Evoque [Official] Range Rover Evoque

[Zafiro]

And by that I suppose you mean...

Nope, he just ordered a brand new M5

 

[Human]

^
THE Master!

 

[Cashmere]

Harry's review from Evo Diaries

 

[Kilcrohane]

someone has the temerity to actually check Land Rover's claims for the Evoque's off-road credentials, and guess what:

I'm not quite sure where the 25-degree approach angle claim comes from. Our Evoque began rubbing on our 20-degree cheese grater of a ramp immediately, and this isn't even the lowest part of the front fascia.​

​

The Evoque only managed 10.5 inches of lift on its journey 31.4 inches up the RTI ramp before it began teetering at maximum articulation. With a 104.8-inch wheelbase, that works out to a Ramp Travel Index of just 300. For comparison, the Mazda CX-5 is good for 334 and the BMW X3 manages 322, and neither of those claim any off-road heritage.​

​

Our Evoque Pure Plus two-door rides on 245/45R20 Continental CrossContact tires and 20-inch alloy rims that are 8 inches wide, a street setup if ever there was one. Each assembly weighs in at a rather hefty 62 pounds.​

​

At the end of the day it seems the 2013 Land Rover Range Rover Evoque attempts to evoke images of Land Rover prowess, but it's really more of a stylish crossover than anything else.​

​

and dangerous:

​

Braking: Spongy, long-travel pedal. Abrupt initial application. Exhibited major pedal fade on sixth stop, with much longer distance (128 feet). First stop was 119 feet. Second stop was shortest at 117 feet. Lots of nosedive, pulled to left on every stop.​

​

single piston, solid rear brake discs to stop, or not in the case here, a 4,000 pound vehicle, and 4-corner, basic macpherson strut suspension on a $50k 'premium' car. As Dan Edmunds says, Hmm. Total BS company.

http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/...range-rover-evoque-suspension-walkaround.html

http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/...over-range-rover-evoque-coupe-track-test.html

 

[Levi68]

Does the Evoque look good!

As Dan Edmunds says, Hmm. Total BS company.

Why don't you want to turn JLR from a BS company to super-company? Seems like you are the right person for that.

 

[Monster]

Guess you forgotten to quote this part too.

The Evoque's front brakes are single-piston sliding calipers and the FoMoCo logo tells us they come from Ford.

While I am not defending this car or Land Rover, I doubt 99% of Evoque drivers will need to perform 6th conservative emergency braking in the real world. In fact most Evoque owners/drivers do not even care.

 

[Giannis]

Our Evoque Pure Plus two-door rides on 245/45R20 Continental CrossContact tires and 20-inch alloy rims that are 8 inches wide, a street setup if ever there was one.

And truth to be told, you can't expect any serious off-road capabilities with such wheels dimensions. You need some common sense when spec'ing up your new SUV. Unless you think that anything with an LR badge on it, will be the off road equivalent of the Apache helicopter - it goes anywhere...

 

[Kilcrohane]

While I am not defending this car or Land Rover, I doubt 99% of Evoque drivers will need to perform 6th conservative emergency braking in the real world. In fact most Evoque owners/drivers do not even care.

- really? Descending a mountain road, as just one scenario?

Descending say 2,000m/7,000 ft on switchbacks, braking from up to 100 km/h to almost a standstill in the hairpins, probably involves more brake energy than 6 stops from 60 mph on flat ground, as a real-life example, common to its main markets in Europe and North America. Anyway, the ten-times repeated brake test from 100 km/h or 60 mph to standstill is common practice, and at least in Germany any car unable to demonstrate it is considered in need of immediate remedial work by the maker - witness the early instances of the A250 AMG Sport's brakes catching fire, due to insufficient cooling, and subsequent work by Mercedes to address it.

The fact is the Evoque is a Mondeo(Ford EUCD) platform underneath, and as such the carryover brakes are probably fit for a 2-litre FWD Mondeo weighing no more than 1,500 kg. The fact that Land Rover made great play of the Evoque being 'lightweight' at launch probably also meant the designers believed the crap about a maximum 1,650 kg kerbweight and spec'd accordingly, whereas typically petrol Evoques weigh 1,800 kg and diesels up to 1,850 kg.

It's staggering that the now in the market for two years Evoque still has the same under-spec'd brakes. Land Rover must know they aren't up to the job and have had more than enough time to implement a running change. It's also amazing motoring journalists haven't screamed blue murder about the Evoque's brakes, as the first tests showed the brakes to be weak, and now almost two years later the same dangerous brakes almost go unremarked upon by testers.

 

[Giannis]

- really? Descending a mountain road, as just one scenario?

Descending say 2,000m/7,000 ft on switchbacks, braking from up to 100 km/h to almost a standstill in the hairpins, probably involves more brake energy than 6 stops from 60 mph on flat ground, as a real-life example, common to its main markets in Europe and North America.

I'd say that in cars equipped with a gearbox, the driver could downshift to reduce breaking load, but I would be missing the point, wouldn't I?

 

[Kilcrohane]

I'd say that in cars equipped with a gearbox, the driver could downshift to reduce breaking load, but I would be missing the point, wouldn't I?

- nearly all Evoques are auto boxed, with all US market petrols being autos, so unless the driver consciously chooses the gear manually or selects a winter/off-road type programme there will be less engine braking.

The reason why the ten times from 60 mph/100 km/h braking test is critical is not only for the scenario of descending a series of switchbacks, common in the Alps, Rockies, Sierra Nevada and so on, but also at high European autobahn-type speeds.

The energy required to be dissipated by an Evoque making an emergency stop from its top speed on the autobahn, 135 mph, is 5 times greater than that at 60 mph, as energy is speed squared. Add in an autobahn with a decline and you're easily looking at exceeding the cumulative energy required to be dissipated from six 60-0 mph stops in one go. That is why the Germans insist on any car, whether it be a Dacia or a Porsche, being able to demonstrate the ability to undergo ten repeated emergency stops from 100 km/h, without fade or any other problems, like brake fire or pulling to the side. It's incredible that this dreadful product gets a pass on this by most of its owners and auto journalist testers.

 

[martinbo]

In cars, gears aren't brakes, Giannis, and should not be used for slowing a vehicle down. And yes, I've gotten brake fade down several mountain passes in SA in a car with better brake specification and lower kerb mass than an Evoque.
I shudder to think of the implications of a Robbers or Oliviershoek Pass blast in an Evoque. Meh, where's me trusty Forrie?

 

[Giannis]

In cars, gears aren't brakes, Giannis, and should not be used for slowing a vehicle down.

Smug smiley. Hmm. Ok, I gotta ask. Why?

Why not use the engine to decrease your speed?\

Modern engines have sophisticated fuel cut-off systems. Even my S60 has one: After 5 seconds of zero alpha angle, fuel is cut-off and speed decreases at a higher rate than before.

Then again, you might have said that because we are talking about emergency braking, so downshift isn't applicable.

Enlighten me, now, please!

 

[martinbo]

Quite simple: it's just rubbish driving technique. x

 

[Sunny]

^On the topic of to or not to use engine braking, I have read (believe this is the book), older cars yes, use engine braking cause brakes are usually crap. On modern cars you don't have to, cause brakes are good enough and you rather stress brakes and replace them sooner than stress your driveline. Imagine my surprise when I read in the Porsche manual to "be in appropriate gear going down hill to leverage engine braking".

 

[Giannis]

Quite simple: it's just rubbish driving technique. x

I expected something technical. Of course, as a driving technique it sucks, but when you are not alone in your car, nor is your last name Alonso, engine braking is fine.

Yet rev matching a downshift while being on the breaks is an art!

^On the topic of to or not to use engine braking, I have read (believe this is the book), older cars yes, use engine braking cause brakes are usually crap. On modern cars you don't have to, cause brakes are good enough and you rather stress brakes and replace them sooner than stress your driveline. Imagine my surprise when I read in the Porsche manual to "be in appropriate gear going down hill to leverage engine braking".

That thing about old cars, is indeed true. I learnt to drive in a car with no ABS and I recall my father telling me to downshift, or I will kill myself later on. The brakes were indeed crap, and downshifting made an incredible difference. It still does, as the same car serves as my daily driver and the brakes are still crap.

