Vs Porsche Macan vs Range Rover Evoque

[Giannis]

As far as the RR Evoque is concerned, there one fundamental point to which I strongly disagree with @Kilcrohane

The RR Evoque can indeed be a highly desirable product. Not every licensed driver and potential segment buyer judges a car like us, car fans and driving aficionados do. Not many people care how a car handle at its limits or with the electronic nannies turned off, or how new or old is the platform. It's a sum of little details that go unnoticed by the vast majority of customers. The Evoque looks good and has a strong brand image. This is more than enough for many many people and JRL takes advantage of it - it's a profits driven company after all.

 

[Deckhook]

^The reality is the majority buy an SUV regardless of size for it's commanding driving position over the normal equivalent and not to go have hooligan fun in. I test drove the Evoque a while back and if you keep things in perspective it's an enjoyable little SUV, it exactly does a hell of a lot right compared to some others, it's ride is decent, it's got nice steering, it's interior though tight is beautifully finished but it does lack a decent engine range to back up the quality feel of the rest of the car, in fact when you consider the underpinning the Evoque sits on I reckon JLR have done a remarkable job.

I'm sure if Steve had compared like with like meaning a 2.0 diesel Macan the gap wouldn't have been as vast, sure the Porsche would still have won and for the same reasons but such a comparison with have to wait for the time being.

 

[Betty Swollocks]

As far as the RR Evoque is concerned, there one fundamental point to which I strongly disagree with @Kilcrohane

The RR Evoque can indeed be a highly desirable product. Not every licensed driver and potential segment buyer judges a car like us, car fans and driving aficionados do. Not many people care how a car handle at its limits or with the electronic nannies turned off, or how new or old is the platform. It's a sum of little details that go unnoticed by the vast majority of customers. The Evoque looks good and has a strong brand image. This is more than enough for many many people and JRL takes advantage of it - it's a profits driven company after all.

Even if the Evoque was given the Nobel Peace Prize, and it ended world hunger, AIDS and every disease known to man, whilst simultaneously being voted the most enjoyable car to drive by every single motoring journalist in the World, and sold for one Dollar, Euro, Pound, Rand, Rupee, @Kilcrohane would not change his opinion. He clearly has a personal agenda and I've no idea why anybody, including myself and you Giannis, give his posts any credibility by even replying to them.

 

[Giannis]

He clearly has a personal agenda and I've no idea why anybody, including myself and you Giannis, give his posts any credibility by even replying to them.

Mat, I ask once again, to please stick to debating the arguments, not the poster.

I can't understand this JLR obsession, either, but if you notice, I only reply to what I find interesting. I suggest you do the same. There's no point in trying to battle everything you find illogical in the internet. In GCF's case, this only drives threads even more off-topic.

For this reason, I ask you to please take it to PM level, if you want to discuss this issue further. We are already off topic enough.

 

[Kilcrohane]

As far as the RR Evoque is concerned, there one fundamental point to which I strongly disagree with @Kilcrohane

The RR Evoque can indeed be a highly desirable product. Not every licensed driver and potential segment buyer judges a car like us, car fans and driving aficionados do. Not many people care how a car handle at its limits or with the electronic nannies turned off, or how new or old is the platform

True to a point, but then there's this:

■ Land Rover Range Rover Evoque (choppy ride, a noisy cabin, and disconcerting emergency handling)

http://www.freep.com/article/20140226/BUSINESS01/302260094/consumer-reports-vehicles-cars-to-avoid

and remember this:

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

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.​

Consumer Reports must have found something similar to the Edmunds' testers.

the point is, even the empty-headed, by-PR-alone-impressed autophobes who generally drive these things will care about a dangerous product - if they are told, as well as a poor ride, not good for their pampered tushes, and a noisy cabin, which will interfere with their constant rabbiting on their handheld cell as they drive down Rodeo Drive or Knightsbridge.

Yes, image can overcome a lot, but not a fundamentally crap, dangerous design, and a sub-par ride and engineering refinement, not even worthy of a half-the-price generation-later Ford Escape. Yes, that $50k+ Evoque rides fundamentally on an original Ford Focus platform(the 'C1') from the mid-2000s, that was stretched by Ford to become the 2006 'EUCD', that underpinned the 2007 Ford Mondeo, Volvo S60/V70/S80 etc, and Land Rover Freelander/LR2, and of course became the 2011 Evoque, whereas that $25k 2012 Ford Escape rides on Ford's latest 'C-segment' world platform, a generation on from the 'C1/EUCD', and has the latest version of the 2-litre EcoBoost engine, with 270 lb.ft torque, as opposed to only 250 lb.ft in the twice the price Evoque.

