Hey there,

Not sure that I'm keen on the smaller turbo powerplant in the new 2013 - test drove one yesterday and although the lag isn't too awful, the non-linearity of acceleration when you giv'er really isn't the best. What I'm curious about is how they come off the line vs a 2012 (or earlier)? Anyone know of anyone dragging these two off the line and the results? (Video would be awesome!) Is the 2013 just all around faster or does it lag for a bit before the turbo fully kicks in and it pulls ahead?

\|/ Jeff \|/

 

Dont know, but I love the power of my 2012. Also no complaints about
fuel mileage average 20 - 21 MPG.

 

Is the turbo an option?

 

There is only one engine option - at least here in Canada - a 4 cylinder 2.0L turbo.

As far as fuel economy goes, I admit to being heavy on the pedals so I routinely run 16L/100km - lots of cold starts in really cold weather and it drops to 25L/100km but on the other hand put it on the highway staying under 110 km/hr (ie keep the rpm below 2000) and it gets 8.5L/100km.

 

I was looking for information like this. I just recently got a 2013 LR2 (also Canada) after having an Evoque previously, and I always got the Evoque down to about 8.2-8.5 on the highway (using 93 octane) but cannot get the LR2 better than 10.5 for some reason. I could easily get 750-800km tank range on the Evoque but barely 600 on the LR2. I checked and their vehicle weights are within 125lbs of each other. The LR2 was completely refurbished at the JLR dealership. I'm thinking it might be the winter gas formulation and will keep watching when the stations switch over to summer gas blends.

 

Lets start with the fuel economy

I wrote this on FREEL2


And for the return trip




Here is the link https://www.freel2.com/forum/topic35826.html



Note: the Evoque initially came with a 6 speed like the LR2 but later Evoque's has a 8 speed or 9 speed.


I really like the 3.2 but the 2.0T can be a good choice as well.

Thanks

Paul
​​​​​​​

 

My Evoque was the first year so still had the 6 speed transmission, the drivetrain should be identical to my 2013 LR2 but the fuel mileage is not, same driving conditions, same location. I faintly remember the winter mileage being poorer so I still suspect that winter-blend gasoline is the issue. Once the summer blends are on the market I'll keep checking the fuel economy on the LR2 as I do every tank Otherwise I can't understand the difference which is quite significant.

 

As for the question about performance

The Turbo has more Torque and more Horsepower (slightly more)

So in a 1/4 mile it is faster

https://autofiles.com/0-60-times/land-rover/lr2/

But I really like how easy it is to drive the 3.2 slow and easy and then if you need it you ask for the extra power.

I enjoy the Torque curve of the 3.2

 

The 3.2 uses a LOW LIFT CAM LOBE and a HIGH LIFT CAM LOBE and when you go above 2,000 RPMs it will likely be in the high lift mode which is also the high consumption mode (More Power requires more fuel)

The Evoque with the 2.0T will consume more if the Turbo is making more boost but it doesn't switch over from low consumption to high consumption like the 3.2.




For the 3.2 you need to stay in the lightly shaded region to minimize fuel consumption



Do a long run at 100 KPH and let us know what you find out.

One last thought

The Thermostat for the 3.2 is a know failure point (without any symptoms except increased fuel consumption)

If you replace it then get an actual LAND ROVER part or VOLVO part


https://www.matthewsvolvosite.com/fo...gmched#p576329

Good luck

Paul

 

The Evoque does appear to get better highway MPG


Highway (Using Soda Pop units)

2013 Evoque 2.0T 8.71 L/100KM

2013 LR2 2.0T 9.80 L/100KM

2008 LR2 3.2 10.69 L/100KM


I think the Evoque has a smaller frontal area and a lower drag coefficient than the LR2

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...e_Rover_Evoque