Real world mpg

So having returned a pitiful 28mpg from my first 3.5k miles I decided to try and drive sensibly to see what return I got on my hour long drive home tonight...and was reasonably pleased with a respectable 39.1 mpg. This was 80% motorway and dual carriageway and 20% town/village...all done with gentle acceleration and with every speed limit obeyed exactly.

There was very little traffic so couldn't have been much better...althought if I'd started the journey a little more steadily I would have got over 40mpg...

Forget the fact that it is lighter than a FFRR etc...this is still a pretty heavy car with an auto gearbox and perm 4 wheel drive...so I actually think the mpg is fine.

Of course, as of tomorrow I will be back to 28mpg...and thats the problem here. That is only 5mpg more than I used to get from my Vogue...but this is simply down to the fact that I was content to regally waft around in the vogue with a gentle right foot...whereas that doesn't feel so good in the Evoque...

Don't know what the moral of the story is or what my conclusion is...I shall leave you guys to decide

It really is very hard to justify the Evoque on fuel economy grounds as it actually makes the FFRR TDv8 look quite frugal cc for cc. Most of my neighbours think that I have traded in a diesel devouring monster for a lightweight diesel sipping puppy and are not aware of the truth. I suppose it isn't that amazing how easily the publicity people have been able to con us.

(20-02-2012 11:58pm)XFullFatTim Wrote:  It really is very hard to justify the Evoque on fuel economy grounds as it actually makes the FFRR TDv8 look quite frugal cc for cc. Most of my neighbours think that I have traded in a diesel devouring monster for a lightweight diesel sipping puppy

How about if we compare the two vehicles in mpg terms from a 'performance' perspective...so I wonder what the mpg would be with my FFRR if I had driven it at the same speed/acceleration as I drive the Evoque...I suspect that the Evoque would suddenly appear frugal!

I would also suggest that the way I drive the Evoque is similar to the way I drove my A5 2.7TD, with similar performance both in terms of speed and fuel economy...which when you consider the two vehicles, would again would make the Evoque appear frugal.

(21-02-2012 01:02am)Token Wrote:  

How about if we compare the two vehicles in mpg terms from a 'performance' perspective...so I wonder what the mpg would be with my FFRR if I had driven it at the same speed/acceleration as I drive the Evoque...I suspect that the Evoque would suddenly appear frugal!

I would also suggest that the way I drive the Evoque is similar to the way I drove my A5 2.7TD, with similar performance both in terms of speed and fuel economy...which when you consider the two vehicles, would again would make the Evoque appear frugal.

I appreciate the point that you are trying to make but for a 2.2 diesel with a hundred and eighty odd horses I don't consider it frugal. Don't get me wrong I like the overall package and can live with highish twenties at the pump but I've driven some heavier, more powerful cars that could do a fair bit better.

I also appreciate that it's not LR that are totally responsible for the misleading fuel stats but I do think they've got something to answer as I remember just after the LRX launch and after their decision to make the Evoquel several years ago it was LR that bigged up the frugality of the car that hadn't even been built yet.

I'm not even sure that I'd call it a gripe......but out of all of the cars that I've owned in recent memory, and that's a fair few, this one seems to miss out by the biggest margin in terms of what the brochures say and my real world mpg. And even if my own driving style isn't the last word in economy driving at least it's stayed pretty consistent with each of those cars.

(22-02-2012 12:15am)ytshome Wrote:  I appreciate the point that you are trying to make but for a 2.2 diesel with a hundred and eighty odd horses I don't consider it frugal. Don't get me wrong I like the overall package and can live with highish twenties at the pump but I've driven some heavier, more powerful cars that could do a fair bit better.

I also appreciate that it's not LR that are totally responsible for the misleading fuel stats but I do think they've got something to answer as I remember just after the LRX launch and after their decision to make the Evoquel several years ago it was LR that bigged up the frugality of the car that hadn't even been built yet.

I'm not even sure that I'd call it a gripe......but out of all of the cars that I've owned in recent memory, and that's a fair few, this one seems to miss out by the biggest margin in terms of what the brochures say and my real world mpg. And even if my own driving style isn't the last word in economy driving at least it's stayed pretty consistent with each of those cars.

+1

All this talk about electrics having an impact on fuel economy, I was wondering if I install dual DVD monitors will they also have an impact if the kids want them on everytime they get in the car?

(22-02-2012 08:21am)robc1738 Wrote:  All this talk about electrics having an impact on fuel economy, I was wondering if I install dual DVD monitors will they also have an impact if the kids want them on everytime they get in the car?

Compared with air conditioning, for example, a DVD would have a very modest electricity consumption and correspondingly little effect on fuel consumption. As an illustration, 100 watts is only 0.134 hp. Even if you allow for losses in the generation of the electricity, it would be using only 0.15 hp out of 100+ being produced by the engine. (Don't confuse sound power rating with actual power, either. An 825 watt sound system doesn't consume 825 watts of electricity). If you slowed down by 5 mph while they were watching, you'd be winning hands down!

(22-02-2012 08:21am)robc1738 Wrote:  All this talk about electrics having an impact on fuel economy, I was wondering if I install dual DVD monitors will they also have an impact if the kids want them on everytime they get in the car?

No

I'm amazed that a thread on MPG on a Range Rover forum is now 54 pages long.

When I decided to buy a RR I just knew I had to accept I'd be paying more at the petrol station and not being as environmentally friendly as I could be.

If you're all so worried about fuel consumption (that question about two additional LCD screens affecting the MPG is just ridiculous) why did you all buy a 4x4? If MPG is such a massive concern, why didn't you all buy a Toyota iQ or something?

I bought my Evoque for road presence, comfort, power etc. as they are what are important to me. MPG (unless I was getting stupidly low economy) is not.

(22-02-2012 10:41am)dandavis1 Wrote:  MPG (unless I was getting stupidly low economy) is not.

Therein lies the problem: Is the reported economy 'stupid' compared with the official figures (which may have 'misled' some purchasers into buying an Evoque)?

Personally, the Evoque will be a second car and only do about 5,000 miles per annum, so such things as depreciation are far more significant to me. At the same time, we need a 4x4 as a second car due to where we live (a remote location with poor roads and prone to being snow or ice bound in winter). Despite all that, I am still disappointed to read about others' experience of fuel consumption, as the least I expected from such a relatively light and supposedly advanced 4x4 was equality with my present consumption, and I was certainly 'taken in' by LR claims.

However, I must say I'm far more worried about the myriad of quality and technical issues being reported!