 

[mini_cooper4]

Yes, depending on the car and the brakes it has... engine braking might be useful in some cases but of course combined with pushing the brakes too. To be honest being in gear all the time increases traction and that's all you need to do. Without early downshifts it's sometimes pretty hard to stop my 97 Polo.

 

[Kilcrohane]

The Mupperati continue their awakening to reality:

'WTF - evoque's life-threatening quality​

​

Last week while my lovely wife was driving with kids in the back on motorway - just at 75mph, all of a sudden steering wheel failed to turn - almost ran into a major accident. Fortunately all were saved by some mighty power. She wrestled with the steering wheel, cut through the traffic and finally able to pull over to the curb.... Bottom line, cant afford to keep this high-risk and highly unreliable truck anymore... Family's life is more important vs "status symbol". Perhaps this is the last visit to service shop.​

​

I read some of you had steering wheel issue, not sure what was your feedback or outcome?. I'm looking into taking some serious action. Perhaps file a lawsuit at least.​

​

Never seen such issue with any of the last 28 vehicles I owned in my life. Yes this is my first and last LR product. So long !!'​

​

http://babyrr.com/forum/thread-7422.html​

​

It seems it takes actual death/near death of oneself or one's nearest and dearest to break the spell of JLR and the media's massive, lobotomising propaganda for the whole fake Land Rover/Range Rover 'prestige' brand thing.

In the future, forty, fifty years from now, business schools will use the long gone JLR as a no.1 case study of how the incredible power of PR and the immoral use of it can literally warp people's minds into believing what is positively injurious to their health is to be prized and lusted after, without reason. It'll also be taught to show that such a deliberate policy or strategy for a business can only work short-term, though, as eventually, as the wholly undeveloped R/R Evoque is now showing after 2 years in the market, the reality of a poor product and zero respect for the gulled muppet buying the cynical product, will eventually bubble to the surface and destroy the carefully maintained, false PR image.

 

[Betty Swollocks]

And the relentless biased anti-JLR propaganda continues. How much longer is this going to be allowed to continue before somebody does something?

 

[Human]

And the relentless biased anti-JLR propaganda continues. How much longer is this going to be allowed to continue before somebody does something?

IMHO. Why should something be done about it? If there is any case-support, info, experience, source or article/post etc. on the net it should and must be allowed. If a Ferrari bursts into flames or if a BMW owner/driver is called out to be an Asshole it's allowed. So if incident or fact points towards JLR's incompetence and are called out or highlited, I'd lke to hear/read about it. This is normal GCF consumer advice shared. Toyota had to deal with it, so why should TATA owned JLR be excused? BMW's rusty seats?

Agent "K" as you where

 

[Betty Swollocks]

IMHO. Why should something be done about it?

Because Kilcrohane clearly has a personal axe to grind and he's just using this forum as his own soapbox in which to spout his vitriolic bile. Most of his posts can be proven to be completely one-sided and not telling the whole story. There have been several examples of members on here receiving a temporary ban despite their posts being on topic. They received the temporary ban because they just wouldn't stop filling threads with the same posts, time and time again. This is no different. It's trolling. He's been banned from other forums for this very reason.

Maybe he was fired from JLR at some point? I don't know. However, if I constantly searched the internet to find negative PR stories on BMW, Audi or MB and relentlessly posted them whilst also failing to tell the whole story, I think many people would soon grow tired of me. How would you react if I posted a photo of an X6M that had caught fire and then tried to claim it was "typical" of BMW?

Come on Naas. You're clearly an intelligent guy. Are you telling me taking ONE anecdotal example from a random person on the internet and then claiming that in "forty or fifty years business schools will be using JLR as an example of immoral behaviour of a company and their ability WARP people's minds" is not complete and utter hysterical hyperbole from somebody who clearly has a personal axe to grind?

In the future, forty, fifty years from now, business schools will use the long gone JLR as a no.1 case study of how the incredible power of PR and the immoral use of it can literally warp people's minds into believing what is positively injurious to their health is to be prized and lusted after, without reason.

I repeat, I have no personal bias towards JLR. I have no interest in the brand. I just think he's doing the forum damage.