That whole image thing is as fickle as fashion, if the underlying product itself is poor - as amply demonstrated by the just done TheFastLaneCar video review. One minute you're 'hot', the next not so much. Tough.

 

[Cashmere]

^^ the Porsche is a modified Q5. Absolutely nothing BMW can't handle.

 

[Deckhook]

True to a point, but then there's this:

■ Land Rover Range Rover Evoque (choppy ride, a noisy cabin, and disconcerting emergency handling)

http://www.freep.com/article/20140226/BUSINESS01/302260094/consumer-reports-vehicles-cars-to-avoid

You use this as your example as if this opinion is gospel. lol

SAME SHIT JUST A DIFFERENT DAY.

 

[Kilcrohane]

You use this as your example as if this opinion is gospel. lol

well it's certainly more gospel than yours.

Oh, and I backed it up with the Edmunds test verdict. Oh, and the $57k, 0-60 in 8.3 sec, 21.9 mpg TFLCar review of the 2014 MY. You must have missed all that. I'd put put 'lol', but that's for children.

Maybe a real actual Evoque purchaser is 'gospel' enough for you?:

http://babyrr.com/forum/Thread-Suspension-harshness-and-noise

'I really like this vehicle and see a long-term marriage but one thing is threatening to destroy this honeymoon - the suspension! First of all it has the new 19" standard rim with 55 profile tyres. It "thrummed" on the highway coming home from the dealer sending an annoying resonance throughout the cabin. It also "bumped" and "thumped" over every little thing in the road which is always audible. It's harshness is such that, compared to EVERY ONE of the 50 or so cars I've driven, you are constantly rocking from side to side in the cabin - this accompanied by suspension "thrumming", "thumping" and "bumping"'. etc. etc. etc..
​

SAME SHIT JUST A DIFFERENT DAY.

Quite. lol.

 

[Deckhook]

Most bizarre that I had an Evoque Dynamic out for a weekend on 20" rims and even lower profile tyres and was surprised just how good it's ride and lack of road noise and this is repeated by numerous owners when I did a quick search.

http://www.whatcar.com/car-reviews/...eviews/25963-3?resultPage=2&resultPageCount=4

My car
After six months of ownership and 5,000 miles I must say I'm extremely pleased with my Prestige SD4 auto.

Having owned mainly Japanese marques I was really worried about the build quality and reliability of LR products. So far so good...it has not been back to the dealers once, and no hint of rattles or quality issues.

The finish is top notch with a premium feel to the cabin, really supportive seats and the panoramic roof lets loads of light in. The sat Nav is excellent as is the stereo.I have the 20" wheels and was worried about the ride quality, but its far better than expected which is a bonus.

The only negatives are that I am getting nowhere near the reported mpg...just 31 to the gallon, although I do a lot of town driving, and the boot is small...although I new that before I purchased the car.

I was originally going to get a fully loaded Pure but when I'd added on all the extras I wanted it was better for me to buy the Prestige for a little extra, plus residuals should be better on the Prestige also.

The looks are fantastic and if you dont like having strangers walk up and ask about the car...dont buy one as you do get a lot of attention.

The X3 and Q5 are both excellent cars but for me the looks won the day and so far I have been pleasantly surprised by the quality as well.

My car
Having experienced Mercedes, BMW's and Audis, The Evoque stands held and shoulders above these generic brands.

The car ticks all the boxes, especially in London, its big inside but small on the outside, making it easy to park.

The interior is incredible, easily on a par with much more expensive vehicles and again the handling defies logic, being such a tall car, it handles as well as any hot hatch.

Of course you will find negative comments like the ones you so love to post up but this is the same for any car, why not accept that your opinion regarding JLR holds as much water as a sieve.

 

[Kilcrohane]

Car & Driver's review of the 2014 MY Range Rover Evoque:

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-land-rover-range-rover-evoque-test-review

Can it get any worse than what Consumer Reports and TheFastLaneCar found about this car? You betcha.

