Comparisons

Had the opportunity on Thursday of driving the Jaguar F-Pace for 20 miles, very impressed with the 3.0 litre, sat well on the road and through the corners, plenty of oomph when required, quiet and refined.
One hour later and accompanied my daughter to pick up her new Ford Mustang, 2.3l Ecoboost Auto, got to drive it on a good driving road ( mix of dual carriageway and twisty bends). That really put a smile on my face.
Really pleased to say that getting back into the Evoque was not a disappointment.
I think on balance it would still be my car of choice although it is nice to get to try others.
The F-Pace felt like a big car, the Mustang was good to drive but was a sports car.
To my mind the Evoque has the right mix of handling and acceleration without being too cumbersome.
Of course that is only my opinion!

(30-04-2016 01:12pm)jcarrot Wrote:  Had the opportunity on Thursday of driving the Jaguar F-Pace for 20 miles, very impressed with the 3.0 litre, sat well on the road and through the corners, plenty of oomph when required, quiet and refined.
One hour later and accompanied my daughter to pick up her new Ford Mustang, 2.3l Ecoboost Auto, got to drive it on a good driving road ( mix of dual carriageway and twisty bends). That really put a smile on my face.
Really pleased to say that getting back into the Evoque was not a disappointment.
I think on balance it would still be my car of choice although it is nice to get to try others.
The F-Pace felt like a big car, the Mustang was good to drive but was a sports car.
To my mind the Evoque has the right mix of handling and acceleration without being too cumbersome.
Of course that is only my opinion!

Why doesn't Land Rover replace the old 2.0L 240 hp Ecoboost with the 2.3L 310 hp motor? Its the same engine block. The end result would give me a reason to trade in my 2013 Evoque coupe. Do they think that this move would take sales away from the F-Pace? They're two different types of cars as you've experienced. All we've seen are cosmetic changes to the Evoque for 4 yrs. as Land Rover sits on the laurels of what was once a brilliant design but is now showing its age. They market the Evoque in such a manner that were this to happen you'd be required to buy an Autobiography like edition at $75,000+ just to receive the latest engine technology that is standard in a $35,000 Ford Mustang.

(30-04-2016 02:57pm)mstraka Wrote:  Why doesn't Land Rover replace the old 2.0L 240 hp Ecoboost with the 2.3L 310 hp motor? Its the same engine block. The end result would give me a reason to trade in my 2013 Evoque coupe. Do they think that this move would take sales away from the F-Pace? They're two different types of cars as you've experienced. All we've seen are cosmetic changes to the Evoque for 4 yrs. as Land Rover sits on the laurels of what was once a brilliant design but is now showing its age. They market the Evoque in such a manner that were this to happen you'd be required to buy an Autobiography like edition at $75,000+ just to receive the latest engine technology that is standard in a $35,000 Ford Mustang.

Should have said that mine is SD4 with 9 speed auto so progression compared well with 6 speed auto on Mustang, not saying it's as fast just not disappointing. Evoque felt more planted.
The F-Pace felt more like a fast barge but very comfortable, it is nearly 4 inches wider and felt as if it needed all of the road.

I saw an F-Pace on Friday morning in Stratstone's Mayfair showroom and I too was surprised at how wide it is, looks wider than my RRS. One reason that you will continue to see the 2.0ltr Ecoboost petrol engine in Evoque will be because LR is contracted to take a certain number from Ford, then when they have met their commitment you will see a petrol version of the Ingenium engine and probably still not more than 2.0lts but with more output, lower emissions etc