Does anyone know what the Urban/Extra Urban mpg is for the 2.2 (SD4 -Auto)?
At the Evoque event they could only provide me with combined mpg, and the LR website still indicates TBC? Surely if they have listed combined mpg it would have been based on the urban and extra urban baseline initially?
Can't understand why it's not listed? It's hard trying to benchmark running costs without knowing these figures.
Refer to page 3 of the Australian Spec and Price List May 2011 (I attached it in the Australian and New Zealand section on Saturday). You'll need to convert from metric.
RANGE ROVER EVOQUE
TD4 MANUAL TD4 AUTO SD4 MANUAL SD4 AUTO Si4 AUTO
Fuel Economy*
Highway L/100km 5.2 5.7 5.2 5.7 6.9
Urban L/100km 6.7 7.9 6.7 7.9 11.9
Combined L/100km 5.7 6.5 5.7 6.5 8.7
RANGE ROVER EVOQUE COUPÉ
TD4 MANUAL TD4 AUTO SD4 MANUAL SD4 AUTO Si4 AUTO
Fuel Economy*
Highway L/100km 5.2 5.7 5.2 5.7 6.9
Urban L/100km 6.7 7.8 6.7 7.8 11.9
Combined L/100km 5.7 6.4 5.7 6.4 8.7
Urban 35 mpg .... so about 3 more Mpg than the Freelander. So in normal driving a lot less than 40mpg..... Not great - for all the talk about lightweight materials etc not a great outcome.
That's terrible the new 2011 BMW x3 3.0L diesel gets 41.5 mpg urban and 50.4 mpg extra urban (47.1 combined). Plus it's a bigger engine, more horse power and 0-60 in 6.2 seconds.
I don't understand how Evoque figures can be so poor in comparison?? If it's published in Australia do you think they have refrained from publishing in the UK because of high fuel costs which could persuade people to look at competitors instead.
We haven't placed our order as this may tempt me to look at the X3 now as it's faster and cheaper (although uglier).
(25-05-2011 09:20am)Alex Wrote: [ -> ]That's terrible the new 2011 BMW x3 3.0L diesel gets 41.5 mpg urban and 50.4 mpg extra urban (47.1 combined). Plus it's a bigger engine, more horse power and 0-60 in 6.2 seconds.
30D M Sport Edition - (3.0 litre/ 255 HP) 4112lbs or 1875kg - £39,625.
It's tempting as it's more fuel effecient and faster, however it's not that economical when you start to add the options on. I specced up one similar to my Dynamic spec and it was about 4K more, plus didn't include the added features that Evoque included.
I guess when your about to spend this much money on a car you want to ensure you are making the best decision. I think the Evoque will have better residual values however the X3 is also been recognised for similar attributes (it just doesn't look as nice as the Evoque!).
It's also a lower tax band than the Evoque (in the UK).
(25-05-2011 09:54pm)vision*R Wrote: [ -> ]It does beat (some) competitors... in the eD4 version.
Agree, the fuel economy specs actually look quite good, but you would be loosing the performance.
I just don't understand why BMW seems to have such a leading edge over other manufacturers. Wasn't until recently I started investigating that I realised how good BMW's engines are - guess thats why police mainly use them as they work out cheaper in the long run - tax, fuel, but not at a cost to speed (new 3 series gets 78 mpg extra urban, 50 miles urban, and 0-60 8 seconds - fantastic specs but the car still looks somewhat conservative).
Saying all that presently the Evoque steels the looks over most cars...and a well designed interior.