- $63,700 as tested price
- slower than the 2013 6-speed model
- worse fuel economy than the 2013 6-speed model (although its EPA rating has gone up) - just 19 mpg!
- worse braking than 2013 model
- still got that huge, dangerous turbo lag, courtesy of the unchanged since 2011 Ford EcoBoost engine
- weighs over 4,100 lbs (1,860 kgs) - similar to the much larger BMW X3, Audi Q5, and Merc GLK - and about 450 lbs more than that claimed by Land Rover.

Basically, even Land Rover butt-kissing C&D struggled to put a positive spin on this disastrous test and ridiculously outdated and overpriced car. They had to fall back on the old chestnut of the Evoque being superior off road, which is total rubbish, even with the GLK and Q5, or a suitably-tired X3, and especially with the air-suspended Macan, which let's not forget starts at $49k in the US, for a 340 hp V6 model. A 'S' Macan, with $14k of options, sure seems more enticing than an at-base 2006 Freelander/LR2, with big black wheels and a fancy paint job.

No wonder the Macan is sold out for months if not years ahead, and the X4, revised X3, new GLA, decent Jeep Cherokee etc. etc. are all much better cars for up to tens of thousands of dollars less. Land Rover/JLR have gone mad. They are at the 2004 stage of the Phoenix Four MG Rover - desperation combined with rampant greed.

 

[martinbo]

I once gushed over the Evoque upon first site at the Joburg Motorshow back in 2012, so enamoured with its looks was I... "Wow, they really made the transition from concept to production so faithfully" I crooned.

I soon got over myself upon realising that the Evoque is the epitome of automotive mutton dressed up as lamb. There is no reasonable comparison between the Evoque and the Macan. The one has been engineered to be nothing like the car it was based on; the other has been styled to be nothing more than the old heap it is underneath. The ultimate poseur's car.

My Forester XT leaves an Evoque for dead on tarmac; its superior ground clearance (225 mm vs 215 mm), approach angle and sensible tyres means that it genuinely is more capable off-road too. Kids can also see out of the back door windows - pure novelty! Macan on air suspension gets a max ground clearance of 230 mm if I recall correctly? Not bad at all for a soft-roader. Pity it's got a PDK gearbox whose dual clutches will probably catch fire in thick, soft sand.

 

[Kilcrohane]

The one has been engineered to be nothing like the car it was based on; the other has been styled to be nothing more than the old heap it is underneath.

- very well put. Me thinks I have competition in the wordsmith stakes.

My Forester XT leaves an Evoque for dead on tarmac; its superior ground clearance (225 mm vs 215 mm), approach angle and sensible tyres means that it genuinely is more capable off-road too. Kids can also see out of the back door windows - pure novelty! Macan on air suspension gets a max ground clearance of 230 mm if I recall correctly? Not bad at all for a soft-roader. Pity it's got a PDK gearbox whose dual clutches will probably catch fire in thick, soft sand.

Porsche do a lot of their prototype testing now in South Africa. Given that, I'd be surprised if their testing hadn't accounted for that type of terrain, but like anything, time will tell.

 

[Deckhook]

^One thing about Porsche is they never do anything half-hearted and the Macan will be no exception. When it was first mentioned by the dealer I had my name down but once the images started to appear I quickly realised it's boot space wouldn't be up to my requirements which was a real shame as I bet it's a blast to drive.

 

[KiwiRob]

Car & Driver's review of the 2014 MY Range Rover Evoque:

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-land-rover-range-rover-evoque-test-review

Can it get any worse than what Consumer Reports and TheFastLaneCar found about this car? You betcha.

- $63,700 as tested price
- slower than the 2013 6-speed model
- worse fuel economy than the 2013 6-speed model (although its EPA rating has gone up) - just 19 mpg!
- worse braking than 2013 model
- still got that huge, dangerous turbo lag, courtesy of the unchanged since 2011 Ford EcoBoost engine
- weighs over 4,100 lbs (1,860 kgs) - similar to the much larger BMW X3, Audi Q5, and Merc GLK - and about 450 lbs more than that claimed by Land Rover.

Basically, even Land Rover butt-kissing C&D struggled to put a positive spin on this disastrous test and ridiculously outdated and overpriced car. They had to fall back on the old chestnut of the Evoque being superior off road, which is total rubbish, even with the GLK and Q5, or a suitably-tired X3, and especially with the air-suspended Macan, which let's not forget starts at $49k in the US, for a 340 hp V6 model. A 'S' Macan, with $14k of options, sure seems more enticing than an at-base 2006 Freelander/LR2, with big black wheels and a fancy paint job.

