+- 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 - ChuckieB - 02-01-2012 10:15am
I wasn't expecting miracles but can't say I am not going to be disappointed if I don't clear 35mpg+ on a diesel manual. It's my first venture into diesel and, combined with a lower emissions figure, there was certainly the expectation that the fuel consumption would be at least have been some positive aspect that would help justify this purchase.
By all accounts, it seems such is now not the case so yes, it will take undoubtedly take the gloss off things.
RE: Real world mpg - Mag1c_dragon - 02-01-2012 10:53am
Had mine almost a month now, 1500 miles on the clock, long trip up to Scotland plus a mixture of town driving. I am achieving 29.3 (which is better than it was!) so it does seem to be improving in time
I actually wish I bought Petrol now. If I am going to get low mpg I would rather have a bit more bite in the car!
I still love it though - just glad that we didn't buy this for doing lots of miles!
RE: Real world mpg - Straydox - 02-01-2012 11:02am
It will be interesting to see if LR pick up on this topic. The fact that the real world fuel consumption figures are somewhat outside the generally 10-15% tolerance must mean that the Co2 figures are also way too low.
A higher Co2 figure will adversely affect sales especially into the crucial fleet sector - I expect we will see LR on the task and revised engine maps will follow - it is too big an issue to ignore.
RE: Real world mpg - Gthornton - 02-01-2012 11:05am
Totally agree. Regardless of cost, affordability etc etc its is more than reasonable to expect what you are sold to achieve what the manufacturer claims.
(01-01-2012 09:18pm)Dave_T Wrote: To all those who say stop moaning, you bought a Range Rover so put up with it.
No.
I won't.
It's supposed to do 49.6mpg combined, so it's reasonable to expect it to do so. it is one of the factors that led to this choice of car over say, any other £30-40k 'exec' car.
30% off the mark is not good enough.
Now then, constructively, does anyone have any evidence that landrover claimed that the car would achieve any particular mpg figure?
RE: Real world mpg - The Valeter - 02-01-2012 11:58am
(02-01-2012 07:29am)BMW86 Wrote: My guess for even poorer consumption than the Freelander 2 is that it feels a lot smaller, lighter and more nimble so drivers are probably putting their foot down a bit more and having more fun. I can't think of any other logical explanation.
Yes, you are probably right on that point! It is a car that makes you want to drive it with a more spirited right foot.
The problem is that many will have bought an Evoque because they wanted a Premium product with better consumption as stated by the manufacturer & will be dissapointed.
I don't mind or rather I can live with rubbish fuel consumption - In a V8 but am not looking forward to poor consumption in either a diesel or even the 4 cylinder petrol.
RE: Real world mpg - lrdaft - 02-01-2012 04:12pm
I have had both petrol and diesel v8's in various range rovers over the past few years, I just wanted to be sensible and bought with my head ,if this mpg does not improve I will sell it and get a supercharged at least the fuel is 10 p a litre cheaper
RE: Real world mpg - stevehill - 02-01-2012 04:27pm
(22-10-2011 05:19pm)Spiderman Wrote: On our short journeys we have averaged only 27.2mpg in our SD4 according to the onboard display. This is indicative to my wife's FL2 with the same engine which over the same type of journeys achieves 26.9mpg...the FFRR 5.0 Supercharged that I'm testing states its ave is 19mpg, a mix of short & long runs has shown it to achieve an 14.1mpg ave - a damn sight better than my 4.2S/C which is only achieving 11.8mpg.
Knowing the 'mpg test' that all car manufacturers use I think if you are achieving mid 30's mpg in a SD4 engine in real life you are doing exceptionally well, as the official compliancy test used is ridiculous and bears no resemblance to how we actually use our vehicles on a daily basis, given we all drive differently and on different routes/journeys...
exactly the same as mine 27.2
RE: Real world mpg - lngrn36 - 02-01-2012 04:43pm
(02-01-2012 01:43am)alanet Wrote: Ingrn, are you stating your mpg in US gallons? That would mean that you are doing 24 mpg (imperial). Most si4 users seem to be getting what they were expecting...
U.S. gallons
But I guess what I'm trying to ask. Is there a governing body that verifies fuel mileage? Or are you at the mercy of the manufacturer?
RE: Real world mpg - Dave_T - 02-01-2012 05:27pm
(02-01-2012 04:43pm)lngrn36 Wrote: U.S. gallons
But I guess what I'm trying to ask. Is there a governing body that verifies fuel mileage? Or are you at the mercy of the manufacturer?
Quite the opposite. it's the 'governing body' that generates the 'offical figure' not Landrover. If it was Landrover making the claim, then we have the protection of the Sale of Goods act.
RE: Real world mpg - Straydox - 02-01-2012 05:46pm
(02-01-2012 05:27pm)Dave_T Wrote: Quite the opposite. it's the 'governing body' that generates the 'offical figure' not Landrover. If it was Landrover making the claim, then we have the protection of the Sale of Goods act.
In that case as LR puts the fuel consumption figures in their official price list and the buyer makes a purchase decision in good faith based on LR provided information I would have thought any attempt to wriggle free of the implied obligation to deliver said capability would be on rather dodgy ground??
Any legal beagles here?