RE: Driven: Range Rover Evoque SD4 2.2 Dynamic Coupe
Discussion
On the plus side it's actually cheap for a 'Range Rover', and it looks trendy too. Should be a big seller, so good news for LR.
The downsides to me besides the price, is the image it portrays and I suspect it will date rather quickly. Oh, yeah - considering it sufferes from poor visibility and the majority will be driven by women I'll have to make a point of giving these a wide berth and never park near one in the local supermarket.
The downsides to me besides the price, is the image it portrays and I suspect it will date rather quickly. Oh, yeah - considering it sufferes from poor visibility and the majority will be driven by women I'll have to make a point of giving these a wide berth and never park near one in the local supermarket.
Edited by Johnboy Mac on Friday 25th November 13:18
v4nnm said:
Horrible, horrible, horrible.
Drove on a few weeks back with an intention to buy. Dreadful build quality compared to my Mercedes ML, dreadful ride quality compared to my ML, horrific noise from around the A-pillar at 75+mph and barely enough room to swing a cat.
I'll keep the ML. At two years old it's still a better car than the Freelander ooops I mean Evoque.
Drove on a few weeks back with an intention to buy. Dreadful build quality compared to my Mercedes ML, dreadful ride quality compared to my ML, horrific noise from around the A-pillar at 75+mph and barely enough room to swing a cat.
I'll keep the ML. At two years old it's still a better car than the Freelander ooops I mean Evoque.
Surely you didn't expect the Evoque to be as big or as smooth as a FFRR competitor? Isn't the whole point that it's a small "sporty" SUV? Your complaint is like whining that an S4 is smaller and firmer than an E class.It looks brilliant and it's very desirable. But it's not small, it's tiny. As in tiny for what it costs. You can buy a well equipped Qashqai+2 130hp diesel for half the price and it's much bigger. OK not all of the useless feel good BS gadgets present nor the middle-class image, but better VFM surely.
ferdi p said:
excel monkey said:
cathalm said:
I struggle to think of another car that ticks so many boxes.
Hmm, how about EVERY OTHER MEDIUM SIZED PREMIUM 4x4 OUT THEREBMW X3
Audi Q5
Volvo XC60
Mercedes GLK
Lexus RX
Not one of them has a bespoke interior & all of them are evolutions of another model..
nickfrog said:
It looks brilliant and it's very desirable. But it's not small, it's tiny. As in tiny for what it costs. You can buy a well equipped Qashqai+2 130hp diesel for half the price and it's much bigger. OK not all of the useless feel good BS gadgets present nor the middle-class image, but better VFM surely.
I'm no great fan of the Evoque (especially with a Range Rover badge), but a Timex is cheaper than a Rolex and they both do the same thing. Different audience.nickfrog said:
It looks brilliant and it's very desirable. But it's not small, it's tiny. As in tiny for what it costs. You can buy a well equipped Qashqai+2 130hp diesel for half the price and it's much bigger. OK not all of the useless feel good BS gadgets present nor the middle-class image, but better VFM surely.
I which dimension is the Qashqai bigger than the Evoque because the one at the side of me yesterday look smaller in every way. As for better VFM go and buy each one new, run it for 6,12,24 months, sell it and then work out much each has cost you. 
nickfrog said:
It looks brilliant and it's very desirable. But it's not small, it's tiny. As in tiny for what it costs. You can buy a well equipped Qashqai+2 130hp diesel for half the price and it's much bigger. OK not all of the useless feel good BS gadgets present nor the middle-class image, but better VFM surely.
If buying a car was based on VFM, we'd all be running around in some vaguely fast mass produced econo-box; I was under the impression that the reason we all yammer on about everything petrol was because we saw through simple price vs function and appreciated: driving experience, the elusive soul of a car, feel good factor, uniqueness, form, personality, etc.
I've said on the other thread, I always wanted LR to make a small footprint Range Rover and they have. I'd be quite happy if no one else bought one because it would make mine all the more unique.
Right, I'm off to cut some hair, have lunch with my boyfriend, play a game of footie and make my spa appointment, all before 5:30!
jdw1234 said:
Cassius81 said:
jdw1234 said:
Cassius81 said:
ferdi p said:
Quite simply there is a huge market for smallish luxury cars at the moment..
The same people who scoff at a 42k Evoque probably laughed at BMW when they launched the new Mini that you could comfortably spec to well over 20k (& they sold in big numbers)
I also dont get the whole 'real Range Rover' argument, what exactly is one of those? what I see is loads of fat business men & mums driving them (& there idea of 'off road' is bumping up the curb outside the local school) !!!
Simple - a real Range Rover is the most upmarket and classiest luxury four wheel drive you can buy (in standard, non-blinged trim, anyway...) The same people who scoff at a 42k Evoque probably laughed at BMW when they launched the new Mini that you could comfortably spec to well over 20k (& they sold in big numbers)
I also dont get the whole 'real Range Rover' argument, what exactly is one of those? what I see is loads of fat business men & mums driving them (& there idea of 'off road' is bumping up the curb outside the local school) !!!
These are neither and hence shouldn't use the name. All in my utterly subjective opinion, obviously...
You could by either model in white with ridiculous wheels.
Or you could spec both quite elegantly (dark green, no tints, small wheels for example).
The new 2011 range rover has all the chintz as standard the Evoque has.
I have driven both over long distance and to me there is simply no comparison. One is a posh mid-size SUV with a smart interior, the other a genuine S-class/A8/7 Series rival. But it is all down to personal preference, I guess.
To be fair, I haven't driven an Evoque and altough regular FFRR passenger on airport runs, have never driven one.
What would you choose between similar priced TDV8 FFRR and Evoque if you lived in city?
The Evoque interior seems to make the FFRR interior dated. I think the new version will be a lot more expensive.
