+- babyRR.com - The Range Rover Evoque Forum (https://babyrr.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Range Rover Evoque Discussions (/Forum-Range-Rover-Evoque-Discussions)
+--- Forum: General (/Forum-General)
+--- Thread: Real world mpg (/Thread-Real-world-mpg)
RE: Real world mpg - Mag1c_dragon - 09-12-2011 06:06pm
(09-12-2011 05:18pm)ytshome Wrote: Thanks for that. Just one thing further, did you reset the trip computer? because with me I was also underwhelmed when I got home from my first 100 mile trip from the dealer but then realised that as I hadn't reset it I was showing the average, which included the dealerships use of systems presumably whilst running the engine for some time. Cheers YT
Oh no I didn't actually, not before I set off! Will reset it next time I am doing a decent run on the motorway
RE: Real world mpg - Grah - 09-12-2011 10:22pm
SD4 Auto, 400 miles in and my computer indicated mpg is 29 - not brilliant. That's for mixed town/open road/motorway in equal proportions so similar to the official combined cycle.
Let's hope it improves!
RE: Real world mpg - The Valeter - 09-12-2011 11:11pm
(09-12-2011 09:30am)THEMACS Wrote: These figures are Terrible
They aren't even in the same ballpark!!
We all know that manufacturers figures are high, but this is ridiculous. A Manual SD4 doing general driving should be at least 40mpg, which is 10mpg less than quoted!
I Think LR have some Serious explaining to do.
I remember Autocar's In depth road test of an Auto SD4 against its competitors, and it was Awful on fuel economy and was under 30mpg!!! Looks like this is the true figures... Oh Dear
I can't understand why the Evoque is so poor. Surely these figures can't be correct as when the Freelander SD4 was launched a year ago there were members on the FL2 forum that bought the SD4 Auto & were getting far better consumption than me in my TD4 manual. Some were in the 40+ MPG area, I would say there must be a software issue & the Evoque must be more aerodynamic than the FL2
:If these figures are here to stay then there will be a March the 1st build slot/delivery date up for sale!!
RE: Real world mpg - gw76 - 09-12-2011 11:16pm
Yes, my biggest disappointment is the fuel consumption (I know they over egg it on the handbook figures) but this is just taking the mickey. Cant really see a sengine/gearbox oftware update helping significantly (unless its just the calculating thats wrong)
We will need to keep a close eye on this one....
Si4 Dynamic 5 door
RE: Real world mpg - The Valeter - 09-12-2011 11:17pm
(09-12-2011 11:16pm)gw76 Wrote: Yes, my biggest disappointment is the fuel consumption (I know they over egg it on the handbook figures) but this is just taking the mickey. Cant really see a sengine/gearbox oftware update helping significantly (unless its just the calculating thats wrong)
We will need to keep a close eye on this one....
Si4 Dynamic 5 door
What are you getting in MPG?
RE: Real world mpg - LDT - 09-12-2011 11:19pm
I think that if LR cannot provide a reasonable explanation and some assurances, others will be cancelling orders too.
Perhaps Nick @ LR could take this issue up on our behalf? Surely a formal response is justified given the discrepancies. Nick - Are you able to assist please?
RE: Real world mpg - berlin2011 - 09-12-2011 11:30pm
Been browsing the web a little for fuel consumption stats on the 2.0l Ecoboost engine that's in the Si4
LR's UK website states consumption as
Urban - 23.7mpg
Extra Urban - 40.9mpg
Combined - 32.5mpg
LR's US website does not state consumption, but from several articles do (Motortrend etc. - all numbers converted to Imperial mpg to be comparable)
Urban - 22.9mpg
Extra Urban - 33.6mpg
Combined - 28.4mpg
This is a good 4.1mpg less on the combined cycle (±13%) and when compared to other applications of this engine seems like a far more reasonable set of numbers
Ford Explorer (US consumption converted to Imperial mpg so directly comparable)
Urban - 24.02mpg
Extra Urban - 33.6mpg
Combined - 27.6mpg
Ford Edge (US consumption converted to Imperial mpg so directly comparable)
Urban - 25.22mpg
Extra Urban - 36.03mpg
Combined - 28.8mpg
I realize that the UK numbers is based on the ECE and EUDC tests while the US numbers are based on the EPA tests but I think as a guide the US numbers (and tests) seem far more realistic as a basis to use - then of course the 10% to 15% variance based on driving style and suddenly we get to the numbers myself and others have been quoting here.
So while LR may well be accurate in what they state as consumption figures they are based on a set of test that seem to be quite out of touch with the real world driving habits / experience of the members on this forum.
RE: Real world mpg - gw76 - 09-12-2011 11:39pm
(09-12-2011 11:17pm)The Valeter Wrote: What are you getting in MPG?last urban trip 19mpg, average 22 mpg
RE: Real world mpg - cjfp - 09-12-2011 11:43pm
rather than use the internal computer, has anyone done a 'fill up, drive, refill - how much have I used' calculation? Could it be something as simple as poor software?
RE: Real world mpg - The Valeter - 09-12-2011 11:54pm
(09-12-2011 11:43pm)cjfp Wrote: rather than use the internal computer, has anyone done a 'fill up, drive, refill - how much have I used' calculation? Could it be something as simple as poor software?
I did this in the Summer in my MG Montego (no trip computer on this one!) Bearing in mind that this 2.0 litre engine came into production in 1984 & is obviously nowhere near as modern as the Evoque engine I was achieving in the region of 35 MPG on a run & these were recorded when the engine was still in need of some further tuning!! Not too good really for the Evoque in comparison....