RE: Discovery Sport

Wednesday 21st October 2020

Discovery Sport & Evoque P300e | UK Review

Why Land Rover's new three-cylinder powered, two-tonne compact SUVs are better than you might think



It's hard to think of a pair of vehicles more attuned to prevailing customer attitudes than the latest P300e pairing from Land Rover. You'll have seen already the sheer amount of Evoques and Discovery Sports on the road, attesting to their popularity. Plainly electrification is only set to become more prevalent as the decade progresses and - almost regardless of what they're like to drive - the combination of Land Rover badge, McGovern styling and plug-in hybrid capability will likely be enough to convince a small mountain of buyers. (Imagine the demand when the Defender PHEV goes on sale.)

For now, it's turn of the more affordable Discovery Sport and the Evoque, both with the same entirely new hybrid powertrain. Yes, the modular Ingenium engine family has spawned a 1.5-litre, three-cylinder derivative - meaning these chunky SUVs are powered by just 1,498 cubic centimetres of cubic capacity. Plus an electric motor supplied by a 15kw battery pack. All very 2020, although still bizarre for anyone who can recall 2.5-litre diesel Range Rovers with the accelerative properties of a mule.

The important numbers are 309hp and 398lb ft, meaning both Discovery Sport and Evoque can dash to 62mph in comfortably less than seven seconds and reach 130mph. Just as importantly, they are each also capable of around 40 miles (the Discovery 38, the Evoque 41) on electric power alone. And you'd have to be a long way from the catchment area for that to be used up in a school run. It's worth noting, too, that hybridisation was always part of the plan for models built on the Premium Transverse Architecture; the platform was designed to accommodate batteries and motors, rather than it being adapted to the needs of electrification. So the cars should feel cohesive, seamless and all-of-a-piece.



Which, for the majority of the time, both P300e cars do. The cars start in silence, with the driver then given the opportunity to drive in Hybrid, Save or EV mode, selectable via a dash button. While 109hp and 192lb ft of electric power sound considerably less impressive than the total power outputs, it's more than sufficient to make progress on the sort of zero emission journeys it is intended for. Both cars obviously lack the instant, insatiable urge of a pure EV, but it's hard to find much issue with the performance between traffic lights and roundabouts; at the urban speeds they're meant to tackle, both Discovery and Evoque are more than agreeable company.

The bigger news, and the bigger piece of good news, comes in the form of the 200hp 1.5-litre triple. Because not only does it bolster the both hybrids to a competitive level of performance, it does so memorably and effectively. Of course, it chimes in to support the electric motor without fuss or delay, but it is also exceptionally smooth for a three-cylinder motor and surprisingly willing to rev. That seems about as relevant an observation to prospective buyers as how each might fare off road, though it warrants mention: there's that undeniable rasp and thrum that comes with the configuration, cleverly kept to a level where it's never intrusive. A choice between this, with faint echoes of a V6 and a fair lack of inertia, against another droning four-cylinder would be an easy one to make in either P300e's favour.

Performance with all systems firing is impressive, too. In cars like these torque is king, and 398lb ft is broadly comparable to the 406lb ft produced by the straight-six petrol in the Defender. So both Evoque and Discovery Sport are more than fast enough when required, justifying their cost and banishing a lot of lingering memories of slightly weak Ingenium engines. There's easygoing, easily accessible speed with the low-down torque, complemented by an engine that feels keen if the mood should take you. It's a really convincing powertrain.



The Evoque in particular remains a lovely car to drive, its chassis both as agile and accommodating as it would be reasonable to expect from a car like this. It is genuinely entertaining to drive it quickly along a challenging road, thanks to the way every control responds and its willingness to change direction - which is not a description that any compact SUV earns lightly. The Sport, while inevitably more mature, could teach many a more ostensibly focused car about steering, and one or two luxury ones about refinement.

Granted, there is still a fly in the ointment. A large, potentially unsurprising fly. Both models are very, very heavy, even by the standards of plug-in hybrid cars: the Evoque P300e is 2,082kg before anybody has got in, against 1,850kg for the 2.0-litre, non-hybrid P300 petrol. It's a similar story for the Discovery Sport: 2,093kg for a hybrid, 1,864kg for a comparable P250. And however good Land Rover's chassis engineers are at disguising mass, they can't entirely mask an additional 200kg of the stuff, even if it is smaller percentage add-on for a 4x4 than a saloon. The extra load manifests itself as a slightly fidgety ride at low speed - not deal-breaking perhaps, but ever-present nonetheless. And you never entirely escape the impression of some additional dynamic inertia, even though the battery weight is mounted lower down. Imagine you put on 12 per cent of your current weight again; it would still be you, only flabbier and not as athletic.

