Discovery Sport Forum banner
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
567 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
126 Posts
Well l get the same as my old Freelander , 35.6 most of the time, only difference is Freelander was manual and DS is Auto, l think there is a lot of hope if people think the new engine will give what it says, remember when LR test, nothing is on and belts are removed so not a real mpg fig by a real custormer.
tony
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
288 Posts
90 miles isn't really a long journey and the tester doesn't say what type of roads they were using.
I'd bet that when the engines run-in and on a longer run and on motorways or fast A roads you'd get something approaching 50 mpg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
172 Posts
The old 2.2 was criticised for the fuel figures being ridiculous compared to real world mileage. I don' think most people would have had a problem with the mpg they were actually getting, they had a problem that the real world mpg was worlds away from the quoted mpg figures.

I was expecting LR to have tried to address this with the Ingenium engine and that the real world MPG would be only a reasonable amount below the quoted figures.

I get just over 60% of the quoted figure in my 2.2 Evoque. Hoping for nearer 80% with the Ingenium engine, but expecting to be disappointed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
270 Posts
smayo said:
The old 2.2 was criticised for the fuel figures being ridiculous compared to real world mileage. I don' think most people would have had a problem with the mpg they were actually getting, they had a problem that the real world mpg was worlds away from the quoted mpg figures.

I was expecting LR to have tried to address this with the Ingenium engine and that the real world MPG would be only a reasonable amount below the quoted figures.

I get just over 60% of the quoted figure in my 2.2 Evoque. Hoping for nearer 80% with the Ingenium engine, but expecting to be disappointed.
I think the real problem is that there is a rigid set of procedures used for testing fuel economy which means manufacturers can manipulate their vehicles to fit the test. Personally my real world urban figures (on the 2.2) are approximately 50% worse than the advertised "urban" cycle, even in Eco mode, although highway driving is about right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
It's normal, the real figures are never the tested ones. The procedures are not realistic of a normal car user.
that's said, there is good news here :
- the new engines eat less gazoline
- the new engine is more refined, silent and is even more performant (one second less, in the 0 to 60 miles test)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
172 Posts
My point was that anyone who has done a bit of research into 'claimed' mpg figures knows that the tests are done in lab perfect conditions and the cars are tuned to give the best figures from the test, and not the best figures in real world driving and that therefore you can never hope to reach the mythical manufacturers 'claimed' figures.

What you do expect though is somewhere in the ballpark, say about 80% of the claimed figures.
The old 2.2 figures though were nowhere near that, but most other manufacturers are. A quick look at Honest John will show that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
404 Posts
The whole point of the government test is so that each make and model of car can be tested and compared with the emission standard and against other cars tested under exactly the same conditions. You cannot determine a truly comparable fuel economy from car to car on real roads due to temperature, weather, traffic, driver behaviour, motorway vs, town, etc. as well as variations in the production cars (compression ratio tolerances, fuelling maps, injector variations, etc.).

Your are all right that most will not match the government figure but the % is a good guide. The test figures say DS is more economical than Freelander 2 and so for any given owner, they will see a similar improvement over what they get with their own driving style and journey type. I am hoping that will be the case for me,; I've averaged 40.6 mpg with a 2.2 manual in nearly 58,000 miles (average of trip meter readings over the same time is 42.5.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
562 Posts
I just spent a bit of time in the 180PS Ingenium diesel fitted in the XE. I can say that the car is very quiet at idle, just a ticking, as opposed to a clacketing of the 2.2. On the inside you wouldn't know it was a diesel, from the exterior it sounds like one! My 2.2D sounds much more meaty (good thing). The XE had been used on a Jaguar drive day and the trip computer showed Avg. 34mpg. So probably on longer runs it will climb to the higher 30's, but no different to what my DS has averaged over the past 6 months.

Overal the XE suited the 180PS 2.0D, auto gearbox felt much better than on my DS, be very interesting how this transitions over to the DS.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
567 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
smayo said:
What you do expect though is somewhere in the ballpark, say about 80% of the claimed figures.
The old 2.2 figures though were nowhere near that, but most other manufacturers are. A quick look at Honest John will show that.
Honest John "real MPG" figures for the Jag XE 2.0d 180PS (i.e. equivalent engine) are 53.5 / 67.3 mpg = 79%, so if you apply same logic to quoted DS ingenium 180PS figures you would get 53.3 * 79% = 42.1 mpg ... seems not a bad punt until we really find out...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
829 Posts
Triple7 said:
I just spent a bit of time in the 180PS Ingenium diesel fitted in the XE. I can say that the car is very quiet at idle, just a ticking, as opposed to a clacketing of the 2.2. On the inside you wouldn't know it was a diesel, from the exterior it sounds like one! My 2.2D sounds much more meaty (good thing). The XE had been used on a Jaguar drive day and the trip computer showed Avg. 34mpg. So probably on longer runs it will climb to the higher 30's, but no different to what my DS has averaged over the past 6 months.

Overal the XE suited the 180PS 2.0D, auto gearbox felt much better than on my DS, be very interesting how this transitions over to the DS.
The Jaguar XE uses a better calibrated auto with 8 speeds
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
796 Posts
I've had my 2.2 chipped and I am now getting 39 mpg dodging about and between 45 and 49 on a motorway drive
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
149 Posts
My average in my current remapped BMW X1 2wd is around 45, I can get well over 60 on a long motorway run. With 199bhp it goes like a stabbed rat when I want it to as well (not very often, honest officer!!!) I would be happy with any average in the mid to high 30's from the ingenium when it arrives...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
567 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
PaulTheWall said:
I've had my 2.2 chipped and I am now getting 39 mpg dodging about and between 45 and 49 on a motorway drive
You had it chipped for better fuel economy? I thought normally that went the other way... I currently have a Scooby and when I got it the dealer asked if I wanted the performance chipping for more BHP, Torques, 0-60 etc but it killed the mpg.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
PaulTheWall wrote:
I've had my 2.2 chipped and I am now getting 39 mpg dodging about and between 45 and 49 on a motorway drive

Paul who did you use to chip your DS
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
Powerdoc said:
Gordon said:
After 150 miles, I'm averaging 40 mpg with a 2.0D Ingenium Auto.
What is your typical use : city, normal road, motorway ?
So far, it's been 3 50 mile commutes - 30 miles free flowing traffic at 70 mph on cruise, then 15 miles of stop/start traffic on motorways and dual carriageways, then 5 miles urban.
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top