mpg

(25-11-2012 12:20pm)XFullFatTim Wrote:  I think ed if your expenses are paid by the company and you based your running costs on say 42mpg, and then over the year you are getting considerably less then you end up being a lot of money out of pocket. If LR don't get their act together over this I fear Evoque will soon not be selling at all well and LR will be loosing all the conquest sales they have made with Evoque, back to BMW and Audi.

Ah i hadnt thought of that, I live in the world where I buy cars, fuel etc out of my own pocket and always have done.

Same for me unfortunately Ed

Mines a company motor and my company reimburse at the recommended HMRC rates for a 2.2 diesel. This equates to 18 pence per mile reimbursement rate per business mile driven.

I calculate my actual cost per mile (diesel only) is 14 pence per mile based upon my actual average mpg of 42 mpg. So I end up better off if I drive carefully, or nearer breaking even if I want to drive a bit more exuberantly.

As a benchmark, my last Audi A6 (2.0 136BHP) was worth 15p per mile official reimbursement rate and my actual was 13p. Which for a supposed 'Eco' motor, was more disappointing than the RRE! The problem with this big Audi was that it was that it gave great mpg cruising at 70 (around 60 mpg) but ONLY cruising! Anything else it drank it like a fish.

My previous motor to that was an Audi A3 1.4 petrol and returned a cost of 10.5 p per mile at an official rate of 15p. (But based upon 2008 to 2010 fuel costs). This was by far my best recent car for mpg costs. Which really goes to prove that one of the best options is a low cc high turbo boost petrol engine for real economy and, incidentally, performance.

So in real terms, I can still count myself as relatively comfortable with the running costs on the RRE considering the enjoyment of ownership I get. Driven carefully on business miles, the taxman provides me with an equivalent number of private miles at 4p per mile cheaper than normal.

I certainly would never consider swapping the RRE out purely on the basis of running costs. LR would have to piss me off a damn sight more than that. But, each to their own I guess.

I'm like you Ed in that I buy my car, fuel etc out of my own pocket rather than through a company.

As I said, the MPG was only one of the reasons for selling, (but not the main reason-which was a bereavement meaning I didnt need a car that could carry a wheelchair etc)

However, that to one side, in reality the Evoques MPG was only slightly down on the Kuga that it replaced, so it was no big deal as such.

The problem I had with the MPG was simply that I (probably naiively) factored in that if i bought the Evoque and even it did 10% less mpg than the manufacturer claimed, the savings that I would make on fuel could pay towards the cost of purchasing the Evoque.

So, as I wasn't getting the mpg I anticipated I was having to find the extra money to pay towards the Evoque from elsewhere? This is the bit that bothered me!

(24-11-2012 08:00pm)scottie99 Wrote:  The mpg is my biggest gripe with the car (apart from the minuscule boot!)

After 10k miles over 11 months of a fair mixture of local, town and motorway driving, I had never had better than 32 over any period

Has your boot shrunk since you looked at the size of it before purchasing

This was my 11MY Fl2 SD4 auto, unfortunately it was just a glitch in the system.

(26-11-2012 09:36am)speary Wrote:  Has your boot shrunk since you looked at the size of it before purchasing

I was naive enough to order 'off plan' , before demonstrators were in the showroom.

My fault I know, never again !

I am also not happy with my mpg, need to drive like a granny to achieve anything decent, ie 60mph motorway run achieved 46mpg. My commute which is approx 8 miles is only returning 26mpg in the colder weather. I really like the car but recent non start problem and mpg is making me have second thoughts re RRE ownership, back in a Audi anytime soon I think.

Mark