Ooh may I?? Very well, IMHO
The most successful car brands are the one that deliver a clear and undiluted brand image.
ok, so lets define successful, would that be financially stable and viable? I only ask.....
Would likely not exist without Fiat's financial backing (or someone else's if not Fiats).
Yes they are a well known supercar maker and semi successful racing car team. But they are far from the pinnacle of what many would deem a success in their own right.
Audi had the Silver Arrows at Le Mans and then in the 80s they ruled rallying with the marvellous quattro. All their road cars are therefore sporty oriented
No they aren't, in fact almost none of Audi's range is sporty and even the ones that are don't generally drive sporty.
they are the thinking man's BMW.
:doh:
Land Rover are known for being the "Best 4x4xFar"
This is really only British arrogance that claims this. In some parts of the World they are known as "mall crawlers" "soccer Mum's cars" and even a few worse things.
Yes they do have a following, but you are seriously blowing up your own arse if you truly believe the entire World views LR with gooey eyes as the best there is.
and they evolved to add a certain amount of refinement when they realised that farmers are actually wealthy people.
The latter is clearly not really that true. No idea what models you are talking about either. The RR was revolutionary in the UK market, but Jeep launched a very similar type of vehicle nearly a decade earlier, so was LR really so radical?
Even though people complained the Freelander was more an on-roader than a true off-roader in the flesh it can hold its own against most Pathfinders and RX Lexii and so forth (bar the doors falling off of course!). Meanwhile the cross-over category was by people who didn't originally make 4x4s. There are tons in this area, usually large companies with a bushel of models to choose from and no clear and specific brand heritage.
This is all nice and all, but I don't see how it answers the question?
Why does LR need a cross-over? I don't object to the Evoque per se as a car, its not stand-out enough or unique enough to merit being singled out whether for praise or condemnation. In fact if they had labelled it a Jag it might even have been rather interesting. Jaguar already makes the dubious X-type
Jaguar don't make the X-Type, it's ceased production.
Actually wasn't that small.
???? which is largely a DEW98 platform vehicle same as the S-Type. Don't really see where you are going with this. Nothing Jaguar make or have made has any bearing on "Range Rover brand values" - you know the question you where answering
Put it this way, those who will only ever drive an Evoque will never have experienced Land Rover.
You could have spouted the same rubbish back in the early 70's about anyone wanting a Range Rover. It's just as stupid a thing to say now as it would have been then.
Can you imagine a Holland & Holland Evoque?
Yes actually.
And certainly a far more realistic prospect than a Defender H&H.
To rattle on a bit more, BMW held on to Mini when they got rid of Rover and look what they've done it with it. Strongly tied it to its roots and then tried to modernise. How well they've done it is a matter of taste but if I want a faux British on-roader with some 4x4 capability I know I'd rather a Mini Countryman 4x4 with a Cooper tune than an Evoque.
Sorry, non of that makes sense. You seem to be saying a MINI Countryman is more true to it's brand by having nothing to do with the original Mini or ethos. While the Evoque isn't LR at all, despite being built on a Freelander platform, which you think is a LR and having similar abilities to the Evoque.
Right ok
No I don't think that's what we're objecting to. We're objecting to it being crass and tasteless and losing total sight of its heritage.
You still seem to have completely failed at saying a single thing about LR heritage...... :doh:
