RE: Range Rover Evoque facelift
Discussion
Sheepshanks said:
dollyboy said:
Really, any information about that survey? It would be interesting to see the results, or should I say worrying.
This isn't the only one I've seen as it's specific to 1 Series, but note it's BMW's own survey: http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1043671_80-perc...Although I have to say I was never very impressed with the handling of my M135i, maybe my expectations were just too high following watching review's such as Chris Harris' which I think gave the car too much undue praise, the engine was very good though
nunpuncher said:
The convertible is also coming. Prepare to look away.
I saw the test vehicle on the M6 last week. Turgid.As far as engines go I have the old 2.2 190BHP diesel unit, it benefits from a remap and is perfectly acceptable for day to day use. Nowhere near what you'd call fun though especially compared to something like the 2.0 TFSI in the Q3
I've owned two from new - for the Mrs and dogs... though I regularly use. 57,000 miles over 5 years without a single problem (which astonishes me - having owned half a dozen LRs before, that fell apart regularly). Residuals the best I've known - 75% back after 3 years with a shed load of miles on, and it is so much better off road than it should be (I've had 3 defenders).
What's not to like? Apart from the usual ill informed PH 'only driven in Chelsea by mothers' nonsense, which those us who drive them in the Highlands find very amusing.
Try one off road, own one for 50k miles, and try out the comfy seats before you diss them!
Facelift looks crap mind
If you give it a big engine, you can make it look sexy. Till then, stop trying. It aint why I bought it!
What's not to like? Apart from the usual ill informed PH 'only driven in Chelsea by mothers' nonsense, which those us who drive them in the Highlands find very amusing.
Try one off road, own one for 50k miles, and try out the comfy seats before you diss them!
Facelift looks crap mind
If you give it a big engine, you can make it look sexy. Till then, stop trying. It aint why I bought it!Edited by GetCarter on Thursday 21st April 19:20
dollyboy said:
Really, any information about that survey? It would be interesting to see the results, or should I say worrying.
IIRC it was BMW's own survey of their customers but was specifically about the 1-series. I think it was their justification for making that 2-series GT monstrosity FWD. I dare say the same is true of the bigger cars as well, but they didn't ask about them because they weren't planning to make them FWD (yet).
xRIEx said:
J4CKO said:
David87 said:
tyrrell said:
As said before great car let down by under powered engine
Indeed. I reckon a specced-up Convertible would be getting on for £65k, yet can be powered with the 180PS Ingenium diesel. Can anyone think of a slower car for more money? 
Er, it goes to sixty in 9.3 seconds. I remember when that was a passable fast hatch kind of time, sure its expensive and not ballistically fast but for the target market it is perfectly adequate and can be had with more powerful engines.
Not sure a lot pf PH actually has experienced "underpowered" and it seems to mean "doesnt crush your intrnal organs as much as I would like"
It just makes me think they don't know how to get the best of a car. Truly talented artists and craftsmen who can create masterpieces with the most basic of tools.
It's really easy to forget just how slow a boggo spec family car is, and I haven't done so many gearchanges on a motorway since I learnt to drive. Basically, if you don't have to downchange on the motorway when the traffic speed drops to 50mph, it's not a slow car. If building speed on the slip road isn't halted terminally by the presence of any kind of gradient, it's not a slow car. Indeed, if you don't have to exercise flat shifts when accelerating so as not to loose momentum when you're pulling away from the traffic lights and trying to keep with the traffic in front, it's not a slow car. You know those people that are really annoying at traffic lights who leave 3 car lengths between the car in front when the lights change and people pull away? Yeah, they're not slow to react. They're probably flat out, bouncing the thing off the rev limiter in 1st trying to get a move on....
Edited by RacerMike on Friday 22 April 08:37
J4CKO said:
As for "Low Traction launch", well, that will be handy, like all Launch Controls, probably just b
ks for us chaps to play with once, then forget, I mean "Launch", its a bloody car not the Queen Mary or a Saturn 5 Rocket.
Its designed for off-road and ice use to get you out of a traction limited event- nothing to do with the GTR style speed launch controls.ks for us chaps to play with once, then forget, I mean "Launch", its a bloody car not the Queen Mary or a Saturn 5 Rocket.RacerMike said:
Very easy to become a power snob. 200bhp is still actually quite a lot of power compared to the average car! I rented a car to get to Spa last year and was given a Vauxhall Meriva 1.4. 100bhp THAT was slow.
Yet 100bhp in my first car, a 2 litre Cortina, was amazing (in its day).RacerMike said:
It's really easy to forget just how slow a boggo spec family car is, and I haven't done so many gearchanges on a motorway since I learnt to drive. Basically, if you don't have to downchange on the motorway when the traffic speed drops to 50mph, it's not a slow car.
In the Cortina that was taken care of by only having 4 gears.Diesel SUVs work far better as autos anyway.
xRIEx said:
J4CKO said:
David87 said:
tyrrell said:
As said before great car let down by under powered engine
Indeed. I reckon a specced-up Convertible would be getting on for £65k, yet can be powered with the 180PS Ingenium diesel. Can anyone think of a slower car for more money? Er, it goes to sixty in 9.3 seconds. I remember when that was a passable fast hatch kind of time, sure its expensive and not ballistically fast but for the target market it is perfectly adequate and can be had with more powerful engines.
Not sure a lot pf PH actually has experienced "underpowered" and it seems to mean "doesnt crush your intrnal organs as much as I would like"
It just makes me think they don't know how to get the best of a car. Truly talented artists and craftsmen who can create masterpieces with the most basic of tools.
Sheepshanks said:
In the Cortina that was taken care of by only having 4 gears.
Diesel SUVs work far better as autos anyway.
Exactly. My second car (Seat Arosa....the shed of the week a few weeks back actually) had 100bhp and felt properly quick. Unfortunately, 3 up with luggage in a 1500kg car means that 100bhp really isn't enough!Diesel SUVs work far better as autos anyway.
Sheepshanks said:
dollyboy said:
'Ember' special edition for £47,200, not even a mention of what engine is fitted? I suppose it doesn't really matter for a car like this, not for most of its target market anyway, but this is PH?
Exactly. It's the same as the survey that found the majority of BMW drivers think their cars are front wheel drive. Most people couldn't give a toss about such matters.Jimmy Recard said:
I'm waiting to see the next generation of Evoque. The only thing letting ours down is the Ford engine.
They have had the new Ingenium engines for a while now, no more ford sourced units apart from the petrol (unless you mean that, not sure if/when it's due to be replaced).JLR are planning a much broader spread of Ingenium power, with a 1.5 litre 3 cylinder and a 3 litre straight 6 on the way. With 3, 4 and 6 cylinder engines all available in both petrol and diesel. Max power with the straight 6 petrol will be more than 500 bhp, but will it squeeze into the Evoque?
And, obviously, the 3 cylinder Evoques will be extremely popular and most owners won't notice the difference.
And, obviously, the 3 cylinder Evoques will be extremely popular and most owners won't notice the difference.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff