(15-07-2011 02:53pm)paulus599 Wrote: [ -> ] (15-07-2011 02:33pm)Fox Wrote: [ -> ]As for customer service... I defected from Land Rover to another brand and they are blooming marvelous by comparison. I really can't believe just how helpful and friendly they are. But most of you buying an Evoque would not consider them because they are not fashionable. 
So are you saying that Evoque buyers are all style over substance? 
No.
But some will be as it's the latest most fashionable car.
It also could be a very good one, but for some the image is what's most important.
Let's face it, even some Defender owners only buy it for the image.
What Im really interested in tho is what are LRX claiming as combined MPG on the Diesel 4WD Manual 190BHP? Initially it was 50MPG (Im sure it was that in the brochure)? But I have seen 44 quoted since?
Does anyone know? I dont have kids, but the car will be the mrs's, and she does > 20k p/a - so MPG is a crucial factor. A 10% drop on quoted figures is a huge drop, and financial impact.
Not happy if they inflated their figures early on! Could well end up cancelling.
Also not impressed with LRX customer service at dealers. Very poor (well non existant) at keeping us in the loop on developments. Also poor product knowledge.
The CS at Audi for my TT is on a different level all together.
Says on their site right now; 50MPG;
Performance (Manufacturer's Estimates): SD4 Manual
Maximum speed mph (kph) 124 (200)
Acceleration 0-60mph (0-100kph) seconds 9.5 (10.0)
Fuel Economy: SD4 Manual
Urban mpg (L/100km) tbc
Extra urban mpg (L/100km) tbc
Combined mpg (L/100km) 49.6 (5.7)
CO₂ emissions (g/km) 149
They are quoting just under 50mpg on the Land Rover website, but no urban figure or extra urban. So it's pretty much speculation at the moment.
If combined Land Rover quote as 50mpg and magazines rate it at 30mpg by driving around like loonies, you are going to get pretty much between the two in my experience, with a little more on long runs if you don't drive at 80mph.
Again, educated guesswork. But you should see 45mpg on a run and 40mpg average.
This tallies with other Land Rover products I've had.
I think that's actuially OK for a tall vehicle with a big frontal area as it'll be producing far more drag than any lower shaped car.
Drive everywhere at a constant 60mph and you'll get the quoted 50mpg.
'Drive everywhere at a constant 60mph and you'll get the quoted 50mpg. '
Well - if you drive everywhere at 60MPH - you should be getting well in excess of 50MPG - as that figure quoted is combined. 60MPH would be Urban - and should be closer to 60MPG. Thats if LRX figures are to be believed.
I dont mind if 50 is the genuine LRX figures - as I accounted for low-mid 40s as realistic averages (from experience on my TT). But if LRX are going to drop their quoted figures to 44 - then I can reaslistically only expect mid-slightly high 30s - which is pi$$ poor.
(15-07-2011 03:58pm)Pricy147 Wrote: [ -> ]60MPH would be Urban - and should be closer to 60MPG. Thats if LRX figures are to be believed.
You lost me on that bit.
Isn't it 44-ish for the auto and 49-ish for the manual?
(15-07-2011 06:55pm)j7david Wrote: [ -> ]Isn't it 44-ish for the auto and 49-ish for the manual?
Officially yes.... but AutoCar got 30mpg for the Auto (in their tests) .... hence my concern
I've not actually ordered yet but was very keen and thought that as a static object at the Manchester event it looked fantastic. Having read about the car in more detail this week though I'm starting to get cold feet, mainly over the price. For £40k ish there is some serious opposition. A bigger Q5 or X3 in 3 litre 6 cylinder form and S-Line or M-Sport spec can be bought for less. Thinking laterally large 6 cylinder executive saloons such as the BMW 5 Series, Merc E Class or new Audi A6 also cost about the same - The Audi includes Quattro and dual clutch gearbox. I think I would struggle to justify buying a small hatchback with a Mondeo derived 2 litre Diesel rather than one of these to be honest, desirable though the Evoque undoubtedly is.
Its hardly a small hatch back Hammy and you can get in one for 30 k not 40k.
(15-07-2011 07:11pm)Blackseries Wrote: [ -> ] (15-07-2011 06:55pm)j7david Wrote: [ -> ]Isn't it 44-ish for the auto and 49-ish for the manual?
Officially yes.... but AutoCar got 30mpg for the Auto (in their tests) .... hence my concern
So what are the realistic fuel consumption figures?