Evoque Owners Club banner

21 - 40 of 100 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
226 Posts
Perhaps all the UK posters who are complaining about the mileage should instead blame the government who publishes mileage expectations that are based on tests not related to the real world. In the US, we had that problem for years until recently when they revised the system to reflect more realistic figures (that are still not perfect, but closer to the real world.)

And THEN there are vehicles like the Evoque that are so much fun to give them a kick, like riding a frisky horse and giving it a kick with your spurs. I can GUARANTEE that no government rating system takes this kind ofbehavior into account in rating mileage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
154 Posts
published fuel economy figures, with all but a very few manafacturers, need to be taken with a pinch of salt.
the testing criteria is the issue not the individual manafacturer. all manafacturers do their very best ( and who can blame them) to acheive the best possible figures in those tests without cheating the system. the comparative criteria is the only useful aspect of them. expecting to achieve figures in everyday driving anywhere near those actually achieved for the carin a flawed process is unrealistic. at present the motoring press is full of negative comment on real world fuel consumption figures,irrespective of make. i reiterate my view don't buy a performance 4X4 if you want economy ! just enjoy the car and drive more economically if it is an issue
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
219 Posts
Bodlyfunctions said:
Hi ED209, What kind of driving are you doing? 35 does seem a bit low. I an averaging 40 doing a good mix of roads and drives. Have 4k on the dial now, so maybe that's why? Aircon makes about 2mpg difference too!



Mainly my 18 mile each way commute to work, mostly in light traffic on a roads with a few short journeys.



Went to the lake district last weekend, about 80 miles each way, still averaged 35mpg.



This is without aircon on too as its still like winter up here!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
219 Posts
steve64 said:
maybe i'm different from some, but who on earth buys a 4X4 with economy in mind. if you want to get good economy there are many euroboxes and pseudo 4X4's to choose from. I'll forgive all just to have a car that I love rather than "transport"

Part of the reason i bought the car was the econmy that was advertised.



Unfortunatley i do not have bottomless pockets like some seem to have on here and running costs are a consideration for me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
226 Posts
ED209 said:
Part of the reason i bought the car was the econmy that was advertised.

Must have been a small "part" to cough up the difference between a 50 MPG rice burner and an Evoque.



Although I can understand that if there was another party involved and the fuel economy was the "decider" for her. There I go again getting sexist!
I'll go stand in the corner for 15 minutes.


Hey, I'm just kidding.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
102 Posts
I feel a bit unfair on some buyers Beckfordboy. Why shouldn't people be able to buy into a 'bit of luxury' if they feel they have worked hard and deserve it? Don't really feel that the gripe is with the actual MPG, more with theattainable MPG as declared by LR.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
219 Posts
beckfordboy said:
Why are people complaining about the MPG? if we can't afford to run top end 4x4s DON'T buy them.

What a terrible elitist attitude to have.



I wouldnt really class the evoque as a top end 4x4 either.



I can afford to run it easily, i have no finance on the car, it's all mine however if the combined figure for fuel economy was 30mpg I wouldnt have bought it, the combined figure was 49.6 and i would expect to get within about 10% of this. At the minute i struggle to get within 30% of the published figures.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
226 Posts
Snow Leopard said:
Don't really feel that the gripe is with the actual MPG, more with theattainable MPG as declared by LR.

Isn't the forecast MPG determined by the GOVERNMENT? That's the way it is in the US. IF the UK allows the manufacturers to declare the mileage rating, isn't that like letting the fox in the chicken coop?


Are RR products the ONLY vehicles that don't come close to their City/Highway mileage rating???


I don't think so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,206 Posts
I didn't want to weigh in on this one, but I do see both sides of the argument:



ED209 said:
Part of the reason i bought the car was the econmy that was advertised.


beckfordboy said:
Why are people complaining about the MPG? if we can't afford to run top end 4x4s DON'T buy them.


I agree with ED209, that the stated fuel consumption is a serious consideration whenbuying a car, and I can see how you feel that you haven't received what was advertised.



