Junior wrote:

A FULL TANK EACH WAY-Essex to Manchester I think your missus must be detouring to her fancy fella in Scotland

[quote="Andy66"]
In our opinion, our Freelander 2 was not built to a very high standard, the interior was looking very old fashioned now compared to rivals, the interior trim and plastics were not the best quality, the fuel economy even on our TD4_e model was appalling, the road tax increased from £175 last year to £200 this year and our local Land Rover dealer was beyond useless. We are still waiting for a call back from them on a part exchange valuation against a Range Rover Sport we test drove over 3 weeks ago!



I had a TD4e on loan and could achieve over 50 mpg on a run no problem at all and over 700 miles showing on a tank refill.

Quote:

Re: The end of the road

Excellent news

Anyone that fancies a Ford Kuga must have a 'Barbie Doll' fetish, likes 'tacky' things and bought a FL2 for all the wrong reasons.
Kuga is shorter in length, narrower, shorter in height, more cramped inside, less ground clearance, less torque, lower kerbweight and 'blinged' to high heaven.

Mine was bought for a purpose

Fuel consumption, who cares with a LandRover

35mpg on a long run and loads of stone chips, plenty of people like that in the roads, driving too fast, above 75 the mpg drops and stone chips arise from driving too close.

40,000 miles on my SD4 auto, never drops below 37 on motorways and that's thrashing it, get over 40 at 65-70mph. During the recent photography meet in the lakes still did 33.
Very few stone chips and none in the screen, I like the two second rule

Ford Kuga looks OK if your that way inclined, strange how people berate the Freelander and say Ford can do it better, was it not Ford who owned LR at the time the Freelander was designed and it contains many Ford parts

EYorkshire wrote:

Quote:

Re: The end of the road

Kuga is shorter in length, narrower, shorter in height, more cramped inside, less ground clearance, less torque, lower kerbweight and 'blinged' to high heaven.

having just covered 358 miles in a loan FR2 TD4e I was impressed with the MPG.Actually returned 50.8mpg crusing at 65mph.

When i filled the tank it showed a range of 713 miles



& heres the average speed over the journey 53.5mph so wasn't crawling along



poor mPG caused by right foot and stone chips caused by sitting too close

Mona Geeza wrote:

I had a Kuga park next to my Freelander last week, visually there appeared hardly any noticeable difference to talk of in the sizes.

In all fairness, much as I love my Freelander and don't normally have problems with fuel consumption in other cars, mine hovers around 32 in normal use and will get 35 to 36 on a long run.

If I were to drive my 300+bhp, 2.5 litre petrol, Focus RS at similar speeds to the Land Rover it would return about the same fuel consumption figure. If I could achieve anything close to some of the figures being mentioned, I'd be a very happy bunny indeed.

Incidentally, bought new at around the same time as the Land Rover (and for a very similar price), the Focus is not as well built as the Land Rover.

just read this thread i sell fords for a living kuga is a good vehicle but it's on an old platform with last generation interior, and if you think 35mpg is bad from your landy, wait till you drive the kuga||| as for the quality it's good but not a patch on my 2008 freelander gs let alone the new 2013 interior which makes kuga feel old, cramped and ready for change, which will be out around february 2013 with increased space and price tag... plus kuga's are rubbish off road...

.. plus kuga's are rubbish off road...[/quote]

Kuga's rubbish off road your not kidding