+- 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 - gw76 - 15-12-2011 05:15pm
Why certainly better in manual? The auto boxes now are supposed to be better than manual
RE: Real world mpg - forest172 - 15-12-2011 08:19pm
Mines gone down to 26.6 knocking about. Don't even give it beans. My dads is the same too. My focus RS does 23 mpg and I drive that how it should be driven.
RE: Real world mpg - Evo-king - 15-12-2011 09:17pm
The TD4 and SD4 are fitted to other Land Rover models, have we got any owners of those using this forum and if so what consumption are they getting?
Also has anyone else experienced and lowering in consumption figures because of the winter fuel?
RE: Real world mpg - Straydox - 15-12-2011 09:49pm
(15-12-2011 05:15pm)gw76 Wrote: Why certainly better in manual? The auto boxes now are supposed to be better than manual
It depends on the type of auto transmission - those that use hydraulic torque converters (think of it as a fluid filled flyweel that joins the engine to the gearbox tend to be less efficient (power/torque loss) than say the more advanced auto boxes that use an automated multiplate clutch system insted (often better than a manual). Some transmissions - like the DSG/Stronic boxes that Audi/VW/Lambo/Bugatti are amazingly efficient - or can be if the maker desires it that way.
RE: Real world mpg - Mag1c_dragon - 15-12-2011 10:01pm
I have had mine over a week now and only got above 20mpg once - when I was on the motorway
Tootling about town and doing shorts trip I am averaging 15 mpg.I do drive a bit heavy footed at times (accelerating fast off a roundabout), but I do in all the cars I have had - and this is the worst fuel consumption I have experienced! Not letting it put me off the car and will continue to enjoy it, but we have decided to keep our C Class (6 years old) which achieves near 50 mpg for doing the longer miles journeys. I wasn't expecting the Evoque to achieve the advertised figures, but I did expect the mpg to be in the 30's . . .
RE: Real world mpg - THEMACS - 15-12-2011 10:07pm
(15-12-2011 10:01pm)Mag1c_dragon Wrote: I have had mine over a week now and only got above 20mpg once - when I was on the motorway
I do drive a bit heavy footed at times (accelerating fast off a roundabout), but I do in all the cars I have had - and this is the worst fuel consumption I have experienced! Not letting it put me off the car and will continue to enjoy it, but we have decided to keep our C Class (6 years old) which achieves near 50 mpg for doing the longer miles journeys. I wasn't expecting the Evoque to achieve the advertised figures, but I did expect the mpg to be in the 30's . . .
Wow that is Awful consumption, when I read this I assumed you had the Si4!!! yours is way worse than most other peoples who have posted and by comparison theirs seems good!!
RE: Real world mpg - PhilSkill - 15-12-2011 10:21pm
mag1c_dragon
1. You sure it's a diesel
2. Try keeping your foot off the loud pedal, and give it a chance to loosen up.
3. My mpg was appalling in week 1, it will get better... fingers crossed.
RE: Real world mpg - Mag1c_dragon - 15-12-2011 11:02pm
(15-12-2011 10:21pm)PhilSkill Wrote: mag1c_dragon
1. You sure it's a diesel
2. Try keeping your foot off the loud pedal, and give it a chance to loosen up.
3. My mpg was appalling in week 1, it will get better... fingers crossed.
Honestly, I am not ragging it! Just driving it as I normally would, which does mean putting my foot down occasionally. You don't buy a car like this to drive it like Miss Daisy - gotta enjoy it a bit.
I drive my SLK 350 in a similar way (in fact, ALOT more harshly!) and get 25-30mpg.
Hopefully it will loosen up a bit, driving up to Scotland and back again for Christmas, so will get some miles on it!
RE: Real world mpg - Pedalpower - 15-12-2011 11:07pm
(15-12-2011 09:49pm)Straydox Wrote: It depends on the type of auto transmission - those that use hydraulic torque converters (think of it as a fluid filled flyweel that joins the engine to the gearbox tend to be less efficient (power/torque loss) than say the more advanced auto boxes that use an automated multiplate clutch system insted (often better than a manual). Some transmissions - like the DSG/Stronic boxes that Audi/VW/Lambo/Bugatti are amazingly efficient - or can be if the maker desires it that way.
its not just the torque converter losses either, even on the twin clutch systems there are internal losses due to the hydraulic pumps etc used to drive the gear changes and clutches etc. No manufacturer quotes any auto box being better than a manual, because they unfortunately aren't. In fact BMW has just very proudly announced that its new 8 speed auto box for the new 3 series will achieve the same figures as the manual rather than being worse. The only thing a auto box can offer over a manual for economy is shifting at the optimal points in the rev range. Manuals are less lossy, lighter, use less engine power to operate (i.e. non), stop start will not work on a Auto either.... don't by a auto thinking it will use less fuel !, buy it because you think its a nicer drive
RE: Real world mpg - Rehan - 16-12-2011 12:01am
(15-12-2011 11:02pm)Mag1c_dragon Wrote: Honestly, I am not ragging it! Just driving it as I normally would, which does mean putting my foot down occasionally. You don't buy a car like this to drive it like Miss Daisy - gotta enjoy it a bit.
I drive my SLK 350 in a similar way (in fact, ALOT more harshly!) and get 25-30mpg.
Hopefully it will loosen up a bit, driving up to Scotland and back again for Christmas, so will get some miles on it!
Exact same in my sd4!! averaging 23mpg at the moment, pretty awful considering i feel like im driving like miss daisy!
Most of my journeys are short trips and hardly any motorway miles. Was not expecting it to be this bad though.