This is a Range Rover. Sadly.

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
Datatek said:
In 3 years the Evoque will look hopelessly outdated whereas the Classic and the P38 still look good.
Click to expand...

Really? P38 still looks like a Metrocab to me. Classic will always look good in the same way a Series 1 does, kind of the start of things, which, correct me if I'm wrong, is the same with the Evoque, kind of start of a new era for LandRover. And regardless of the nay sayers, LR are moving into a new era.

We know Deafner replacement is on the way, new L405 Full-Fat RR on it's way, and so on. Now where exactly is the cash to develop these cars coming from? How about the sales of Range Rover Sport? That got slated for being to bling, too soft, hairdresser's car etc. Facts are it's a Disco with less seats and a more sporty look to the body, it's every bit as capable off road as Disco but it gets used more as a chelsea tractor. WHO EFFIN' CARES? It's making buckets of cash to use for R&D. In the same way, so will Evoque.

Whether or not you like it is irrelevant. LR aren't going to stop selling it and nor should they. As long as LR produce a car I like and want to drive why should I care about what other models they make, what the heritage is all about and so on? I fail to see what relevance series landies have to my L322, they share 1 component in common, the Green Oval badge. Actually, scrub that, my Vogue SE shares the Supercharged black ovals.

In the motor industry you are only ever as good as your last triumph, or equally, as bad as your last failure. Just recall Toyota and brakes as an example. Decades of legendary reliability ruined in 1 go.

Evoque is a bold move by LR, one which is paying dividends thankfully. It is well engineered and having driven one I think it drives really well. Yes the looks are a bit marmite but love it or hate it, it's here to stay, it's the future of the Range Rover brand, and it's providing R&D cash for the replacement models yet to come. Surely that has to be good for all Land Rover lovers, no ?
 
rasheed said:
Audi had the Silver Arrows at Le Mans and then in the 80s they ruled rallying with the marvellous quattro. All their road cars are therefore sporty oriented, they are the thinking man's BMW.
Click to expand...
Thinking men obviously hate cars that handle then, over the years most Audis were under-steering piles of junk, Audi insistently pumped out the same stale flawed design with the engine in the wrong place as it was their way. When Rover finally came out with the thinking man's rally car - a lightweight 4x4 that handled (Metro 6R4) they banned it.

rasheed said:
Jaguar already makes the dubious X-type so they can do small
Click to expand...
Well they did, the X-Type (Mondeo in a party dress) has been dead for at least 3 years - however, unlike most Audis - it handled.


rasheed said:
BMW held on to Mini when they got rid of Rover and look what they've done it with it.
Click to expand...
The "new" MINI was designed in Gaydon by Rover engineers - look what BMW did eh? Or did a company on its knees who made the same three box saloon in three different sizes - about to be taken over by the highest bidder, ward off takeover by buying Rover, giving it access to the newest and biggest markets (premium brand SUVs and FWD cars) then dump the carcass of the said company after asset stripping it and leaving it for dead? I hope BMW-owning Land Rover enthusiasts can sleep at night - you shouldn't ought to.
 
No need to listen to anyone about this heap of ****. It looks like it's made from leggo, they ran out of blocks half way up, so just dropped the roof on.. Simple as that.
 
Last edited:
rasheed said:
ok everything i said i withdraw. just found this pic. eep!

0626_MINI_vs_MINI_03.jpg
Click to expand...
Well done!!! On finding probably the most pointless picture on the internet.
 
Only buy vehicles when they are very second hand and only if I can sort them myself so probably won't be buying one! I do like the fact that LR moves with the time though.
 
StuckAgainSteve said:
I hope BMW-owning Land Rover enthusiasts can sleep at night - you shouldn't ought to.
Click to expand...

I slept really well last night actually, and not once have I come out to the driveway in the morning to find the Range Rover holding the BMW in a headlock asking for an apology (although that would be cool to see, kinda like Transformers. Anyway...).

Surely anyone could see what was coming before it happened? I could! Don't blame BMW, blame the people who got Rover/Land Rover into the mess in the first place. Poorly built, unreliable vehicles that, unlike the Evoque, never really competed on the open market.

BMW saw an opportunity and took it - that's just good business sense. They didn't have a 4x4, so buy a fledgling company that did, use their technology to build their own cars, thin out all their crap and in the process, job done. Simples!
 
300bhp/ton said:
What an ignorant comment to make, you've been paying too much attention to Clarkson I reckon :doh::doh::doh:
Click to expand...

Yes I know the X-Type had some X-Type-only technology but it is a CD132 platform (like the Mk2 Mondeo) and it shares engines and rear suspension. Plus the unique wonderfully under-engineered transfer box which is the other otherwise excellent X-Type's downfall. I like the X-Type, it handles nicely, rides well, not too taken by the looks (Rover 75 looked much nicer) shame about the transfer box/case issue - a very under-rated car.
 
