5
Best = 51.2
Average = 33.1

I am at 12,000 miles

Other than a few miles getting in and out of London each week, most of the driving is on M and A roads. I am getting 31.6mpg - oddly enough it shows 35 on the trip computer but my fuel records/receipts show the 31.6

My old car was a 1995 C class (C280) which did the same regular journey to Suffolk plus extras and my records show that gave me....30.3mpg over the 75,000 miles I did in it. As diesel is more expensive that unleaded, I am worse off! I KNOW I could get better MPG than that but to get basically trhe same as I was getting same driving style and roads is shocking.

I am miffed that a newly designed engine is not that musch more efficient than a 20 year old unit (a C-class is hardly a light car either - I called mine "the Tank") but it's so far off the LR claimed figures as to be embarassing

(11-02-2013 07:03pm)Tosh Wrote:  I am at 12,000 miles

Other than a few miles getting in and out of London each week, most of the driving is on M and A roads. I am getting 31.6mpg - oddly enough it shows 35 on the trip computer but my fuel records/receipts show the 31.6

My old car was a 1995 C class (C280) which did the same regular journey to Suffolk plus extras and my records show that gave me....30.3mpg over the 75,000 miles I did in it. As diesel is more expensive that unleaded, I am worse off! I KNOW I could get better MPG than that but to get basically trhe same as I was getting same driving style and roads is shocking.

I am miffed that a newly designed engine is not that musch more efficient than a 20 year old unit (a C-class is hardly a light car either - I called mine "the Tank") but it's so far off the LR claimed figures as to be embarassing

Don't forget that the evoque is 4 wheel drive and that might be affecting the MPG as well.

I finished my first full tank of fuel today!! For 450 miles and avg was 33.6mpg

The first 14000 km I managed to keep it to 36,2 mpg. With winter temps and a roofbox on it's down to barely 30mpg. Anyone else experienced the same?

Used to drive the Audi A5, it had a barely noticeable difference with the same config, i.e. winter and box combined...

(13-02-2013 09:51pm)PapaRod Wrote:  The first 14000 km I managed to keep it to 36,2 mpg. With winter temps and a roofbox on it's down to barely 30mpg. Anyone else experienced the same?

Used to drive the Audi A5, it had a barely noticeable difference with the same config, i.e. winter and box combined...

What do you expect with a Roofbox! Surprised you are getting 20 mpg!!

(13-02-2013 10:05pm)THEMACS Wrote:  What do you expect with a Roofbox! Surprised you are getting 20 mpg!!

As I said, the A5 had nearly no cut in mpg with the same box...and that was the the 140 hp option...