Totally Disappointed

As a long term LR fan I never expected to write this. I'm on my 4th Disco. We run a FL2 at work and a Defender. My wife has had 2 x Range Rover TDV8's and we chopped the last one of these in around July this year for a Black 64 Reg Dynamic. In total, we've had 14 Land Rover vehicles since 1999.

Loved most of them hence the reason for having more. The Disco 4 is a great bit of kit and the TDV8 RR's were in another league. We wanted to downsize her RR, largely for slightly cheaper running costs, tax & fuel etc.

Biggest mistake I've made in a while. I certainly don't feel the Evoque is worthy of the RR badge and deep down I knew it was a marketing stunt that has paid LR dividends.

The Evoque lacks quality, comfort, performance and economy. Having had 2 ZF 8 speed boxes in Discos and 1 in the RR I held out to get a 9 spd Evoque. The 8 spd has always been silky smooth in the Disco & RR's.

The 9 spd in the Evoque is shocking. Clunky, on some gear changes, hesitant when pulling away, reluctant to kick down (especially with all those extra gears available) and the delay between D and R when you want to reverse into a parking space quickly, just boring. Should have got an Evoque with a built in TV so I had something to watch while the gearbox wakes itself up.
Having said that, the touchscreen and nav is so slow I'm not sure which would take the longest.

Ok ok, well at least it costs a bit less to run. Cheaper tax and what about that fuel economy we'll benefit from. After all, we've changed from a 4.4 TDV8 Rangie. Literally had a cut of 50% in engine size to a 2.2 4 pot so mega economy by comparison, right? WRONG !!!
Really don't know where all the fuel is going, no holes in the tank? On normal runs, with normal driving style we're getting 1-2 mpg better than the RR. Not super long runs but the same journeys we were doing before so totally comparable.
Had a couple of 200 mile runs recently, that should do the trick I thought. 32-34mpg, pretty much all on motorways. The TDV8 did that. Plus, when you wanted it to get up and go, it would. All 2.7 tonnes of it.
The Evoque has no poke. A totally uninspiring drive and I wish I'd never bought it.

If you've stepped out of a Quashqai, a Kia Sportage or an early Freelander, you're probably as pleased as punch with your Evoque. If you've come from another Land Rover marque that was the real example of the LR/RR brand then I doubt you're 100% happy.

I still really like how they look and think they're one of the best looking small 4x4's on the road. I like the auto tailgate, I like the cooled seats, i like the panoramic roof but what I really don't like is driving it.

Rant over !!

P.S. The mirror cover on the drivers sun visor fell off today too.......

Um that's a worry, just sold our D3 (after 6+ years) and ordered a new Evoque. Your description is nothing like the experience we had in the loaner. Easily did 42mpg on a 100 mile test route, and I thought it was great, strong enough on power (OK no V eight), smooth, quiet. Felt comfy and really well made, and the Nav was a revelation coming from a Disco.

Is yours a 2.2 or the newer 2.0 Ingenium engine?

OP says it's a 2.2. I think he'd be even less impressed with the power of the 2.0!

Well @A1GSS, I'm not trying to put anyone off but just an honest description of our experience. Had the car for approaching 6 months now and thought it would grow on me, but it hasn't.

To be fair, if you've come out of a D3 it probably is a breath of fresh air. Similar bhp to the D3 but a lot less weight and 3 more gears. If you'd been in a later D4 you might recognise some of my points.

Fair enough, may well be a factor.

---

(22-11-2016 08:11am)Steve D Wrote:  OP says it's a 2.2. I think he'd be even less impressed with the power of the 2.0!

So he did, my bad Not tried the 2.2 in an Evoque but the 2.2 D Sport I had for a few days was a noisy rattly thing.

(22-11-2016 09:15am)A1GSS Wrote:  Fair enough, may well be a factor.

---

So he did, my bad Not tried the 2.2 in an Evoque but the 2.2 D Sport I had for a few days was a noisy rattly thing.

I found the opposite. Had a 2.0 DS for best part of the week and found it gutless. That was just two up so what it would have been like with seven passengers or towing a tin tent I dread to think. Haven't driven a 2.0 Evoque 9 speed but coming from a Freelander 2, I find my 2.2 6 speed Evoque much better. Can't really say it's noisy either.

I had a launch day Evoque Dynamic, it was fantastic and had few niggles. When the 9 Speed was launched I changed to a 5 door Dynamic with the 9 speed and it was hugely disappointing and unreliable - I stress this was a 2.2, 2014MY. I came to Evoque from a 2010MY 3.6 TDV8 FFRR and had owned 2 RRS's (including a TDv prior to that. The Coupe Evoque was a a better handler than the TDv8 RRS but as OP suggests the fuel economy of both Evoques was disappointing, especially the 9 speeder that had been hyped up as a 50mpg+ capable car which while it was better then the 6 speeder struggled to get better than 42mpg and often less than 40. Also the 2nd Evoque had rattles and software issues that the 1st never suffered from. I kept the 5 door Evoque a year (the shortest time I have ever owned a car) and I changed to an L494 RRS2 3.0 SDv6 Dynamic - best car I have ever owned, more than enough power and get up and go, decent fuel economy (around 40mpg in motorway trips and 36 on local driving) and beautifully built. In 18 months I have just had the first fault - passenger side of the heated front screen isn't defrosting!

Well that is quite comforting Tim as your review echo's some of my disappointments. Would love to get into a RRS 2 now but with a big house renovation funds won't allow it..........yet.

Have decided to go for a total change and feeling a need for speed so have just ordered a BMW M140i due on 1st March. Hopefully any snow will have been tackled with the Evoque by then.

Cant agree more with all PREVOQUE said. As for A1GSS, You should have kept your d3.

Interesting fact, my tdv8 rangie did better mpg than the 2.2. And as said also had the get up and go when you wanted it.

I was at DENSO UK just this week and I asked the question. Answer is, manufactures are not that bothered about mpg, its emissions there after now, low emissions doesn't mean high mpg. The two are completely unrelated.

So much so they say that some makers are thinking of going back to bigger engines, smaller engines get driven much harder.

Steve

(22-11-2016 06:01pm)sasdiscos Wrote:  Cant agree more with all PREVOQUE said. As for A1GSS, You should have kept your d3...

Well, we'll see. I loved the D3 and it was a great friend for years, but was time to move on and the Evoque fitted everything we needed.... time will tell I guess! Had loads of horror stories about LRs before we bought the Disco that turned out to be baloney.

(22-11-2016 06:01pm)sasdiscos Wrote:  Interesting fact, my tdv8 rangie did better mpg than the 2.2. And as said also had the get up and go when you wanted it....

I had a TDV8 FFRR (3.6) which was agreeably faster than the D3 but it struggled to do better than 25mpg. That 3.6 engine was not a good match for the car's aspirations, too agricultural I thought. The 4.4 a miles better proposition.