+- 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: MPG... What's the problem? (/Thread-MPG-What-s-the-problem)
MPG... What's the problem? - Jai - 14-01-2013 04:51pm
Basically you've highlighted the overall poor mpg on this engine
RE: MPG... What's the problem? - speary - 15-01-2013 09:42am
(12-01-2013 08:50pm)jdiamond Wrote: We picked up our Evoque today (Dymanic Diesel Coupe Automatic) and I was very hopefully concerning fuel efficiency due to the forums I had read and people stating they were getting 40mpg plus.If taken over a few thousand miles I dont think anybody is really getting 43mpg. I have averaged 36mpg over 12,000 miles and seen 47mpg on a quite 60mph motorway run. Dissapointing? Yes, but 5 mpg better than my last Audi 1.8T Petrol
I have a BMW 5 series (520) diesel and I always do my best to get the most out of my car and often get about 44 mpg. I thought that there would be no problem something similar out of the Evoque as the manufacturers figures for both are pretty similar and I am a careful driver. Now I know that it is early days - only driven 200 miles - and you should expect a couple of mpg increase after a thousand miles or so but I cannot tell you how disappointed I am to only get 33mpg on a journey of mixed roads but with light traffic. I bought this car for a few reasons of which fuel economy and 4 wheel drive were a must. I am getting rid of my wife's Mercedes because her CLK 220 only does about 33 mpg (diesel, automatic) and I wanted her to have something better.
I have to ask, how are people on this forum getting 43 mpg - I cannot see how it can be done unless you drive on a motorway, downhill!
Just for interest. My trip to work is 17 miles of A road and Motorway, with an elevation drop of 500ft from home to work and heavier traffic from work to home. MPG home to work 42, MPG work to home 33
RE: MPG... What's the problem? - PhilSkill - 15-01-2013 10:58am
(15-01-2013 09:42am)speary Wrote: If taken over a few thousand miles I dont think anybody is really getting 43mpg. I have averaged 36mpg over 12,000 miles and seen 47mpg on a quite 60mph motorway run. Dissapointing? Yes, but 5 mpg better than my last Audi 1.8T Petrol
Just for interest. My trip to work is 17 miles of A road and Motorway, with an elevation drop of 500ft from home to work and heavier traffic from work to home. MPG home to work 42, MPG work to home 33
I agree entirely speary! Just look at my Fuelly figures... Better than previous petrol car, I can hit 40's if conditions bang on perfect and speed kept down, Hills drink the fuel as it's quite heavy to lug it's pretty arxe up.
35-36mpg is where it's at.
RE: MPG... What's the problem? - IvorRedOne - 15-01-2013 10:52pm
Having had a Volvo 850 TDI 2.5, 5cyl for 15 years and had the pleasure of on average 48 MPG, My Evoque SD4 Sickens me. I average 33 MPG doing the same circuit I did with the Volvo. Both vehicles weigh around the same as each other. Volvo chipped/remapped at 200 BHP. 89k miles on clock when I sold it. Never had a thing wrong with it apart from changing the battery twice. Still on its original exhaust and not a spot of rust anywhere. Old Engine technology 1990's versus 2012. Wish I'd never sold her. As much as I love to drive this Evoque and Love the way it handles along with the style of the vehicle I feel Bitter about the sales pitch given about the fuel economy as it was this that swayed me away from Volvo.
A couple of photos i'd like to share with you all.
![[Image: p42614441600x1200.jpg]](http://imageshack.us/a/img834/6859/p42614441600x1200.jpg)
![[Image: dsc09821600x1200.jpg]](http://imageshack.us/a/img839/7280/dsc09821600x1200.jpg)
![[Image: dsc09731600x1200.jpg]](http://imageshack.us/a/img824/1033/dsc09731600x1200.jpg)
![[Image: p73001321600x1200.jpg]](http://imageshack.us/a/img32/4769/p73001321600x1200.jpg)
![[Image: p42614461600x1200.jpg]](http://imageshack.us/a/img833/2641/p42614461600x1200.jpg)
RE: MPG... What's the problem? - PhilSkill - 15-01-2013 11:27pm
Looks immaculate
, one thing it doesn't have is a DPF, If you watch your average MPG on the trip, you can tell when it regenerates cause the average tumbles... Eco Madness.