To me, I am thinking if you live in the city, the Evoque would make sense if new FFRR is 80-90k base (as opposed to buying a similar priced second hand version).
I agree that the Evoque interior does date even the FFRR's, but I like the additional space in the bigger car...
Johnboy Mac said:
Oh, yeah - considering it sufferes from poor visability and the majority will be driven by women I'll have to make a point of giving these a wide berth and never park near one in the local supermarket.
Interestingly, taking a straw poll of those we've sold so far, and we've sold every one we can lay our hands on, the majority have been bought by men. And the visibility is really not an issue at all, rather something that is probably being pushed by competitors desperate to stem the tide of lost sales. When I bought my Camaro I also test drove the 2011 Mustang 5.0 (nice) and the Dodge Challenger SRT (horrible interior). When I told them that I was shopping against a Camaro both sales guys (and a Ford sales manager) immediately started talking about the Camaro's "poor" rearward visibility. I'm sure bulletins went out from rival manufacturers about that and I'm sure that they have likewise about the Evoque.
unrepentant said:
Johnboy Mac said:
Oh, yeah - considering it sufferes from poor visibility and the majority will be driven by women I'll have to make a point of giving these a wide berth and never park near one in the local supermarket.
Interestingly, taking a straw poll of those we've sold so far, and we've sold every one we can lay our hands on, the majority have been bought by men. And the visibility is really not an issue at all, rather something that is probably being pushed by competitors desperate to stem the tide of lost sales. When I bought my Camaro I also test drove the 2011 Mustang 5.0 (nice) and the Dodge Challenger SRT (horrible interior). When I told them that I was shopping against a Camaro both sales guys (and a Ford sales manager) immediately started talking about the Camaro's "poor" rearward visibility. I'm sure bulletins went out from rival manufacturers about that and I'm sure that they have likewise about the Evoque.
paulmon said:
I which dimension is the Qashqai bigger than the Evoque because the one at the side of me yesterday look smaller in every way. As for better VFM go and buy each one new, run it for 6,12,24 months, sell it and then work out much each has cost you.
QQ+2 130ps DCI is 7 inch longer and wb is 4 inch longer and has 2 (small!) additional seats. In mid-range Acenta trim it's £10k less than a 150ps Pure Evoque when bought with a broker's discount (no quite half price though!!). No discounts on Evoque for a while. £18.5k vs £28.5k.Residuals over 3 years (which is a more realistic proposition)? Who knows ? Even if the £22k list Nissan only retains 50% of list, that's £7.5k dep (they seem to retain more, historically). Even if the Evoque retains 65%, that still £10k dep... Similar 0-60, similar mpg.
Then you've got the interest of the £10k capital saved (or the lesser interest payments if you need finance), the free road tax on QQ, cheaper servicing and parts etc etc
As I said, for me at least the QQ+2 is better VFM, which in turns surely means you can spend more money on a proper and non-family second car more in keeping with what PHers aspire to ?
Edited by nickfrog on Friday 25th November 14:28
Johnboy Mac said:
unrepentant said:
Johnboy Mac said:
Oh, yeah - considering it sufferes from poor visibility and the majority will be driven by women I'll have to make a point of giving these a wide berth and never park near one in the local supermarket.
Interestingly, taking a straw poll of those we've sold so far, and we've sold every one we can lay our hands on, the majority have been bought by men. And the visibility is really not an issue at all, rather something that is probably being pushed by competitors desperate to stem the tide of lost sales. When I bought my Camaro I also test drove the 2011 Mustang 5.0 (nice) and the Dodge Challenger SRT (horrible interior). When I told them that I was shopping against a Camaro both sales guys (and a Ford sales manager) immediately started talking about the Camaro's "poor" rearward visibility. I'm sure bulletins went out from rival manufacturers about that and I'm sure that they have likewise about the Evoque.
unrepentant said:
Johnboy Mac said:
unrepentant said:
Johnboy Mac said:
Oh, yeah - considering it sufferes from poor visibility and the majority will be driven by women I'll have to make a point of giving these a wide berth and never park near one in the local supermarket.
Interestingly, taking a straw poll of those we've sold so far, and we've sold every one we can lay our hands on, the majority have been bought by men. And the visibility is really not an issue at all, rather something that is probably being pushed by competitors desperate to stem the tide of lost sales. When I bought my Camaro I also test drove the 2011 Mustang 5.0 (nice) and the Dodge Challenger SRT (horrible interior). When I told them that I was shopping against a Camaro both sales guys (and a Ford sales manager) immediately started talking about the Camaro's "poor" rearward visibility. I'm sure bulletins went out from rival manufacturers about that and I'm sure that they have likewise about the Evoque.
Have a good day
nickfrog said:
It looks brilliant and it's very desirable. But it's not small, it's tiny. As in tiny for what it costs. You can buy a well equipped Qashqai+2 130hp diesel for half the price and it's much bigger. OK not all of the useless feel good BS gadgets present nor the middle-class image, but better VFM surely.
It's a fkn Datsun! The MX-5 is cheaper than the Jag XKR or a 911 cab. They're all convertibles - by your reasoning the Jag and the Porsche should cost the same as the Mazda presumably? unrepentant said:
nickfrog said:
It looks brilliant and it's very desirable. But it's not small, it's tiny. As in tiny for what it costs. You can buy a well equipped Qashqai+2 130hp diesel for half the price and it's much bigger. OK not all of the useless feel good BS gadgets present nor the middle-class image, but better VFM surely.
It's a fkn Datsun! The MX-5 is cheaper than the Jag XKR or a 911 cab. They're all convertibles - by your reasoning the Jag and the Porsche should cost the same as the Mazda presumably? I am not a badge snob anyway...
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff