Evoque sold - My final thoughts

(14-12-2013 07:40pm)Urban Splash Wrote:  After a year and a half, my Evoque has been sold. Just thought I would share my experience. I have sold it as I'm getting a company car.

After 2-and-a-half very frustrating years, I sold my Si4 Dynamic and two months ago bought a new BMW 428i. I'd thought I'd mirror your post and offer my thoughts.

The good:
- Beautiful design and interesting, modern cabin
- Nice soft leather (I had the Si4)
- Great gimmicks like the Evoque symbol in the puddle lights and the rotary gear selector
- Electronic park brake was great

The bad:
- Build quality. The numerous creaks and rattles drove me insane and RR never managed to fix them.
- Bad customer service from start to finish
- Awful sat nav - it was literally useless and I eventually bought a Tom Tom. It thought I could get from Esher to central London in 19 minutes. As if!
- Fuel economy was nowhere near advertised
- Drive quality was too hard and the adaptive dynamics in sport mode made me jiggle all over the place so was never switched on. Every bump banged throughout the cabin. I actually preferred driving my new VW Transporter.
- Bad audio system. The FM reception was terrible to the point where I emailed my local radio station to tell them they had a problem - didn't occur to me at first that the problem was my £44,000 car. Service centre told me the FM reception was fine.
- Poor heating system. Once the outside temp approached zero, the Evoque's cabin never got warm enough to remove my jacket even after an hour of driving on the M25. The service centre told me it was working as specified, so I guess it's just crap.
- Touch screen was bad
- Gearbox was dangerous at roundabouts and junctions
- Getting into the back in the coupe was embarrassing
- Engine sounded uncomfortably strained when accelerating hard.
And a couple more:
- The creaking of the brakes when moving off was horrible to hear and always made passengers ask if it was ok.
- Reversing camera was very slow to come up and sometimes took a good 10 seconds. The BMW's is instant.

I still think the Evoque is one of the best looking cars on the road and the interior is lovely to look at, too, unlike the BMW which is generally a bit flat and dull. But the BMW has made me realise just how awful the Evoque was. The BMW makes me smile, it's smooth and quiet, doesn't have a singe creak or squeek. The cabin, whilst a little dull, is wonderfully laid out and has a number of great features. And the sat nav works!

The revelation to me is what's the point of having a beautiful car that's horrible to drive - I can't see it when I'm sitting in it! I'm afraid I can't see that I'll ever own another Range Rover and it pains me to say I've bought German, but I'm so pleased I can put my Range Rover experience behind me and once again enjoy driving.

(15-01-2014 11:39am)fedup Wrote:  The bad:
- Build quality. The numerous creaks and rattles drove me insane and RR never managed to fix them.
- Bad customer service from start to finish
- Awful sat nav - it was literally useless and I eventually bought a Tom Tom. It thought I could get from Esher to central London in 19 minutes. As if!
- Fuel economy was nowhere near advertised
- Drive quality was too hard and the adaptive dynamics in sport mode made me jiggle all over the place so was never switched on. Every bump banged throughout the cabin. I actually preferred driving my new VW Transporter.
- Bad audio system. The FM reception was terrible to the point where I emailed my local radio station to tell them they had a problem - didn't occur to me at first that the problem was my £44,000 car. Service centre told me the FM reception was fine.
- Poor heating system. Once the outside temp approached zero, the Evoque's cabin never got warm enough to remove my jacket even after an hour of driving on the M25. The service centre told me it was working as specified, so I guess it's just crap.
- Touch screen was bad
- Gearbox was dangerous at roundabouts and junctions
- Getting into the back in the coupe was embarrassing
- Engine sounded uncomfortably strained when accelerating hard.

Maybe you had a 2012?

My 2013 has no creaks/ rattles whatsoever. Land Rover Assist was very fast and friendly when I had a nail in the tire.

Sat Nav? What is that? We use Smartphones here in the US, nobody actually uses their in-car navigation anymore.

Fuel economy is exactly as advertised for me... about 20mpg (US) around town, and 28-30 on the highway (going 65mph).

Audio system is excellent for the base system. The heating system is very good on mine (heated seats and steering wheel), and it is very cold here in NE.

Then again, I didn't get a Coupe (didn't seem practical), I don't use the touch screen much (it's a pressure sensitive one and it works fine as is). The ride quality is definitely firm rather than soft even on 19" on my Pure Plus, and the Engine does lug when in "D" but is fine when driven in "S" (D for cruising, S for local driving).

Then again, I have different expectations. It's an entry level Land Rover. It's like a 3 series, or C-Class or A4 or whatever (just the SUV equivalent). I expect it be nice, but not even close to a real high end car. I mean, it's got 240 HP, I don't expect it live up to an Autobiography with 500+ HP or an S-Class, or anything like that.

Cars these days (in the USA anyway) start around $30k for anything decently nice (Maxima, Avalon, any luxury brands). Why bother with one of those FWD things when you can get some much more with a $40K RR? But it's still just a $40K car.

I would definitely never get a 428i over the Evoque though. I mean, it's a slow BMW coupe, it's priced high for something that doesn't even have leather.

(15-01-2014 01:03pm)Jinzen Wrote:  Sat Nav? What is that? We use Smartphones here in the US, nobody actually uses their in-car navigation anymore.

I'm so happy I was able to spec my Evoque without including the Sat Nav package. In doing my research over the past few months on a number of cars, at best people tolerate a built-in Sat Nav and most commonly people detest theirs, and even if the Sat Nav is tolerable, it is ALWAYS way overpriced (and let's not even talk about the price of updates).

Between my phone and a stand-alone Garmin unit, I can have a decent Sat Nav for a tenth of the price (and without having to fork over a gold brick for updates). Sooner or later, I hope car makers just outsource this stuff to software companies that know what they hell they are doing so that built-in Sat Nav can be good AND cheap.

(14-12-2013 07:40pm)Urban Splash Wrote:  Hi All,
After a year and a half, my Evoque has been sold. Just thought I would share my experience. I have sold it as I'm getting a company car

Anyway, I have a 420d Xdrive coming on Christmas Eve Eve. A bit different. Hopefully ok in the snow still.

Great forum....all the best....

Snow,,,,,,,,,,,,,I very much doubt that to be honest. I for one would far sooner have an Evoque or Freelander than any standard BMW. They are as common now as Ford were till about 15 years ago.

(15-01-2014 04:28pm)HeartbreakRidge Wrote:  I'm so happy I was able to spec my Evoque without including the Sat Nav package. In doing my research over the past few months on a number of cars, at best people tolerate a built-in Sat Nav and most commonly people detest theirs, and even if the Sat Nav is tolerable, it is ALWAYS way overpriced (and let's not even talk about the price of updates).

Between my phone and a stand-alone Garmin unit, I can have a decent Sat Nav for a tenth of the price (and without having to fork over a gold brick for updates). Sooner or later, I hope car makers just outsource this stuff to software companies that know what they hell they are doing so that built-in Sat Nav can be good AND cheap.

Renault use Tom Tom but it's still £2000 for the UK map only Nav option...!

(15-01-2014 01:03pm)Jinzen Wrote:  Maybe you had a 2012?

My 2013 has no creaks/ rattles whatsoever. Land Rover Assist was very fast and friendly when I had a nail in the tire.

Sat Nav? What is that? We use Smartphones here in the US, nobody actually uses their in-car navigation anymore.

Fuel economy is exactly as advertised for me... about 20mpg (US) around town, and 28-30 on the highway (going 65mph).

Audio system is excellent for the base system. The heating system is very good on mine (heated seats and steering wheel), and it is very cold here in NE.

Then again, I didn't get a Coupe (didn't seem practical), I don't use the touch screen much (it's a pressure sensitive one and it works fine as is). The ride quality is definitely firm rather than soft even on 19" on my Pure Plus, and the Engine does lug when in "D" but is fine when driven in "S" (D for cruising, S for local driving).

Then again, I have different expectations. It's an entry level Land Rover. It's like a 3 series, or C-Class or A4 or whatever (just the SUV equivalent). I expect it be nice, but not even close to a real high end car. I mean, it's got 240 HP, I don't expect it live up to an Autobiography with 500+ HP or an S-Class, or anything like that.

Cars these days (in the USA anyway) start around $30k for anything decently nice (Maxima, Avalon, any luxury brands). Why bother with one of those FWD things when you can get some much more with a $40K RR? But it's still just a $40K car.

I would definitely never get a 428i over the Evoque though. I mean, it's a slow BMW coupe, it's priced high for something that doesn't even have leather.

I got it in September 2011.

We have smartphones in the UK, too. But I find it a lot more convenient to use the built-in sat nav, or a TomTom if necessary, as I find them more accurate, locate quicker, re-route around traffic etc. and the map doesn't disappear when I make/receive a call. Plus there's no cables trailing around the dash or worries about battery. And, of course, it means the directions appear in the instrument cluster as well as on the nice, big high-res screen, rather than trying to see it on a piddly 4" phone.

If RR were going to include such an awful sat nav, I'd question why they bothered.

The sat nav was included in both my Dynamic Evoque and my 428i M Sport at no extra cost.

Not sure if you're confused as to what the 428i is, but its twin turbo engine is much faster than my Evoque and most certainly has leather.

---

(15-01-2014 04:28pm)HeartbreakRidge Wrote:  I'm so happy I was able to spec my Evoque without including the Sat Nav package. In doing my research over the past few months on a number of cars, at best people tolerate a built-in Sat Nav and most commonly people detest theirs, and even if the Sat Nav is tolerable, it is ALWAYS way overpriced (and let's not even talk about the price of updates).

Between my phone and a stand-alone Garmin unit, I can have a decent Sat Nav for a tenth of the price (and without having to fork over a gold brick for updates). Sooner or later, I hope car makers just outsource this stuff to software companies that know what they hell they are doing so that built-in Sat Nav can be good AND cheap.

Very true. I'm guessing it's just a matter of time before all cars are fitted with an Android OS and various apps etc. can just be downloaded as you wish.

For what it's worth, the BMW's built-in satnav is incredible - has Google Maps style traffic, aeriel images, streetview, knows whether to re-route or stay in the traffic jam etc. I really love it so far.

I chose the Evoque over a great deal I could have had on a BMW 5 gt series. The ride on the BMW on 20" run flats was truly awful. Felt every crinkle in the road.

I'm with fedup all the way, its easy for folk to say that their cars are perfect and we must have a dud, at £44K there should be no complaints. Personally I am waiting on an A6 Avant All-road and can't wait until the day the Evoque is no longer may daily driver.

I can't wait until the Evoque is no longer my daily driver too but for different reasons. I've been very happy with my Evoque.

Hi, we traded our new style BMW 1 series bought new in 12 for a similar age used Evoque in Dec, the BMW was good but crashed on every undulation in the road and shock your teeth on pot holes, oldies struggled to get in the back, I had new seat bases due to corrosion which hit 1 and 3 series but not a recall, new heating fan which roared like a motorbike under the dash (1 and 3 series issue) and leaky gearbox at 11,000 miles (needed new gearbox as the seal could only be changed with complete tear down) and the non xenon lights were worse than the Evoque non xenon. Fuel consumption was excellent but to get the performance the diesel had to be taken to red line. I think no manufacturer puts out the "best" car they would like to and all makes now use the customer to finish the reliability trials due to cut backs in testing brought about by short gestation periods for new designs and tech equipment and the customer "want" to have the latest design and toys. Probably JLR are one of the few manufactures who do spent time in the cold and hot climes to make sure the vehicle will still be around in 30 to 40 years time but modern electronics are known for having a short shelf life and as for incorporating modern materials to reduce weight, well not all of the new tech stuff works as well as old style heavier metals and materials in all environments. Plastics which find there way into new cars do still become less flexi in the cold and cause rattles. I liked my BMW but we love the Evoque, both had the same £10k hit in depreciation in 18 months except that the Evoque cost about £13K more when new so that puts the larger depreciation against the BMW as I said it was the new style with the must have options including the best estoril blue paintwork on the market. Also as a used buyer on the Evoque I'm fully aware of the foibles from reading the forum but I just couldn't get away from everytime we saw one we thought it looked so cutting edge when seen on the road going the other way and the handling surpasses my RRS with all the handling gizmos fitted. Sad a little bit that the SDV6 gives me exactly the same mpg as the SD4 though (33mpg).

Paul