RE: MPG... What's the problem? - jdiamond - 17-01-2013 12:03am
(15-01-2013 10:58am)PhilSkill Wrote: I agree entirely speary! Just look at my Fuelly figures... Better than previous petrol car, I can hit 40's if conditions bang on perfect and speed kept down, Hills drink the fuel as it's quite heavy to lug it's pretty arxe up.
35-36mpg is where it's at.
Best we have done so far is 35.6 mpg on a 150 mile journey on mostly motorway from the lake district to Macclesfield.
RE: MPG... What's the problem? - Bodlyfunctions - 17-01-2013 08:33am
It is very strange how so many people are getting such a varied MPG. I have done over 18,500 miles in my Td4 manual since the end of march12 and have averaged over 38mpg. On regular trips to London from Yorkshire I often see 41-42mpg on the screen and when I check manually it is never more than 0.1 out.
It all comes down to driving style and when and where you drive.
I cover all types of driving (commute, town, country and motorway) and do over 28,000 miles a year.
I used to average 45-47mpg from my BMW 520 but given the weight and 4WD of the evoque, I am pretty happy at what I currently get.
RE: MPG... What's the problem? - speary - 17-01-2013 09:32am
A few people have mentioned the weight of the Evoque as being part of the cause of bad fuel consumption compared to other cars. In the example above and the BMW 520, the BMW weighs approx 1695 Kg and the Evoque is approx 1595 Kg. In comparison to most modern cars the Evoque is not a heavy car.
RE: MPG... What's the problem? - paisan - 17-01-2013 09:57am
Over 16000 miles now ( TD4 , manual ) and would say average is around 38 mpg , mostly motorway driving , which pretty much matches my Freelander 1's. Have seen occasioanlly 42 mpg but only driving a distance ( London to Northants) and then only at 50 or 55 mph and cruise control .
So , as we all know improved economy = foot off accelerator and below 60 mph . Yes am mildly miffed that economy is not close to 50 mpg but realistically I expected Manufacturers figures to be "generous". Not by so much mind.
If you look up the actual test that the figures are calculated ,from its a pathetic distance and nothing like reality.
Official fuel figures are obtained from a series of tests known as the New European Driving Cycle (NEDC).
WHAT THE NEDC TEST INVOLVES
• Conducted in a laboratory at 20-30 deg C on a flat rolling road
• No vehicle pre-warming allowed
• An electrical machine simulates wind resistance and vehicle inertia
• Air-conditioning compressor, fan, lights, radio and other electrical equipment switched off
• The urban test involves accelerating and slowing down several times, steady speeds and engine idling. It covers 2.5 miles at an average speed of 9mph and a maximum of 31mph
• The extra-urban test involves 50 per cent steady-speed driving plus some acceleration and slowing down and engine idling. It covers 4.3 miles at an average speed of 39mph and a maximum of 75mph
• The official combined figure is an average resulting from the urban and extra-urban tests, weighted by the distances covered.
RE: MPG... What's the problem? - PhilSkill - 17-01-2013 10:03am
(17-01-2013 09:32am)speary Wrote: A few people have mentioned the weight of the Evoque as being part of the cause of bad fuel consumption compared to other cars. In the example above and the BMW 520, the BMW weighs approx 1695 Kg and the Evoque is approx 1595 Kg. In comparison to most modern cars the Evoque is not a heavy car.
Mine weighs 1850Kg according to the DVLA doc, but no idea how accurate that is...
Of course mine includes the weight of the Panoramic roof and Electric Tailgate.