RE: PH Carpool: Range Rover Evoque SD4

[BRMMA]

I think they look nice and i'm sure they're a decent place to sit, especially for motorway slogs. Don't really want one myself but the Mrs fancies one and i'd be quite happy to be ferried about in it

[ED209]

Here is mine, only did 100 miles or so in it after getting it on saturday but so far its been great.

Its a pure td4 with only a few options, came in a bit under 30k which i think is decent given how much new cars seem to cost these days.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[Oddball RS]

yellowbentines said:

mrdemon said:

It's 100% a fashion item

I'd have to agree, I'd spend the same money on a Freelander 2 in HSE spec if I wanted a well specified LR product that can do what the Evoque does and more, but in a less in-your-face way.

20" wheels on a small LR just looks too footballer/rapper/druge dealer IMO.

That has a nasty old fashioned dash and interior, i'm sorry but that just doesn't wash, you would spend your money not on this but on its older uglier sister thats got the same underpinnings, why?

[cayman-black]

They really are a nice looking car and what RRs give you is what not many cars can no matter how much they cost,Feel good factor!

[anything fast]

I agree with all those who call this car an expensive fashion item.. they are right. But I also understand why people buy them, not my cup of tea at all but I respect the fact that my opinion is irrelevant to the people who buy them. One mans princess is another mans we and all that..

[ED209]

anything fast said:

I agree with all those who call this car an expensive fashion item.. they are right. But I also understand why people buy them, not my cup of tea at all but I respect the fact that my opinion is irrelevant to the people who buy them. One mans princess is another mans we and all that..

I would say mine would be no more expensive than a similar spec bmw 320d tourer.

[A Scotsman]

I still think it looks ridiculous.

[SprintSpeciale]

300bhp/ton said:

However it makes you wonder how many people buy a Ferrari, Lambo, Porsche, Maserati for the "looks and status" and never take them to race track.

This made me smile. I have never taken my Maserati on the track, and if I did it would be hard to judge which of us was less suited for it!!

Nice write up by the owner of the Evoque. Why anyone agrees to do it is a mystery to me - you can guarantee that the PH massive will pile in and trash your motor.

[Shaw Tarse]

ZOLLAR said:

Mr Cox said:

..it reminds me of the original Range Rover Stormer concept ..

Good point, although the front light set up is different I can certainly see the comparison

I prefer the looks of the Evoque

[J-P]

UK952 said:

I do find it midly ironic that BMW were slated for making the X6 from an X5 but when RR turn the FL2 into a less practical coupe they get praise, is it just the more stylish execution?

X6 has virtually the same footprint as the X5 but originally came out with 4 seats and was marketed as a sporty version of the X5 - interiors were pretty much identical.

RR Evoque is different to FL2, it has a much, much nicer interior and feels more special. The fact that it is smaller and lighter is fine given the trend towards downsizing. We had an ML350CDI and other road users really hated it (primarily because of its offensive size, I think). The X6 didn't address any issues with the X5 perceived or otherwise, it was just a large, impractical 4x4 with sporty aspirations. Even BMW recognised the seat thing was a mistake because they then started to offer the car with 5 seats! In fact the only reasons to buy an X6 over an X5 was the exterior styling (if you preferred it) and the most marginal of dynamic improvements.

Evoque is much better road car than FL2 (IMHO), has slightly better off-road capability and is far more luxuriously appointed than the FL2 - add in the improvement in looks (subjective) and incredible packaging and provided space in the boot isn't essential, it becomes a no-brainer!

[yellowbentines]

Oddball RS said:

That has a nasty old fashioned dash and interior, i'm sorry but that just doesn't wash, you would spend your money not on this but on its older uglier sister thats got the same underpinnings, why?

Because nobody would tell me why I shouldn't, until if you look above you'll see a couple of Evoque owners have posted sensible answers to my questions and allowed me to rethink my original statement.

However 'nasty', 'old fashioned' & 'uglier' are all simply your opinions which I don't normally take into consideration when buying a car and as for older, not everyone thinks older is bad, see the LR Defender for a prime example.

[dtrump]

A Scotsman said:

I still think it looks ridiculous.