There would also appear to be an issue with Land Rover's emission figures, which may yet turn out to be slightly north of the provisional numbers quoted. A marginal adjustment is unlikely to sway a buying decision - on the basis that plug-in hybrid scores are not representative of real-world use anyway - just as the addition of 200kg is unlikely to weigh too heavily on a Land Rover customer's mind. Both iterations of P300e, despite Range Rover-esque kerbweights, still drive with most of their established personalities intact and the introduction of a zesty hybrid powertrain, advantages in running costs and the delivery of the new Pivi Pro infotainment system are likely to be the decisive factors. That hardly makes the prospect of yet more two-tonne SUVs excusable, but around the worryingly familiar weight gain Land Rover has done a laudable job of electrifying its most popular cars. That said, it's hard not to imagine the enlivening possibilities that might result from the manufacturer twinning its likeable new petrol engine with something much lighter on its feet. We live in hope.


SPECIFICATION | RANGE ROVER EVOQUE P300e

Engine: 1,498cc, three-cyl turbo plus electric motor and integrated belt driven starter
Transmission: 8-speed automatic, all-wheel drive
Power (hp): 309@5,500rpm
Torque (lb ft): 398@2,000-2,500rpm
0-62mph: 6.4 seconds
Top speed: 132mph
Weight: 2,082kg (DIN)
MPG: 201.8 (provisional WLTP, with 41 miles electric range)
CO2: 32g/km (provisional WLTP)
Price: from £43,850

SPECIFICATION | LAND ROVER DISCOVERY SPORT P300e

Engine: 1,498cc, three-cyl turbo plus electric motor and integrated belt driven starter
Transmission: 8-speed automatic, all-wheel drive
Power (hp): 309@5,500rpm
Torque (lb ft): 398@2,000-2,500rpm
0-62mph: 6.6 seconds
Top speed: 130mph
Weight: 2,093kg (DIN)
MPG: 175.5 (provisional WLTP, with 38 miles electric range)
CO2: 36g/km (provisonal WLTP)
Price: from £45,370











Author
Discussion

Bser16

Original Poster:

78 posts

54 months

Wednesday 21st October 2020
quotequote all
So of you ever travel over 40 miles you will be hauling around dead weight which will all be done by a 3 cylinder. I would never want to travel over 40 miles in one of these things. Im guessing in the cold these are more like 30 miles of range

NJJ

432 posts

79 months

Wednesday 21st October 2020
quotequote all
Bser16 said:
So of you ever travel over 40 miles you will be hauling around dead weight which will all be done by a 3 cylinder. I would never want to travel over 40 miles in one of these things. Im guessing in the cold these are more like 30 miles of range
But very good for urban journeys, especially as a lot of these are used for the school run. Charge it up every eve and you would rarely have to put any fuel in it. The suitability of one of these will depend very much on your typical journey type. Heavy mileage users will still be better taking conventional diesel but for urban users these will make sense.

stevesingo

4,848 posts

221 months

Wednesday 21st October 2020
quotequote all
Bser16 said:
So of you ever travel over 40 miles you will be hauling around dead weight which will all be done by a 3 cylinder. I would never want to travel over 40 miles in one of these things. Im guessing in the cold these are more like 30 miles of range
The Electrical system does not shut down at 40 miles. The ICE fires up to power the vehicle and simultaneously charge the battery. When not in pure EV mode the E motor and ICE work together to produce the 309bhp and 398lbft split 197ICE/109EM bhp and 206ICE/192EM lbft.

These are well suited for the market which they are aiming for.

RSchneider

215 posts

163 months

Wednesday 21st October 2020
quotequote all
New system, and still using a belt-driven starter. Hm. I guess that is one of the reasons for the excessive weight. The battery might have a dedicated spot in the chassis but the electric motor seems a bolt-on solution. Otherwise I can't see how a 3pot plus e-motor can be heavier than a Diesel 4pot. Batteries alone dont make up for all the difference.

And I would be interested in a test with empty batteries, or when the ICE is simultaneously charging the battery while providing propulsion.

Andeh1

7,107 posts

205 months

Wednesday 21st October 2020
quotequote all
Bser16 said:
So of you ever travel over 40 miles you will be hauling around dead weight which will all be done by a 3 cylinder. I would never want to travel over 40 miles in one of these things. Im guessing in the cold these are more like 30 miles of range
The average European commutes 16miles a day. Most peoples use of a vehicle will be to work & back (well, before COVID anyway). The amount of people actually travelling more then 40 miles a day would be quite the minority.

