+- 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 (/Thread-Mpg--7877)
Mpg - Hamlish you' have had tea? - 02-12-2013 08:15pm
Has anyone had a problem with poor mpg? I am getting 32 - 39 (on a motorway run). Does anyone think this is good or bad? My last car was an Audi TT and I regularly got over 50 mpg so I was expecting similar. Range rover have told me that you can not rely at all on the posted figures and they have requested that I note every single journey for the next 6 months which I think is a little ridiculous. Any thoughts?
RE: Mpg - XFullFatTim - 02-12-2013 08:24pm
Welcome to the forum Hamish.
You are wasting your time recording your fuel for LR, if you have an SD4 then you are getting pretty much the same fuel figures as the rest of us who were so disappointed with the fuel cosumption that LR has re-engineered the automatic and drive train for 2014MY with the 9 speed auto on diesels and petrols and clever disengaging 4WD above 22mph on the petrol engine cars, if it's a TD4 or ED4 then it might need looking at by the dealership. How old is the car, is it an auto or manual and have you checked your tyre pressures. It is hopeless comparing an Evoque to a TT, the Evoque is somewhat heavier and less slippery than the TT. FYI most of the motoring magazines are reporting now that the test 3.0 TDv6 Engine Range Rovers and Sports that hey are running get way better mpg than the Evoques they ran - some getting well in excess of 40mpg on a hugely heavier and big car!
RE: Mpg - J77 - 02-12-2013 10:44pm
Land Rover have themselves covered, it says in the brochures that figures may vary in the real world or something like that. Over the year with the Evoque I averaged 30mpg TD4 manual, I've now got the Fl2 TD4 manual and in 6 months of ownership it's averaging 34mpg while not what LR claim it's a bit closer than the Evoque.
RE: Mpg - mark_n - 03-12-2013 05:05am
The official mpg figures are arrived at using a very specific test routine which is intended to mimic real world use but doesn't. The best you can hope for it that it allows comparison between different models. Also, figures for hybrid vehicles are ridiculous as the rules allow a fully charged battery at the start of the run and an empty one at the end so the disappointment factor with these cars is even greater.
The Evoque is a big, heavy, brick-like car and consumption rises rapidly above 50mph as air resistance takes its toll. FWIW, my Si4 is showing 27.6mpg over 3000 miles which is respectably close to the 32.5mpg quoted and I drive the car reasonably hard but with little city driving.
As Tim says, the raft of changes for 2014 are mostly there to improve consumption figures though I would much rather have the 4WD engaged all the time than have to wait for the car to re-engage it when I hit standing water on a motorway at 80mph on a dark night during which time the car has travelled 50 feet or so.
In the end, whether you get 34, 38, 42 mpg pales into insignificance compared to the financing cost or depreciation. It doesn't sound like there is anything wrong with your car and if you ever thought it would give the same figure as your slippery TT, you were ill-informed or else you are ignoring the laws of physics. It will get a bit better as the engine beds in but not a lot.
By the way, if you ever drive with the audio on, the lights on, the aircon on, the wipers on, you are immediately different from the test which gave the results you are trying to match.
RE: Mpg - buckiebabyrr - 03-12-2013 05:15am
I think anything above 25mpg is a bonus especially in a slightly larger than average car, if you are buying a car purely for high mpg then your better of with some crappy small car with an engine designed to save fuel. MPG figures is the last thing i think of when buying a car i just like to know if it looks and drives good.
Paul
RE: Mpg - Stevemac1 - 03-12-2013 07:53am
In the 4000 miles I've done ( town driving) haven't got more than 29mpg out of my SD4. Previous Merc was a smooth 3ltr V6 CDI which over 60000 miles returned 34mpg around town and hit 42 on a long run.
RE: Mpg - KaDargo - 03-12-2013 08:16am
Now on 20,000 miles, and my average is 34.5 (SD4 Auto).
That's about the same as my previous Focus, and I know which I'd rather drive
RE: Mpg - XFullFatTim - 03-12-2013 09:30am
It si possible to get close to the Govt figures but it involves driving like a granny with no ancillaries running, into neutral on downhills and crazy things like that. Best I achieved in just over two years ownership of an SD4 Auto Coupe was 44mpg on the very first long run the day of delivery on the M40, after that it was all downhill fuel consumption wise. Since then as soon as the car finds any sort of incline regardless of speed it gobbles fuel and it's worse if you use the cruise control for uphill motorway work. In 10 round trip in 2 years driving from Scotland to London the best fuel returns I got were always driving round the M42/M40 southwards (basically a gentle downward gradient apart from a couple of major hills and lots of 50mph restrictions around Birmingham on the M6). I also don't buy my cars because they are fuel efficient, but Evqoue was a major disappointment after having owned a 3.6ltr TDv8 FFRR that gave considerably in excess of the government figures all the time and even got near to 40mpg sat at 70mph on the motorway - my 2.2 SD4 struggled to achieve 36mpg in local driving and 42 on the motorway,
RE: Mpg - recordman - 03-12-2013 09:56am
Just done a 1300 mile round trip to the French Alps. 4 adults, rammed with luggage, 85-90mph = 31mpg overall. Not bad.
RE: Mpg - KaDargo - 03-12-2013 01:09pm
The official figure should include 5000 miles urban, 500 miles rural, 5000 mixed (on public roads, with all the stop/start, jams etc)
Then publish figures!
I tried Shell V-Power Nitro Flaming Super Fuel (or whatever they are calling it this week) and there was no benefit in mpg, in fact overall it cost 2 pence per mile more.