(23-02-2012 11:18pm)ytshome Wrote:  For me this particular thread isn't necessarily about the moaning that occurs here but the insight that it gives each of us and indeed those who don't have their car yet as to what real life driving will mean at the pumps. Personally I like to see how others are doing.

However, before we ridicule people for complaining about poor mpg figures when they are just a drip in the ocean of expenses associated with car ownership, just remember that future residual depend on lots of factors and the perception of the car being a big under-performer in the mpg stakes can affect its desireability and therefore it's residuals.

(22-02-2012 11:52am)leveller Wrote:  You could dismiss the whole thread as silly people whining after buying a luxury permanent 4x4, and if they couldn't financially afford the MPG then they shouldn't have bought it. But I think you've missed the point, the problem is that the fuel economy seems to be glaringly wrong for lots of people and they may feel misled.

I can afford the fuel, but if I see a glaringly wrong fuel economy in my Evoque after I've collected it - don't think I won't be moaning in this thread as well - because I sure will. I hate being 'misled'. If people have been misled, which is it going to be - Land Rover had no idea and were ignorant of the fuel economy? Really?! Or the only other option.

(25-02-2012 08:45pm)j7david Wrote:  A few figures over my first 2000 miles for anyone who's interested:

(26-02-2012 12:50am)PhilSkill Wrote:  I have to say i'm dubious on the better mpg from dynamic mode, tried it a bit after you said Tim but didnt see any difference, hardly an exhaustive test, plus I dont have sport setting in the manual, just how my right foot works! I imagine sport mode is engine mapping so could have an effect, just you wouldnt expect it to be better mpg.