As for winter, it's not as bad as you think. You preheat the car & battery off the mains power...before you get into the vehicle. That means when you press 'go' you have a warm car, warm seats, warm windscreen and a warm battery....ready to go!

PHEVs really work in the real world, best of BEV and ICE combined together.... if you can afford them.

stevesingo

4,848 posts

221 months

Wednesday 21st October 2020
quotequote all
RSchneider said:
New system, and still using a belt-driven starter. Hm. I guess that is one of the reasons for the excessive weight. The battery might have a dedicated spot in the chassis but the electric motor seems a bolt-on solution. Otherwise I can't see how a 3pot plus e-motor can be heavier than a Diesel 4pot. Batteries alone dont make up for all the difference.

And I would be interested in a test with empty batteries, or when the ICE is simultaneously charging the battery while providing propulsion.
I'd guess the type of drive transfer for the e motor will be influenced by cost.

WRT weight, if the typical power density of Li-ion cells is 250wh/kg, you are looking at 60kg for a 15 kwhr battery. Add the same again for control electronics and maybe 15kgs for wiring, it would not be unreasonable to think the e system alone weighs 150kg + not accounting for mounting hardware.

Although in our minds diesel = heavy, the reality is, in the modern context, probably not. Ingenium is modern architecture, all aluminium, DOHC, Common rail DI (no old fashioned fuel metering pump). Sure, 3 cylinder should be lighter, I just don't think the difference is as great as it once was between petrol and diesel engines.

RUSSELLM

6,000 posts

246 months

Wednesday 21st October 2020
quotequote all
Bser16 said:
So of you ever travel over 40 miles you will be hauling around dead weight which will all be done by a 3 cylinder. I would never want to travel over 40 miles in one of these things. Im guessing in the cold these are more like 30 miles of range
Should work like a BMW I8.

Engine charges the battery, battery runs the electric motor ?

Roy m

197 posts

212 months

Wednesday 21st October 2020
quotequote all
Isn't it time we had a 'real' measure of hybrid economy. Surely it would be easy to publish consumption figures for 50 miles, 100 miles and 250 miles so you can assess real world consumption. Or do they really just not want us to know?

Gad-Westy

14,521 posts

212 months

Wednesday 21st October 2020
quotequote all
Roy m said:
Isn't it time we had a 'real' measure of hybrid economy. Surely it would be easy to publish consumption figures for 50 miles, 100 miles and 250 miles so you can assess real world consumption. Or do they really just not want us to know?
Yep. Total nonsense currently. I have a lot of time for plug in hybrids but all this 175mpg BS serves no purpose whatsoever.

Edited by Gad-Westy on Wednesday 21st October 09:04

Krikkit

26,500 posts

180 months

Wednesday 21st October 2020
quotequote all
RSchneider said:
New system, and still using a belt-driven starter. Hm. I guess that is one of the reasons for the excessive weight. The battery might have a dedicated spot in the chassis but the electric motor seems a bolt-on solution. Otherwise I can't see how a 3pot plus e-motor can be heavier than a Diesel 4pot. Batteries alone dont make up for all the difference.
One of the reasons is they've stuck the motor in the rear axle.


Sulphur Man

224 posts

132 months

Wednesday 21st October 2020
quotequote all
NJJ said:
But very good for urban journeys, especially as a lot of these are used for the school run. Charge it up every eve and you would rarely have to put any fuel in it. The suitability of one of these will depend very much on your typical journey type. Heavy mileage users will still be better taking conventional diesel but for urban users these will make sense.
Those who regularly charge these, or any PHEV, are in a massive minority.

The scales should be dashed from everyone's eyes - PHEVs exist to tap into the very favourable company lease rates for low emissions. The comparative success of the Mitsu Outlander PHEV was built on that. This is LR repeating that formula with more desirable vehicles.

I can confidently say the vast majority of these will be parked in the street overnight, no charging going on whatsoever. And no subscription to a charging network sitting with the owner either, as they wouldnt know where the charging point was (unless it comes with free convenient parking).


Truckosaurus

11,183 posts

283 months

Wednesday 21st October 2020
quotequote all
Roy m said:
Isn't it time we had a 'real' measure of hybrid economy. Surely it would be easy to publish consumption figures for 50 miles, 100 miles and 250 miles so you can assess real world consumption. Or do they really just not want us to know?
Indeed. It doesn't even just have to be that difficult or complex, just publish how fair it can run on a full charge and a full tank of liquid fuel combined, then divide by the size of fuel tank.

Krikkit

26,500 posts

180 months

Wednesday 21st October 2020
quotequote all
Sulphur Man said:
Those who regularly charge these, or any PHEV, are in a massive minority.