No wonder the Macan is sold out for months if not years ahead, and the X4, revised X3, new GLA, decent Jeep Cherokee etc. etc. are all much better cars for up to tens of thousands of dollars less. Land Rover/JLR have gone mad. They are at the 2004 stage of the Phoenix Four MG Rover - desperation combined with rampant greed.

Way to selectively read an article.

Lets pick apart some of your asertations:

Worse Breaking Performance - they attributed that the All season rubber, I'm sure it it was wearing summer tyres this would improve dramatically, what they also didn't say was if the conditions were the same as last year.

Worse fuel economy - they said they thrashed the crap out of it to fully test the 9 speed, this surely has something to do with that, I know when I thrash my MINI it's fuel economy ends up in the toilet.

$63,700 Tested price - simple remove some of the very expensive option like the $15,200 Dynamic Premium package and the vehicle become a lot cheaper.

Slower than the previous model - this car was 105 pounds heavier than the 2013, also were the track and weather conditions that same as last year, this make a huge difference.

Basically your comments are full of dog poop.

 

[KiwiRob]

^One thing about Porsche is they never do anything half-hearted and the Macan will be no exception. When it was first mentioned by the dealer I had my name down but once the images started to appear I quickly realised it's boot space wouldn't be up to my requirements which was a real shame as I bet it's a blast to drive.

Apart from styling, Porsche's styling department have been on holiday since the 911 replaced the 356, the whole rational that every car must look somewhat like a 911 is getting old, the 928 didn't and was better for it, the 924/944/963 didn't either and they were also good looking cars.

 

[Deckhook]

Apart from styling, Porsche's styling department have been on holiday since the 911 replaced the 356, the whole rational that every car must look somewhat like a 911 is getting old, the 928 didn't and was better for it, the 924/944/963 didn't either and they were also good looking cars.

It's one of the issues I do have with Porsche, I get it...... the 911 in now an icon and public demands stops them from changing it's looks but I agree the rest of the range doesn't need to follow it's styling.

P.S.
You should know by now that Kilcrohane always has a hidden agenda regarding JLR and the fact he doesn't come clean about his reasons gives him zero credibility in my eyes.

 

[martinbo]

P.S.
You should know by now that Kilcrohane always has a hidden agenda regarding JLR and the fact he doesn't come clean about his reasons gives him zero credibility in my eyes.

Then let the record reflect that history on this forum shows that you have not covered yourself in glory in the past either. I'll steer clear of the details but I advise that you refrain from handing down judgement on credibility

Kilcrohane has made his agenda on this forum clear - there is nothing more to work out. He will pick out certain facts which he believes casts JLR and/or their products in a poor light and present these facts. If you have other facts with which to counter-argue with then, by all means, have your say. It is, however, unreasonable to suggest that a member's opinion and presentation of (even selected) facts lacks credibility, only because they choose not to tell you why they feel a certain way about something.

It's quite simple: make claims - present the proof. Kilcrohane presents his side of the facts that for him "prove" his misgivings for JLR. It's up to the community to present other facts disproving where possible.

 

[Kilcrohane]

Worse Breaking Performance

Jesus, it breaks even more than before?!!

 

[Deckhook]

Then let the record reflect that history on this forum shows that you have not covered yourself in glory in the past either. I'll steer clear of the details but I advise that you refrain from handing down judgement on credibility

Kilcrohane has made his agenda on this forum clear - there is nothing more to work out. He will pick out certain facts which he believes casts JLR and/or their products in a poor light and present these facts. If you have other facts with which to counter-argue with then, by all means, have your say. It is, however, unreasonable to suggest that a member's opinion and presentation of (even selected) facts lacks credibility, only because they choose not to tell you why they feel a certain way about something.

It's quite simple: make claims - present the proof. Kilcrohane presents his side of the facts that for him "prove" his misgivings for JLR. It's up to the community to present other facts disproving where possible.

All I'll say on the subject is that had it's been directed toward German brands then his outcome would be different but his selective facts comes across as someone with an axe to grind and an agenda this is other than having an opinion. So IMO selected facts that don't portray the full picture and don't help his case.

 

[martinbo]

All I'll say on the subject is that had it's been directed toward German brands then his outcome would be different...

Well, this is GermanCarForum.com after all, not WorldCarFans. But that's not an excuse - purely a personal bias of mine. Fine line between zealot and troll but when the facts arguing the case are so eloquently and engagingly put forward, I'd rather have sensible debate decide the outcome rather than personal sentiment.