I'm curious. Why does it look that way to you?

[rtz62]

I agree with the 2nd post; something very large has sat on it.
Even my kids, 5 & 6 point at them and laugh with their hands over ther mouths; imagine the embarrassment of the driver / fashion victim being laughed at by such young kids.
And, I'd never have ANYTHING that has Victoria Beckham remotely connected to it, the skinny, miserable talentless tart. (can't bring myself to call her by her subriquet 'posh' as she posh compared to what? Jodie Marsh?!?!)

[J4CKO]

Its is not that she is exsessively Posh, just the rest of the country is exceedingly common, she had very limited involvement really and I think it probably sold more to those who worship at the "Heat" altar but it kind of put a lot others off, she is indeed a bit of a pointless entity but she is revered by some people, probably even more than me

I dotn know why anyone would point and laugh though, ok you may not like them but they arent exactly a Fiat Multipla, JLR got this car spot on, dont think they could have hit target any better, right brand at the right time with the right product.

I think they will clean up with the new Defender, I am sure it will be massively capable off road and look good, the current one does the off road but is crap on it, they have a great image but it takes a special commitment to have a current Defender as a daily as they are expensive, slow, ponderous, thirsty, bouncy, uncomfortable and old fashioned. I am sure the new one if it doesnt look sufficiently utilitarian and a bit too cool will alienate some purists who buy ancient Landrovers and off roaders or the farmers might not like the fact you cant get a ful grown sheep in the glovebox but JLR need to modernise it and sell loads of them and Beards and Farmers dont buy many, they buy three grands worth of second hand but JLR want the thirty grands worth of which there are a lot more if they hit the spot again.

[henrycrun]

so the driver can watch TV while on the move ? why ?

[J-P]

henrycrun said:

so the driver can watch TV while on the move ? why ?

No the passenger can watch TV on the move. Screen can display different information to driver and passenger, so driver sees sat nav and passenger sees rugby or F1 or whatever they want to watch!

[UK952]

J-P said:

X6 has virtually the same footprint as the X5 but originally came out with 4 seats and was marketed as a sporty version of the X5 - interiors were pretty much identical.

RR Evoque is different to FL2, it has a much, much nicer interior and feels more special. The fact that it is smaller and lighter is fine given the trend towards downsizing. We had an ML350CDI and other road users really hated it (primarily because of its offensive size, I think). The X6 didn't address any issues with the X5 perceived or otherwise, it was just a large, impractical 4x4 with sporty aspirations. Even BMW recognised the seat thing was a mistake because they then started to offer the car with 5 seats! In fact the only reasons to buy an X6 over an X5 was the exterior styling (if you preferred it) and the most marginal of dynamic improvements.

Evoque is much better road car than FL2 (IMHO), has slightly better off-road capability and is far more luxuriously appointed than the FL2 - add in the improvement in looks (subjective) and incredible packaging and provided space in the boot isn't essential, it becomes a no-brainer!

Fair enough, in my eyes from the outside it does look like a squashed Freelander, haven't looked close enough at either to appreciate the differences inside. There are so many around here styling doesn't look that special (not seen a red/silver before though!) but still a tidy package.
Tony

[Chrisw666]

Trommel said:

SWoll said:

Isn't that why it's classed as a RR rather than an LR?

It's a Range Rover so they can charge more money for it.

That's the one thing that winds me up about it. I quite like the looks but would buy any other LR product (except for their mountain bikes) over one.

[JMF894]

Remember when the original Audi TT went on sale? People were falling over themselves to buy it despite the fact that it was very average to drive given its intended purpose.

I think the same is happening with the Evoque.

Regardless of what it is actually like to drive (rather good i understand) it will sell on looks alone and that's no bad thing.

I have driven a MK1 TT 225 and it was good enough, not great but good enough and i love the styling.

The same goes with the Evoque, i love the styling now it's out on the road despite being dubious initially.

It doesn't really matter WHY it sells as long as it sells. It's good to see some great LR and Jag products at the moment.


Jimbo

[ED209]

henrycrun said:

so the driver can watch TV while on the move ? why ?

no because this would be illegal.