The scales should be dashed from everyone's eyes - PHEVs exist to tap into the very favourable company lease rates for low emissions. The comparative success of the Mitsu Outlander PHEV was built on that. This is LR repeating that formula with more desirable vehicles.

I can confidently say the vast majority of these will be parked in the street overnight, no charging going on whatsoever. And no subscription to a charging network sitting with the owner either, as they wouldnt know where the charging point was (unless it comes with free convenient parking).
I think it's very much area-dependent. Around where I live there are quite a few PHEVs (the BMW 330e is very popular), but they all get plugged in all the time, sometimes very inconveniently as they get parked partly across the pavement because they haven't got an external plug and run things under a garage door.

Usget

5,426 posts

210 months

Wednesday 21st October 2020
quotequote all
Roy m said:
Isn't it time we had a 'real' measure of hybrid economy. Surely it would be easy to publish consumption figures for 50 miles, 100 miles and 250 miles so you can assess real world consumption. Or do they really just not want us to know?
Yes. The WLTP figures are plainly not fit for purpose. Imagine you didn't know much about cars, reading the 201.8mpg figure, and putting five gallons of fuel in the car, fully expecting to cover a thousand miles... wouldn't you be a little narked?

Mr_Sukebe

374 posts

207 months

Wednesday 21st October 2020
quotequote all
So, Land Rover reliability mixed with complex technology.

Anyone see a potential issue here?

scarble

5,277 posts

156 months

Wednesday 21st October 2020
quotequote all
A lot of company phevs are plugged in at the office..
Part of the problem they do aslo recharge while the engine is running, depending on accelerator pedal position. On the other hand if they are driven hard all the time it uses combustion engine and e motor together regardless of if the battery is full, engine still runs.

The Wookie

13,909 posts

227 months

Wednesday 21st October 2020
quotequote all
Truckosaurus said:
Indeed. It doesn't even just have to be that difficult or complex, just publish how fair it can run on a full charge and a full tank of liquid fuel combined, then divide by the size of fuel tank.
But that’s not how the vast majority of people will use them so it would be misleading. The difficulty is giving people enough information to judge without being too complicated to understand.

The WLTP is basically a fudge factor that tries to pigeon hole the emissions into an average user’s use case which makes it easy to classify for emissions based taxation across the user base but pointless for an individual to gauge how much money they’ll spend on fuel.

Personally quoting the WLTP EV range and the WLTP fuel consumption in hybrid/battery save mode makes most sense to me as someone who is used to this sort of tech.

At the moment though the former is usually quoted but obviously manufacturers don’t quote the latter because without experience of a PHEV most people won’t understand the fact that the hybrid mode fuel consumption simply won’t matter to them for most of their journeys, will take one look at it and say ‘Meh, worse than my diesel’

Mday835

32 posts

41 months

Wednesday 21st October 2020
quotequote all
Struggle to see the point of these. Limited electric range and under powered petrol engine lugging weight around on the already battered roads.

Also potentially clogs up the already limited network of EV charge points for EVs. Does my head in seeing Mitsubishi PHEVs preventing access to EVs that have no other fuel option! Fill up with petrol and charge at home.

Sulphur Man

224 posts

132 months

Wednesday 21st October 2020
quotequote all
Krikkit said:
One of the reasons is they've stuck the motor in the rear axle.

Indeed.

Hybrid-wise, this is a steam engine compared to Toyota and Honda i-MMD drivetrains.

Didnt JLR say these 'new' models were designed for PHEV and EV powertrains? Marketing got a bit ahead of themselves methinks.

With the Defender 4-pot diesels being ousted within 6 months of product launch, and the Disco 5 commanding lower used prices than late Disco 4s, you have query how JLR product management is being run. Not very well, is the first answer.

bigbadbikercats

630 posts

207 months

Wednesday 21st October 2020
quotequote all
Krikkit said:
RSchneider said:
New system, and still using a belt-driven starter. Hm. I guess that is one of the reasons for the excessive weight. The battery might have a dedicated spot in the chassis but the electric motor seems a bolt-on solution. Otherwise I can't see how a 3pot plus e-motor can be heavier than a Diesel 4pot. Batteries alone dont make up for all the difference.
One of the reasons is they've stuck the motor in the rear axle.

So the electric drive is also adding 4WD to what would otherwise be a conventional transverse engine FWD power train without all that tedious mucking around with turning the drive through 90 degrees and adding a prop shaft and rear differential? I can see why that would appeal to JLR and I’d be very interested in how it performs off-road - if anybody can make a setup like that really work it’s Land Rover...