Real world mpg

(09-12-2011 11:43pm)cjfp Wrote:  rather than use the internal computer, has anyone done a 'fill up, drive, refill - how much have I used' calculation? Could it be something as simple as poor software?

Double checked my numbers, car shows 12.3l/100km since new (23mpg) and I've drive just over ±1050km so I should've used ±130 litres of fuel. Based on what I put in and the full tank I got less what's in the tank now (half) I've used at least 130 litres so if anything the trip computer may be a little lenient.

(09-12-2011 01:26am)Straydox Wrote:  You are most welcome on the maths end of things - what kind of roads have you been driving over the last tankful - just general Oxfordshire stuff (I grew up in Abingdon so know the county well)? Any long motorway runs in there?

No motorway, but some 60mph, but also a lot of wiggly lane and hills with slowing and accelerating. the trip mpg has increased to 34 after tonights trip on quiet roads and mostly 50mph+,

I actually think this will hit 40+ mpg if youre cruising at 60mph with little accel/decel, the poor consumption seems to come from stopping at lights, junctions etc and restarting, I find the low first gear often causes me to rev quite high quite quickly, and almost better to pull off in second.

I do find I often want to change up from 6th too, so it has some compromises to allow for the off road use and low gearing.

(10-12-2011 01:08am)PhilSkill Wrote:  No motorway, but some 60mph, but also a lot of wiggly lane and hills with slowing and accelerating. the trip mpg has increased to 34 after tonights trip on quiet roads and mostly 50mph+,

I actually think this will hit 40+ mpg if youre cruising at 60mph with little accel/decel, the poor consumption seems to come from stopping at lights, junctions etc and restarting, I find the low first gear often causes me to rev quite high quite quickly, and almost better to pull off in second.

I do find I often want to change up from 6th too, so it has some compromises to allow for the off road use and low gearing.

Thanks, I live in hope - I'd like to think that if I could resist the temptation to spin the engine up through 1/2/3rd and instead changed at close to 2000 rpm (where peak torque usually resides in many diesels) that a modicum of fuel sipping contentment could be achieved.

The point though, is that cruising at 60mph should be yielding > the 'official' figure, not 20% less!!

Driving normally (ie combined) should give something close to the 50mpg (manual) figure .. but it doesn't!

Many people refer to improving with age/miles, loosening up, bedding in, etc.
Surely the engine should perform correctly 'out of the box'?
Just what is supposed to be happening [technical explanation please] during this magical 'bedding in'?

I'm now at c1100m and consumption remains at a thoroughly disgusting 33mpg, driving the same way and same journeys that previous cars meet/exceed the official figure.

Has anyone taken this up with the dealer yet?

(06-12-2011 09:42pm)DrRob Wrote:  Bought a Ford Kuga 140 Tdci in May. Combined quoted = 47.1; I achieve 44mpg on mainly 60mile round commute at 70mph in 6th gear. Done 6Kmiles to date.
Will be watching this thread closely for 150 TD4 Manual figures as time progresses as thinking of a Pure TD4 manual in 2013......but not if these mpg figures quoted don't improve!

PS Also got a '93 200Tdi Range Rover Classic that does 32mpg on a run at 60mph....!

Glad I got a Kuga if these poor mpg figures keep cropping up! My 18year old Rangie does more than some of these Evoques! Baaaaaaaaaaaaaad

(10-12-2011 09:46am)Dave_T Wrote:  Many people refer to improving with age/miles, loosening up, bedding in, etc.
Surely the engine should perform correctly 'out of the box'?
Just what is supposed to be happening [technical explanation please] during this magical 'bedding in'?

All engines have parts such as the crankshaft shells which whilst lubricated by oil also need to settle in an wear a little before they become really efficient.

The best analogy I can think of is when you buy a new pair of shoes - they fit, are the right size, but some take a little time to get really comfortable.

Its the same with the moving parts of the engine - they need a little time to wear down to their optimum working tolerances. Hence the term a tight engine. These parts are designed to wear and are softer than their surrounding metal parts for this purpose.

Out of interest what do people with TD4/SD4 Freelanders get?

(10-12-2011 10:33am)THEMACS Wrote:  Out of interest what do people with TD4/SD4 Freelanders get?

58' plate FL2 TD4 Auto 27k miles, running around I live in a very hilly area - 34mpg. On a run say from home to Inverness 125 miles, some steep climbs - 39mpg. Worth noting, we do not have a lot of traffic up here. From new tight engine to now the consumption has improved about 1 or 2 mpg max.

I have had a loan FL2 SD4 Auto albeit for only about 100 miles but I according to the trip it was nearly 10% better than my FL2 TD4 Auto.

Given the Evoques 'LR claimed figures' which are much better than the LR figures for FL2 S/TD4A and the fact the Evoque is lighter and less of a breeze block than FL2 I am expecting much better comsumption - I wait in hope!

Tony

Dynamic SD4 Auto ETA Feb '12

Last night I did a short trip of less than 20km - strewn with traffic lights and frustratingly slow traffic. Seat heaters, heated steering wheel on (but of course). My average consumption was a dismal 15 liters /100 km or 18 mpg. Same route with my Quattro Audi was 26mpg! The Audi weighed 3219 lbs.... the Evoque 3700 lbs. Clearly Audi use more aluminium in their frame!

My advice to pre-purchasers is - if you are sensitive to ongoing fuel costs, you might want to spend less on the initial specification of your Evoque and keep the spare cash at fill up time! I call it my Pure Piggy Bank
As our vehicles arrive and engines are run in this thread will be one to watch. I just love this fabulous vehicle but really don't care for gross untruths.
Were the original Evoques in a different state of tune when the mileage tests were done? Were they seatless? Does the software on my vehicle need a reboot (but I like the performance so no thanks!) "most fuel efficient Land Rover ever".

Just because I'm a big fan of this vehicle, and it's Car or the Year doesn't mean I wouldn't consider joining a class action ....... oh, inner voice.......

---

Oh, the Ecoboost made it to the top 10 engine list:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/...15313.html

(10-12-2011 10:33am)THEMACS Wrote:  Out of interest what do people with TD4/SD4 Freelanders get?

When the SD4 auto FL2 emerged this time last year I was getting very frustrated as I was reading reports of owners getting over 40MPG & I was annoyed as I had a TD4 manual at the time & I never got over 40MPG in that. I drive pretty sedately & generally without the air-con on so I was never really impressed with the consumption on my FL2.
One thing I learnt from reading fuel consumption threads on the FL2 Forum was that it appeared that you either got a FL2 that had very good consumption or one that was bloody awfall.

The other thing to consider is to take Manufacturer figures with a large pinch of salt as those figures are achieved in controlled enviroments with only a small amount of fuel on board & at a constant uninterupted speed which unless you are on one of those very long uninhabbited roads in the Wild West of America you are unlikely to ever achieve the stated figures. Expect to get between 15 to 20% less than manufacturers figures.

---

The Freelander 2 was (when I bought mine) marketted as the most fuel efficient Landrover ever built & the RRE the most fuel efficient Range Rover ever