I was driving behind an Evoque a couple of months back whilst out in my tatty old disco 1, I couldn't quite read the model, but could see it was a range rover of some sort, when I pulled up beside it at some traffic lights, the lady driving could see me looking, and wound down the window and the first thing she said to was "it's not mine, I'm test driving it for my company":D
Although applying some logic hear, it could be seen as a couple of months ago the Evoque was not launched to the public, so she was heading off any forthcoming potential questions about it, before you asked them.
 
I took a couple of videos at Liverpool of the Evo thing playing in the water.
Probably the most one will ever do .... School Transport probably :)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbR-qPrfIXc]Land Rover Evoke Test Drive 2 at Albert Docks, Liverpool - YouTube[/ame]
 
Although applying some logic hear, it could be seen as a couple of months ago the Evoque was not launched to the public, so she was heading off any forthcoming potential questions about it, before you asked them.


Saw the first advertisement last nite on tv for the American launch in New York city:rolleyes::rolleyes: Not to impressed with it. But the soccer mom's and the Wall street(Robbers feck you over type) stock brokers/bankers. Well they would love it as they drive a ROVER as they are referred to here.

Would not met my life style:( A fender and disco would though:D
 
Although applying some logic hear, it could be seen as a couple of months ago the Evoque was not launched to the public, so she was heading off any forthcoming potential questions about it, before you asked them.


It's more of the way she said, it was very defensive, like she wouldn't normally be seen dead in one. Personally, I'm not keen on the look of it, but I can see it appealing to Chelsea Tractor brigade
 
Therein lies my only gripe with the thing, price.

Configured one on the website and it came out at 46 grand. I could have a nice D4 HSE for that.

Thing is though, for all the world it looks to me like they're gonna separate the brands, Land Rover and Range Rover with LR remaining the working market and RR being targeted at a different (richer) set of customers.
 
I take it the dark and dingy one you drove didn't have the white leather or the panoramic roof then?

It did have black leather and had a white roof lining, not sure I would like a panoramic roof in the sun and white leather, it is not easy to keep clean.
 
Therein lies my only gripe with the thing, price.

Configured one on the website and it came out at 46 grand. I could have a nice D4 HSE for that.

Thing is though, for all the world it looks to me like they're gonna separate the brands, Land Rover and Range Rover with LR remaining the working market and RR being targeted at a different (richer) set of customers.

But Range Rover has always been the luxury model of the group, so it's not really changing anything
 
What do you know? Very little I suspect. :D

Care to explain what Range Rover brand values actually are?? :confused:
Ooh may I?? Very well, IMHO

The most successful car brands are the one that deliver a clear and undiluted brand image. Ferrari actually race F1 cars and so they make and sell ridiculously fast, sexy road cars. 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, they are the thinking man's BMW. Land Rover are known for being the "Best 4x4xFar" and they evolved to add a certain amount of refinement when they realised that farmers are actually wealthy people. 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. 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 so they can do small and they have the XF (the Evoque interior actually is a bit XF if you ask me) so the Evoque would have fit right in, style-oriented, well built, not desperately original but definitely competent and fun to drive. Making it an LR, especially an RR leaves it nowhere. Put it this way, those who will only ever drive an Evoque will never have experienced Land Rover. Can you imagine a Holland & Holland Evoque? 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.

I was driving behind an Evoque a couple of months back whilst out in my tatty old disco 1, I couldn't quite read the model, but could see it was a range rover of some sort, when I pulled up beside it at some traffic lights, the lady driving could see me looking, and wound down the window and the first thing she said to was "it's not mine, I'm test driving it for my company":D

:hysterically_laughi

Yep, I've no problem with that at all. I do take umbridge to people slating it just because it's not a 30 year old rust bucket!! :D

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. Just wait till the owners find their way to this forum and you'll see what I mean.
 
Last edited:
I took a couple of videos at Liverpool of the Evo thing playing in the water.
Probably the most one will ever do .... School Transport probably :)

Land Rover Evoke Test Drive 2 at Albert Docks, Liverpool - YouTube

Very little water there, pause it at 6 seconds and you'll see its not even up to the number-plate. Provided you keep up the bow wave you can do this much in a sedan. As some know, I spend six months a year in Bangladesh, a country that's occasionally been known to have a spot of bother with the rain? You see all sorts of Corollas and Honda Civics ploughing through 8-10 inches of water with a smooth road underneath all the time. Will make a video next time I'm there although it is the dry season now.
 
