babyRR.com - The Range Rover Evoque Forum

I'm reading the 10-page road test with the Evoque TD4 Coupe in the current Belgian AutoGids magazine.
The first test that gave me the feeling the reviewer actually got to drive it for a whole week.

To start off, the major conclusions:
+ unique design, nice details
+ entertaining driving experience
+ personalisation options
+ filtering, sound proofing
+ relatively practical

- high price
- questions about electronics
- view around the car
- gigantic doors, difficult to get into the back (Coupe)
- uninteresting engines for the Belgian tax system
- high consumption

What's more important, their test car had a lot of electronic problems: radio, satnav, Bluetooth, voice control, parking sensors and keyless go, all broken! They were told it still had pre-production software, so they went back for an upgrade, but keyless go and seat heating still refused to work. Apparently they had similar problems while testing the Jaguar XF and XJ. Can't imagine why LR would give a car for testing purposes without checking it first...

Other than that, a positive review.
- It was sometimes embarrassing how much attention the car got from the public (even for a "boring" black one)
- Parallel park is quick and very efficient
- Slow moving Coupe seats
- TD4 is clearly quieter than in FL2
- Gearshift was a bit rigid (new car though)
- Slow sprint but quick enough for regular traffic
- Test consumption was 9,1 l/100km (better than FL2 but worse than German alternatives)
- Excellent seats but a bit short
- Climate system is not very good: inside temperature is always too hot compared to the set temperature, and even with climate off a lot of warm air comes into the cabin
- Dribbling suspension on bad roads, but dynamics are still better than expected

Thanks. Interesting that they found the TD4 a bit too slow, if I read that correctly

What they said exactly is that it's slower than a BMW X1 18d with 143 bhp to do a full kilometer (32,7s vs. 31,2s) but that it's quicker than opponents in 60-90 or 90-120 km/h accelerations due to the high torque. It's not a sprinter but it's swift enough in real life situations. Also let's not forget the car had done only 500 km. when being tested.

(14-09-2011 12:09pm)vision*R Wrote: [ -> ]What they said exactly is that it's slower than a BMW X1 18d with 143 bhp to do a full kilometer (32,7s vs. 31,2s) but that it's quicker than opponents in 60-90 or 90-120 km/h accelerations due to the high torque. It's not a sprinter but it's swift enough in real life situations. Also let's not forget the car had done only 500 km. when being tested.

Good points.

Heart wants Si4, head TD4. Big price difference, about AU$5k (2k pounds) as the diesel attracts less luxury car tax due to lower consumption.

Am googling engine differences like crazy now that I've decided on body and model finally (5dr Prestige - we can get petrol in any model over here).

Go Si4! Buying the Evoque (as opposed to BMW, Audi etc.) means you've already decided with the heart, no need to try and be all sensible after the event.

Go Si4 Memota GO Si4 I tell you!!!!

But the difference goes to the tax man!!!!

OK seriously have you guys driven both?

If i understand correctly, this is not very good review... But maybe first more accurate since they had the car for a whole week.

So much electronic problems, "dribbling suspension on bad roads!?", 9.1 l/100 km fuel consumption is pretty bad... Climate system not good?

So, what is good except the good looks and being quiete than the FL2 (which is not some reference). Driving expirience.. Oook.

Gorjan, do you even like the Evoque? No offence, but I've only seen you hammering on the negative things before I'm sure there are other cars you can consider.

Anyway...

- Most of the electronic problems were fixed after a software upgrade, so I have confidence this was indeed a pre-production problem. I didn't like reading this either, but at least software issues should be easy to fix.

- 9.1l / 100km is indeed quite high but they generally have high test results. To compare: a BMW 316d was tested 7,3 (BMW claims 4,5 for that model) and Mercedes C180 7,6 (should be 4,8 ). They also say it's "much more economical" than a FL2 TD4 which they couldn't get under 10l / 100km. Their extremes were 6,2 and 10,9 so I find 9,1 quite a high median then? In the conclusion they say "fuel consumption is not so bad" and "on par with its segment", a bit contradictory if you ask me. And again, it's a car which had done only 500 km. Test consumption was calculated over 900 km.

- The dribbling suspension on very bad roads has been mentioned in other reviews (this one didn't have MagneRide by the way). Let me quote other parts: "filtering is of high standards but suspension is a bit softer than FL2 which can cause the wheels to dribble on very bad roads, although it stays within very accessible limits". It's a literal translation, and again I think the wording of the article makes it difficult to know how important it was.

- I guess the Climate control may be a software issue as well? Something with the temp sensor?

Their conclusion says it's premium inside and out. They mention "small issues" like a mediocre view around the car and access to the rear seats as well as "two important issues": its price and the electronics. I'm not expecting it to be a perfect car (if you know a perfect car, tell me!), but it was certainly not a bad verdict.

Don't get me wrong, I like the Evoque a lot, but it is not still available to see and test drive in my contry, I can only rely on magazine reviews and what people say about it. I dream of it being perfect (some reviews like AutoExpress claimed it ) and then get little dissapointed by negative points some make...

I guess i need to wait until my test drive in the weeks to come... And than make comments...