Just heard this on the news about cars failing the emissions (although ok in Lab tests).
Have a browse of this list, not sure which Freelander or engine but it's just a little bit over the limit!
http://www.itv.com/news/2016-04-21/emissio...-car-rank/

I'm not really bothered like
Euro 5 standard-tested cars (with approximate results - limit 180 mg/km):

Citroen C4 - 500mg/km
Ford Mondeo - 580
Honda CRV - 800
Hyundai i30 - 980
Hyundai iX35 - 850
Hyundai Santa Fe - 1300
Kia Sportage - 1000
Land Rover Freelander -1150
Mercedes E250 - 1200
Nissan Qashqai 1.5 - 1425
Nissan Qashqai 1.6 -1440
Peugeot 208 - 600
Range Rover Sport - 1250
Range Rover Sport -1700
Skoda Octavia - 650
Vauxhall Astra -1200
Vauxhall Corsa - 1100
Vauxhall Insignia - 1900
Volvo V40 - 1550

Biased reporting ... Range Rover Sport, over the limit, it's less than a Vauxhall Insignia

Everyone knows it's all nonsense, probably some other news was buried by the story.

I love how they pick out the RRS (show a picture of an Evoque) and make a point of saying it's well over yet the Insignia is higher still

I'll stick with my lean, mean and green Discovery  21MY Defender 90 S 3.0 D200

The trouble is, none of this is actually news. We all know that the published economy and emission figures are totally unachievable, but it's a standard test and allows for comparison. That people are throwing up their hands in horror that they only get 2MPG less than the published figure is laughable. As the old saying goes "If you have to ask the price, you can't afford it."

Does anybody actually buy a car based on the emission figures? I am more interested that the car does what I want it to do. Some arbitary figures that bear no relationship to real life driving are way down my list of priorities when choosing a car. Remember there are never problems, just new challenges

It is a big deal for company car buyers, as it affect the amount of company car tax they pay

For a private individual, I expect they don't give a flying

I've never checked the emissions figures for any car I've bought, as Mikey says, I couldn't give a flying

I too thought it interesting, that considering the Insignia is probably a more popular car than a RRS (well, I would guess so?) that they didn't mention it being the highest!

Bit like the Manufacturers MPG figures, I wish my FL2 returned 42 average!!

Was that on a 50 mile downhill stretch?

That's pants

My 11MY SD4 Auto

Click image to enlarge

I didn't think there was a downhill stretch long enough for that

The manufacturers can hardly be blamed for building cars to pass a test procedure that is flawed! How do we know that the "real world" test is any more reliable?!

All this shows is the people that set the test procedure don't know what they are doing

Steven.T wrote:

Was that on a 50 mile downhill stretch?

60 mile run from Dundee-Edinburgh

j77 wrote:

That's pants

My 11MY SD4 Auto
101.2 mpg

Pah! I have used 3 gallons of petrol in my bmw i3 range extender over 4200 miles. I make that 1400mpg!

Mikey wrote:

Steven.T wrote:

Was that on a 50 mile downhill stretch?

60 mile run from Dundee-Edinburgh