Monday 23rd February 2015

Range Rover Evoque facelifted

Cleaner, greener Ingenium engines more significant than the mild cosmetic brush up

---

Land Rover has seemingly cured the one big failing of the Range Rover Evoque: middling-to-poor fuel economy. An aesthetically mild facelift for LR's best-seller has been underpinned by a switch to Jaguar Land Rover's 'Ingenium' 2.0-litre diesel engine as used by the Jaguar XE. In the front-driven version of the new Evoque, the 150hp incarnation of the engine officially drops the CO2 to 109g/km down from 133g/km in the most frugal model with today's Ford-sourced diesel.

Colours other than white are available

Bearing in mind that all makers now seem to game the New (ha) European Driving Cycle (NEDC) test to the point that these official figures are now meaningless, this entry Evoque is recorded as achieving 68mpg. A punchier 180hp version with four-wheel drive is reckoned to make 59mpg. Astonishing really when you think the kerbweight of the Evoque tops 1.7 tonnes.

Whatever we think of these fashion 4x4s, the Evoque has been an incredible seller for Land Rover - so much so that it beat the BMW X3 in sales across Europe last year. And as Volvo found when it launched its 117g/km D4 version of the ageing XC60 last year, putting out an economical version can REALLY boosts sales of these premium SUVs, especially when your emission figures are low enough to tempt the company car drivers.

Essentially Land Rover has adopted some of the underbody changes brought in with the new Discovery Sport, which shares much of the same (non-aluminium) platform. To better distinguish the two, the designers have made a few tweaks to the Evoque's look, including larger air intakes on the front.

Infotainment has been updated too

While the old diesel goes, the new Evoque, available from August, keeps the Ford-sourced 240hp turbocharged 2.0-litre petrol for the top-spec models. They also come with the excellent "Active Driveline" torque vectoring technology that'll be also seen on Ford's Focus RS towards the end of the year, JLR sharing a supplier in powertrain specialist GKN.

Of course being Land Rover you'll be able to pay extra for a host of new luxury gizmos on the new Evoque - things like massaging front seats, an electric boot hatch that opens if you wave a foot under the correct spot below the bumper, and a 3G Wi-Fi hotspot. The dash-screen now gives you access to JLR's new 'InControl' touchscreen infotainment system and there's digital radio as standard across the range.

For off-road driving there's JLR's new low-speed cruise control that sets a constant speed and shuffles power and applies braking between all four wheels to obtain the best grip.

A facelifted SUV might seem like slow news to some, but this car really is the model that allows JLR to build up Jaguar and noodle about with SVR and heritage projects. Given the huge bump the XC60 got from its economy upgrade, pushing it past the Audi Q5 in Europe, this latest Evoque looks like it'll carry on funneling cash into JLR's fun slush fund a few more years yet.

[Agoogy]

Much neater looks.
Much cleaner too.
Wonder what it REALLY does to the gallon...

[Lozw86]

Why no larger, more powerful engine? You need at least 250bhp to get something of that weight moving

[dukebox9reg]

Agoogy said:

Much neater looks.
Much cleaner too.
Wonder what it REALLY does to the gallon...

Well with all new diesels and small capacity petrols like the 1.0 ecoboost. Whatever the manufacturers claim instantly minus 20mpg from the number. Thats what I always assume for actual normal driving. Obviously if you sit on the motorway all day everyday it might be slightly better.

Golf GTD Official 67.3mpg. HonestJohn reports 47mpg

Ford Focus 1.0 Ecoboost 100 official 60ish. HonestJohn 40.8mpg

So I reckon do that for the Evoque and you'll probs not go far wrong.

[conkerman]

Much like many owners then?

[The Vambo]

Lozw86 said:

Why no larger, more powerful engine? You need at least 250bhp to get something of that weight moving compensate for a lack of anticipation.

FTFY

[jhonn]

It's a striking looking car for sure - however (for me), this car continues to move away from I would regard as core Range Rover values - style, purpose, practicality, discrete good looks and subtle exclusiveness.
Not that what I think matters in the great scheme of things - it'll no doubt continue to sell very well (which is a good thing).

[PhantomPH]

Lozw86 said:

Why no larger, more powerful engine? You need at least 250bhp to get something of that weight moving

bks.

[aeropilot]

Lozw86 said:

Why no larger, more powerful engine? You need at least 250bhp to get something of that weight moving

Because 98.5% of the people buying these things aren't interested in something more powerful so those of us who would be interested in such an Evoque have to look elsewhere.