Last edited:
rasheed, I've always liked you and enjoyed you posts, but now you're just talking crap!! :p Allow me to explain...

The most successful car brands are the one that deliver a clear and undiluted brand image.

Ferrari - the makers of the Mondial? A car who's 0-60 is bettered by a 1998 Ford Focus and quarter mile time beaten by a Citroen Saxo VTS - yes, really. Even they "dilute" their waters...

Audi - their 'exciting' cars....like the A2? A car you cannot even open the bonnet on? Or any non-S/RS Audi older than 2 years old? If you've ever driven one, you'll know to dull they really are.

BMW - you say the Audi is "the thinking mans" BMW...yet BMW have kicked Audi's arse in nearly every car test between 2000 and 2010. Only the very latest V8-RS Audi's are starting to compete...

audi-takes-quick-chess-lessons-from-bmw-5792_1.jpg


....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.

Now you're just mental. How anyone work pick that god awful, inflated cash-cow Countryman over the sleek, sharp Evoque is beyond me?!

mini-countryman-side.jpg
evoque_side_002.jpg


But then, it's all down to personal taste. I don't expect everyone to love it, but in the same way the Range Rover was a brave step forward in 1970, the Discovery in 1993, the Freelander in 1997 and the RR Sport in 2004, so the Evoque is the latest in a long line of radical new Land Rover products...and I happen to think it looks great, too :)
 
Last edited:
Saw one on the road while I was in the UK. Looks like it was run over by a tank. Time LR put quality over image, then they would have a chance in world markets. In 3 years the Evoque will look hopelessly outdated whereas the Classic and the P38 still look good.
 
Lurve yoo too Mike! :lvkiss-106:

:D

ps. I can't help it though, I really do fancy the Countryman 4x4. Will be trying to blag a test drive anorl.
mini-countryman-life_460x0w.jpg


mini_countryman_2011_1.jpg
 
Last edited:
It still looks like a squashed freelander with some bling thrown on, as far as I know it even shares the same chassis, will it affect the top spec freelander sales, can it hope to be as reliable as the CRV. It is in one hell of a competative market and bloody expensive at that compared to its rivals. Sorry but if i could afford it I would have the freelander, as said earlier the new gaylander has arrived.
Davie
 
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? :confused:

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.

so they can do small
Actually wasn't that small.

and they have the XF
???? 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 :D

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 :rolleyes:





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:
 
Seen one in the flesh yet Davie? It actually somehow works. Its a LOT larger than you'd expect, they didn't just stretch the wheelbase as they did with the Clubman. To keep the proportions they made it wider and taller too. What I don't like though is the interior; really really feels contrived. Evoque's interior like I said recalls a Jag XF which is not a bad place to start.
 
Yep have seen a couple and thought they just looked crass, but everyone to thier own taste, its just not my cup of tea and it seams pointless when there is the freelander 2. I also understand where 300 is coming from, the Range rover is great offroad but go abroad especially into remote regions and its landcruisers all the way but that is a different argument, this is just a discussion on our own personal likes and dislikes.
Davie
 
Gosh 300, I seem to be keeping you up past bedtime on a school night! :) Fair enough, accept your criticisms of my writing and inability to put across a point convincingly. I'm not going to argue about Audi and BMW because you have your opinion and I have mine. Trust me in Germany, the Audi is the thinking man's choice.

Also concede that chosing Mini wasn't the best example because Issigonis' original Mini was right in its time and went on to become iconic after the event but probably wouldn't sell much today. BMW's first version was a re-interpretation for modern buyers and though hugely different from the original it had enough echoes and could be described with many of the same adjectives and so it worked. Taking this "new" mini as the base then, along came their second edition. Slightly different lines, slanted back the headlamps too, starting to blend a little into the mainstream tbh and starting to look just a little too "designed by the PR department" especially inside. But still recognisably a mini and still consistent in who its aimed at and how its packaged. In this context the Clubman and Countryman just expand the narrative but don't lose the plot. They are roomier and they are slightly more versatile. They are aiming at the same customer at a different stage in his life. The 4x4 isn't at all promoted as an all terrain vehicle, its marketed as a just offering a little extra peace of mind since presumably you might now have your kids on board.
 

Similar threads