+- babyRR.com - The Range Rover Evoque Forum (https://babyrr.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Range Rover Evoque Discussions (/Forum-Range-Rover-Evoque-Discussions)
+--- Forum: General (/Forum-General)
+--- Thread: 2x Evoque v 2x FFRR (/Thread-2x-Evoque-v-2x-FFRR)
RE: 2x Evoque v 2x FFRR - Tekno - 13-10-2011 10:55pm
I sat in silence when everyone went on and on about the diesel engine, economy etc.
Spending £42k on a car means I want something special and I wasn't going to compromise on fun for an extra few mpg.
Glad the Si4 impressed. I love mine.
RE: 2x Evoque v 2x FFRR - DynamicRRV - 13-10-2011 11:03pm
+1
2x Evoque v 2x FFRR - SW6RR - 13-10-2011 11:26pm
... Just a compromise on the interior then...
RE: 2x Evoque v 2x FFRR - Spiderman - 14-10-2011 01:40am
(13-10-2011 11:26pm)SW6RR Wrote: ... Just a compromise on the interior then...
I dont agree with that comment as all Dynamic owners have lovely perforated leather as standard, we also have the choice of upgrading to the Prestiges Oxford Leather, but with bucket seats and thats a choice not open with the other models, compromise?
RE: 2x Evoque v 2x FFRR - FFRR - 17-10-2011 11:46am
My view:
I am yet to test drive the Evoque but have seen them about and had a chance to look around. This is my own view as a 2011 TDV8 Autobiography owner.
If the Evoque had a better choice of engine, I wouldn't hesitate to get one.
Economy
From what I have read and seen, the engines are noisy, boring and uneconomical. This surprised me for a car so 'new.' It perhaps shows Land Rover's lack of innovation in terms of engines. Compare this with BMW who have engines producing much more power in a much more economical way from smaller output. A combined cycle on the Evoque is supposedly 42.2mpg. In real world from what I have heard so far, this is nowhere near achievable. Contrast this to the 4.4TDV8 in my Range Rover, and the 30.1mpg combination is achievable.
Engine
How Land Rover can seriously think a 2.2litre diesel with a 10 second 0-62mph time matches the 'sporty' nature of the Evoque I don't know. Roll on an economical 3 litre. They manage a 7.6s 0-62 in the Range Rover which weighs about double the Evoque and isn't much less economical. The engine is also whisper quiet at idle and cruising speed. Under acceleration it actually sounds nice as well (
Cabin
The Evoque's cabin looks lovely. It really does look nice and user-friendly and of great build quality. But in my view this is pseudo-quality. You have a leather-look dashboard and the leather on the seats from the pictures I have seen are seriously crumpled already and don't look like they've had the leather fitted to them properly at all (this is particularly the bucket seats). The leather in the Range Rover across the range is top quality. The Range Rover additionally has the laminated glass which makes a massive difference to the noise in the cabin. From what I've read, when pressing on the Evoque is noisy. Evoque cooled seats would be nice too - I guess this may come in due course.
Technology
The Range Rover is behind but this is understandable judging the age of the design. The dual view, full TFT dashboard, surround cameras and RSE are still ahead of competitors by some margin, however.
Audio
The standard Harmon Kardon Logic 7 output is about the same as the Evoque's high end system. Of course, the Evoque has Meridian which is a better audio manufacturer, however, and the sound will be better in a smaller cabin.
Verdict
There's going to be split opinions. The Evoque is an entirely new hybrid of technology so in those aspects it is unfair to compare directly to a 10 year old design. I still love the solidness of my Range Rover, the unparalleled visibility and top quality leather everywhere. The Evoque is really exciting but I feel the engines really let it down, and, for the money, you should get better!
RE: 2x Evoque v 2x FFRR - evoqueboy - 17-10-2011 11:57am
0-60 is 8 secs in the coupe if I'm correct. I personally think that power and mpg will be improved once JLR start to produce their own engines! However I totally agree with you about the engines. I do feel that they could be more powerful and economical like the BMW and Merc engines!
RE: 2x Evoque v 2x FFRR - DynamicRRV - 17-10-2011 12:24pm
(13-10-2011 11:26pm)SW6RR Wrote: ... Just a compromise on the interior then...
I totally disagree,the Dynamics interior matches the sporty accent of the Dynamic,whereas the Prestige matches the luxury accent of the Prestige......BUT.........I personally dont like the prestige leather,saggy and boring IMHO.
RE: 2x Evoque v 2x FFRR - SW6RR - 17-10-2011 12:26pm
Also FFRR, see Spiderman's and Tim's evaluation of the ride of the Evoque vs. the multitude of FFRR and RRS they have owned. Ride is extremely impressive, we are told.
RE: 2x Evoque v 2x FFRR - FFRR - 17-10-2011 12:48pm
Leather is already 'puddling' here.
0-62 of the SD4 coupe is 8.5
0-62 of the Si4 coupe is 7.6 (about the same as the Diesel RR)
The tradeoff of the Si4 will of course be fuel economy!
RE: 2x Evoque v 2x FFRR - DynamicRRV - 17-10-2011 12:50pm
(17-10-2011 12:26pm)SW6RR Wrote: Also FFRR, see Spiderman's and Tim's evaluation of the ride of the Evoque vs. the multitude of FFRR and RRS they have owned. Ride is extremely impressive, we are told.
I too..........have owned two FFRR SC and TD and 3 RRS all SC.........Evoque much better ride than ANY of them.