I have seen many complaints on here about the claimed MPG vs Actual MPG...well, having just read the latest CAR magazine (which has a great article on the new FFRR) I have compared the stats of all their test cars (14 cars ranging from Suzuki Swift to BMW M5) in terms of Actual MPG vs Claimed MPG
The average is that the cars achieve 75% of their claimed MPG. Their Evoque achieves 74% of it's claimed MPG so it is about bang on average (The Swift was the best at 83% and the Mazda CX-5 the worst at 65%).
No complaints from me.
That's kind of re-assuring, as my 'relaxed' driving style and the nature of most of the journeys I tend to undertake has always led to me getting close to manufacturer's combined urban mileage in previous cars. I was worried that this wasn't going be the case when I finally get my Evoque.
What I would be interested to know is whether there's any difference in real world fuel economy between the TD4 and the SD4 manual. Despite the official LR figures being identical, i just wonder if the small bit of extra torque from the SD4 allows you to hold on to higher gears longer without labouring the engine.
I'd imagine if you're just driving slowly at low revs with litle accel or decel you will be unlikely to see much difference between the TD4 and SD4, but as soon as you start using your right foot in the SD4 it will use more fuel and return give you more response, the only way to good economy is to minimise your right foot usage and use the gears appropriately, whilst there is a point where a vehicle becomes less ecomonic due it being underpowered for it's weight, I doubt the TD4 is there.
Yeah, I don't care less about the mpg or l/100km as long as I enjoy the ride and feel of the driving experience. I often drive mine in dynamic mode with the s-drive for some fun!
"Official", EU measurement is completely artificial and not done in real life environment. It is meant to be a measure used for comparison between different cars and NOT a measurement of actual consumption,...
However, very low numbers are attractive for marketing purposes - which then lead to frustration for new car owners, if they took them seriously
I am achieving 8,50 l/100km in my TD4 manual after 3.000 km and I am very satisfied - considering the weight, size and my "driving habits"
BR : Miha
I echo miha's comments in that the only possible use for these figures is as a comparison of one vehicle against another.
But another things also surprises me sometimes,is other peoples Fuelly sigs, and how much lower they are compared to mine.
As I keep on saying and saying again,
It's not what you drive - it's how you drive it...
It is also where you drive it, I live in a hilly area, so I don't expect to be getting as good figures as someone who drives in flatter terrain.
Short journeys will also drop the figures down.
When I first read these posts about poor mpg I was bothered, now I've got the car I don't care, just love driving it when I can.
Well I've just driven from Warwick to Stirling with a Land Rover roofbox on the roof and averaged 36.8mpg at an average speed of 69mph, I'm happy with that and will be interested to see what the TCM upgrade that was carried out during the service has improved the mpg without the roofbox on, the gearshifts of the autobox are now almost imperceptible in D as a result of the reflash.
I've just driven mine back from Brussels, a distance of 687 miles and I got 33.7. A few weeks ago I did the same journey in our Honda C-RV 2.2 cdi dtec and got 44.4. Dont bother flaming me with arguments about ride and build quality as the C-RV being the EX is just as well equipped and as comfortable and just as well, if not better built.
Its time JLR admitted that the Evoque is a sub 35mpg vehicle and stopped hyping it as the 'most economical' car they have ever made.
TCM upgrade? What's this all about then?