But then I also agree with BeckfordBoy, in that if you buy an SUV, fuel consumption considerations tend to be a lower priority. So, if you're one of those people who prefer good MPG, then perhaps you shouldn't be buying an SUV.



ED - the way I see it, you've got two choices.

1 - sell your car if the 30 MPG is too high for you

2 - accept your 30 MPG enjoy your car

If you don't accept the 30 MPG, then you'll never truly enjoy the Evoque, and you'll forever be complaining about its fuel economy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
219 Posts
I can live with the fuel economy, I have generally always had hot hatches and 30 to 35 mpg is all i have ever known.
I see it more as a minor irritation than a reason to sell the car.

I just believe that when you buy something wheter a car or anything else it should do what it says on the tin! The evoque doesnt do that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
154 Posts
nor do any other cars. take a look at the Prius with figures quoted in the 70's but in the "real world" people struggling to get 50mpg. the list is endless. the only purpose of the figures is to give what they are designed to do and give a comparative figure using the same criteria as other manafacturers using the same test conditions
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,206 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
219 Posts
steve64 said:
nor do any other cars. take a look at the Prius with figures quoted in the 70's but in the "real world" people struggling to get 50mpg. the list is endless. the only purpose of the figures is to give what they are designed to do and give a comparative figure using the same criteria as other manafacturers using the same test conditions
really?

I had 2 honda civic type r'f where i matched the combined economy figures exactly!

All my other cars have been within 10% of the combined figures and in the case of my vx220 they were actually better!

The evoque struggles to get within 30% of the figures, not really the norm is it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
141 Posts
I agree with ED209 again.
My last 3 cars , all BMW's have been within 10% of the published figures.
The new X3 does 43+ MPG so you can buy an SUV for fuel economy!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
161 Posts
ED209 said:
beckfordboy said:
Why are people complaining about the MPG? if we can't afford to run top end 4x4s DON'T buy them.

What a terrible elitist attitude to have.



I wouldnt really class the evoque as a top end 4x4 either.



I can afford to run it easily, i have no finance on the car, it's all mine however if the combined figure for fuel economy was 30mpg I wouldnt have bought it, the combined figure was 49.6 and i would expect to get within about 10% of this. At the minute i struggle to get within 30% of the published figures.
I couldn't careless how you funded your car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
219 Posts
beckfordboy said:
ED209 said:
beckfordboy said:
Why are people complaining about the MPG? if we can't afford to run top end 4x4s DON'T buy them.

What a terrible elitist attitude to have.



I wouldnt really class the evoque as a top end 4x4 either.



I can afford to run it easily, i have no finance on the car, it's all mine however if the combined figure for fuel economy was 30mpg I wouldnt have bought it, the combined figure was 49.6 and i would expect to get within about 10% of this. At the minute i struggle to get within 30% of the published figures.

I couldn't careless how you funded your car.

But you clearly do as you said that we shouldnt buy them if we cant afford to run them. To be fair your attitude stinks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
226 Posts
After all is said and done, doesn't it really come down to what your governing body rates a particular vehicle at as far as fuel economy? In the US where we've revised our EPA mileage estimates to reflect more REAL world expectations, my 2.0T gas Evoque is rated at 28 MPG highway and 20 city.

Most of the 2000 miles I've put on it have been around town and my running mileage is 21 MPG. While I enjoy giving it a brief KICK occasionally, most of the time I treat the gas pedal as if it were a fresh egg.


The few brief times I've had it on the highway, I've seen 27-28 MPG on the trip computer. Toward the end of June, I'm taking it on a 600+ mile road trip and then I will have an accurate reading of highway mileage.


Bare in mind for UK readers who are not aware of our gallons, here they are only 4 quarts. I know an imperial gallon is bigger, but I'm not sure exactly how much.


RR must sell a few of these 2.0T engines in the UK. How does the fuel rating there compare with our 20/28 figures?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
154 Posts
to conclude for me. isn't it just sad to spend £30 - £45k on a new car and carp on about having to buy a few gallons a year more than you hoped for. mountains and molehills springs to mind
 
21 - 40 of 100 Posts
Top