Also, with the transverse engine layout, you aren't going to get something with more than 4 cyl either.

If they offer the 2.3 petrol Ecoboost from the new Focus RS I might be interested although I'd probably rather spend the equivalent money for a used RRS instead despite not really needing or wanting something that size.

[mikebradford]

I wonder how the weight of the new engine compares with the old.
Small percentages in regard to the overall package, but would be nice that it sheds a few kilos

[Zippee]

dukebox9reg said:

Agoogy said:

Much neater looks.
Much cleaner too.
Wonder what it REALLY does to the gallon...

Well with all new diesels and small capacity petrols like the 1.0 ecoboost. Whatever the manufacturers claim instantly minus 20mpg from the number. Thats what I always assume for actual normal driving. Obviously if you sit on the motorway all day everyday it might be slightly better.

Golf GTD Official 67.3mpg. HonestJohn reports 47mpg

Ford Focus 1.0 Ecoboost 100 official 60ish. HonestJohn 40.8mpg

So I reckon do that for the Evoque and you'll probs not go far wrong.

We've got the current 9sp auto and JLR figures state 46-50mpg. We get realistically 33-35 from a tank. Not the best but it's a heavy brick of a car.

[CS400]

They could increase their sales a lot more with a performance orientated model, to compete with the RSQ3 & SQ5 etc.
Could they squeeze the RRS Supercharged engine in, I reckon it would go quite well

[clarki]

Looks more or less the same - which is a good thing.

I average 37-40 mpg.

Mine's up for renewal next year - will deffo be having another. Great piece of kit, forget all that PHs crap about not a proper RR, girls car, etc... all very childish and boring. Just a great car. Affordable, well equipped, cheap to run, decent badge and so far (touch wood) faultless.

Sure my best mates macan will run rings around it - but the 2 parked up, well the audi just doesnt get a look in, and tbh that's what matters to me. Oh, and the super-comfy seats/cockpit.

[Eddie1775]

mikebradford said:

I wonder how the weight of the new engine compares with the old.
Small percentages in regard to the overall package, but would be nice that it sheds a few kilos

IIRC, they were quoting 80kg lighter which seems incredible...

[J4CKO]

aeropilot said:

Lozw86 said:

Why no larger, more powerful engine? You need at least 250bhp to get something of that weight moving

Because 98.5% of the people buying these things aren't interested in something more powerful so those of us who would be interested in such an Evoque have to look elsewhere.

Also, with the transverse engine layout, you aren't going to get something with more than 4 cyl either.

If they offer the 2.3 petrol Ecoboost from the new Focus RS I might be interested although I'd probably rather spend the equivalent money for a used RRS instead despite not really needing or wanting something that size.

Why would JLR start offering Ford engines ? isnt that long gone ?

I dont think they are that heavy are they, a moderately powerful turbodiesel with plenty of torque does the job adequately for most owners I would imagine, the fuel economy is of more interest so they can be a tight arse whilst pretending to be a high roller in a Range Rover.

[The Wookie]

PH said:

the New (ha) European Driving Cycle (NEDC) test

You should see the old one...

[Eddie1775]

That one's probably more realistic than the NEDC, haha!

[va1o]

High hopes riding on the new engine!

[griffgrog]

J4CKO said:

aeropilot said:

Lozw86 said:

Why no larger, more powerful engine? You need at least 250bhp to get something of that weight moving

Because 98.5% of the people buying these things aren't interested in something more powerful so those of us who would be interested in such an Evoque have to look elsewhere.

Also, with the transverse engine layout, you aren't going to get something with more than 4 cyl either.

If they offer the 2.3 petrol Ecoboost from the new Focus RS I might be interested although I'd probably rather spend the equivalent money for a used RRS instead despite not really needing or wanting something that size.

Why would JLR start offering Ford engines ? isnt that long gone ?

I dont think they are that heavy are they, a moderately powerful turbodiesel with plenty of torque does the job adequately for most owners I would imagine, the fuel economy is of more interest so they can be a tight arse whilst pretending to be a high roller in a Range Rover.

There's a more powerful engine in the man's version - http://www.landrover.com/vehicles/range-rover-spor...

[DonkeyApple]

Lozw86 said:

Why no larger, more powerful engine? You need at least 250bhp to get something of that weight moving

My guess would be that there is firstly no commercial demand for one and secondly, the new Jag SUV is going to be the performance model in this particular niche.

[Mr Tom]

When are these first going to be delivered?