Range Rover Evoque

PiKe · 2 Jul 2010 at 10:37

Yes I meant that, I chose the wrong 'corrected' spelling

Fr0dders · 2 Jul 2010 at 10:41

you mean she's not designing some flywheel based KERS system, hence the reference to inertia ?

Shame

mikeh501 · 2 Jul 2010 at 11:59

Skidder said:
is it really smaller than a freelander? if so, that would make it of no interest to me too

I've read there will be a 5 door version as well; maybe that is slightly larger. Guess we will find out when they release some more info.

Other thing which makes me wince is the 2ltr diesel 4pot in a 45k "Range Rover".... hmmmm; why no 6pot diesel like in the disco. I hope the sole purpose of this car isnt to just lower the overall manufacturer co2 output.

Locky · 2 Jul 2010 at 13:40

Jonnycoupe said:
It looks NOTHING like the Q7.

.

Ok calm down dear.

paradigm · 2 Jul 2010 at 13:52

mikeh501 said:
I hope the sole purpose of this car isnt to just lower the overall manufacturer co2 output.

Of course it is.

Fr0dders · 2 Jul 2010 at 14:31

mikeh501 said:
I hope the sole purpose of this car isnt to just lower the overall manufacturer co2 output.

get used to it

Once the EU starts fining them per car sold per gram of Co2 that the average of their range is above the limit, they will all be doing it.

Jonnycoupe · 2 Jul 2010 at 15:12

mikeh501 said:
I hope the sole purpose of this car isnt to just lower the overall manufacturer co2 output.

Its not its sole purpose at all, this is what 'apparently' customers were asking for in terms of something "more expensive". There has been a huge amount of work in terms of engineering the design/style with as little compromise as possible from the Concept LRX.

mikeh501 · 2 Jul 2010 at 15:22

Yeah and I dont have an issue with that, but if they think there going to market a premium vehicle at a premium price (like 35-45k) then sticking in a 2ltr 4 pot diesel isnt a great start. This is a Range Rover is it not?

I hope they do something sensible like maybe starting at 25k for a 2.0TDI in XS spec, ending up with a TDV6 in HSE for about 40k. If its just the freelander engine and the vehicle is smaller (which I've read it is) then there going to struggle to explain how its 10k more in price; and that premium is because its a RR, but in my view it being an RR is also about its engine not just the cosmetics.

Fr0dders · 2 Jul 2010 at 15:29

mikeh501 said:
but in my view it being an RR is also about its engine not just the cosmetics.

for a lot of RR customers its not

Its about the badge and the looks. Hence why they are so popular with footballers wives.

This car will sell, 4 pot or not.

SoliD · 2 Jul 2010 at 15:34

Looks great to my eyes, aggressive in a i'm not absolutely massive fashion that you seem to get from every manufacturer these days.

Jonny69 · 2 Jul 2010 at 16:39

Damn ugly and overly aggressively styled in my opinion. Still, if that's what the owners demand...

Joe T · 2 Jul 2010 at 21:39

MrLOL said:
This car will sell, 4 pot or not.

I agree... and we will see a lot more downsizing of engines over the next few years...

Jonnycoupe · 2 Jul 2010 at 21:45

The engine is tranverse so that will rule out pretty much anything from the bigger brother stable and its northwest layouts. MY14 will bring some impressive drivetrain technologies but I think we're pretty much stuck with 4 pots in it.

Moeks · 3 Jul 2010 at 13:37

I quite like it in an odd sort of way, but I must say I am deeply disappointed with those engines. Who in their right mind is going to spend £30k+ on premium 'mini' SUV with a ******* 4 pot. I could live with it if it had l6s in both diesel and petrol form available and I would accept the 8s are for the full size Range Rovers....although I was 'hoping' for the V8 and super-charged V8 really.

But these engine are a damn tragedy ...and please ...I don't want any crap about how this is the way it's going to be from now on and how I should get used to it, because I don't want to hear it and I will not 'get used to it'. I will moan and complain about it from now until the end of days, grrr. And just drive older cars.

Kappa · 3 Jul 2010 at 14:46

Moeks said:
Who in their right mind is going to spend £30k+ on premium 'mini' SUV with a ******* 4 pot.

I see more than enough Audi Q5s with the 2.0TFSI and the 2.0TDI 170.

Make no mistake, people WILL pay for this.

griffo_001 · 3 Jul 2010 at 15:49

It'll certainly expand their customer base..... Because no owner of a current LR will want/need them, Londonites excepted of course

I can see why the made it fail wheel drive (Not the first the in companies history mind, ask the RAF) but that makes it of no use to me, and dilutes the brand IMO

Burned_Alive · 3 Jul 2010 at 19:33

Finally a Range Rover that the soccer mums can actually drive and park.

mikeh501 · 3 Jul 2010 at 22:51

Kappa said:
I see more than enough Audi Q5s with the 2.0TFSI and the 2.0TDI 170.

Make no mistake, people WILL pay for this.

Their not asking possibly 45k for it though are they. Like I said earlier it all depends on pricing and from what I've read with a 35k base price up to 45k it's expensive for a 2ltr diesel, I'd be expecting a premium power plant like 6 cylinders at that kind of money.

All that being said I'm sure it will still do well...

Von Luck · 3 Jul 2010 at 22:57

Something about the front end makes it look a bit like a Ford Kuga.

I'm sure it'll be a great success with the usual owner demographic of drug dealers and perma-tanned wives on the school run.

Jonnycoupe · 3 Jul 2010 at 23:48

mikeh501 said:
Their not asking possibly 45k for it though are they. Like I said earlier it all depends on pricing and from what I've read with a 35k base price up to 45k it's expensive for a 2ltr diesel, I'd be expecting a premium power plant like 6 cylinders at that kind of money.

There is no 2 litre diesel, its the 2.2 (DW12c)

Range Rover Evoque

Man of Honour