I followed one into Weston two days ago; black, with massive black alloys, private/custom EV09UE* plate.........what a pile o' ****e....IMHO ;)
If it had a Toyota or Volvo badge I might have understood it, bold, brash, weird, funky even, but NO WAY should it carry the name Range Rover........cos it isn't......simplezzz!!
 
ridesafe said:
i followed one into weston two days ago; black, with massive black alloys, private/custom ev09ue* plate.........what a pile o' ****e....imho ;)
if it had a toyota or volvo badge i might have understood it, bold, brash, weird, funky even, but no way should it carry the name range rover........cos it isn't......simplezzz!!
Click to expand...


:d
 
Ridesafe said:
I followed one into Weston two days ago; black, with massive black alloys, private/custom EV09UE* plate.........what a pile o' ****e....IMHO ;)
If it had a Toyota or Volvo badge I might have understood it, bold, brash, weird, funky even, but NO WAY should it carry the name Range Rover........cos it isn't......simplezzz!!
Click to expand...
Crux of the problem. People want to buy glitzy, bold, brash and blingy motors so if Land Rover say we wont make them they will cease to exist in months. Simple economics says make what people will buy.
 
Rover -v- BMW: agreed they bought the company very cheaply for key engineering expertise, asset striped and ran.

But I also agree this was sound business sense: although I don't believe that was the original intention...mistakes were made and the point came where something fundamental had to be done or BMW might now be the assembly hub for a Chinese manufacturer. The countless millions poured into developing the R75, MINI, RR L322 and the stillborn 45 replacement (no, an original BMW 1 series is not the same car with a BMW badge and RWD) and updating/building related facilities in Longbridge and Solihull somewhat suggest otherwise to me.

Evoque - yes Marmite looks (I'm not a fan, but definitely don't feel like puking when I see one), looks/marketing/design very focussed on generating new sales for the marque etc etc. But I can't help but note every road test I've read says it's excellent on the tarmac and surprisingly capable in the mud...

But is it a betrayal of LR's values? Erm...they are what..? Pretty good off road, good at leaking, can plough a field if the tractor's been nicked and even better at breaking down. On that basis pretty much every LR since 1970 has been progressively more disloyal to the original LR spirit.

All IMO of course!
 
StuckAgainSteve said:
I think the point is it's called a MINI! :eek: I wonder if BMW kept hold of the Maxi name? That would be more appropriate!
Click to expand...
And it is. What other 4 door 4x4 SUV is truly smaller than the Countryman?

Comparing to the original Mini is lunacy. Partly because in this instance you are comparing a 4 door with 5 seats AWD family car to a compact "city" style car with only 2 doors, 2 half sized seats and a rear bench seat that is even smaller.


And partly because the pic is comparing a car designed in the 1950's with a car built for 2011. Where are the crumble zones, air bags and refinement levels in the classic Mini??


BTW - if you parked an e21 next to an e90 you'd see a similar change too.
 
StuckAgainSteve said:
Yes I know the X-Type had some X-Type-only technology but it is a CD132 platform (like the Mk2 Mondeo) and it shares engines and rear suspension. Plus the unique wonderfully under-engineered transfer box which is the other otherwise excellent X-Type's downfall. I like the X-Type, it handles nicely, rides well, not too taken by the looks (Rover 75 looked much nicer) shame about the transfer box/case issue - a very under-rated car.
Click to expand...
They are more than just Mondeo though.

Yes the platform is similar, but its only a starting point. The Dew98 platform is found under a Mustang, T-Bird, Lincolns and the Jag S-Type and XF... does that mean it's not a Jag either?

Also with regards to the Mondeo, where is the saloon AWD variant?? That' right, doesn't exist does it.

And the V6 engines aren't the same either, same block but that's where it stops really. And besides it's not as if cars like the RRS 2.7TDV6 don't share an engine with a Peugeot is it ;)

Interior on the X-Type is not Mondeo either, infact the switch gear developed for the X-Type then went on to find a home in the x358 XJ.


ARO has a very good and indepth article on the X-Type if you want to read more about it.
 
300bhp/ton said:
They are more than just Mondeo though.

Also with regards to the Mondeo, where is the saloon AWD variant?? That' right, doesn't exist does it.

And the V6 engines aren't the same either, same block but that's where it stops really. And besides it's not as if cars like the RRS 2.7TDV6 don't share an engine with a Peugeot is it ;)
Click to expand...

The engines have different cam timing and ancillaries but the basic engine is identical. Cylinder heads are interchangeable between the Mondeo ST engine and the Jag variant. Maybe there are valve size differences - I don't know, but the engines share more DNA than just the block.

The AWD platform only happened because there was no RWD platform available (in that size) and front wheel drive just wouldn't do. They abandoned the idea of a cut-down PEW due to cost and packaging.
 
StuckAgainSteve said:
The engines have different cam timing and ancillaries but the basic engine is identical. Cylinder heads are interchangeable between the Mondeo ST engine and the Jag variant. Maybe there are valve size differences - I don't know, but the engines share more DNA than just the block.

The AWD platform only happened because there was no RWD platform available (in that size) and front wheel drive just wouldn't do. They abandoned the idea of a cut-down PEW due to cost and packaging.
Click to expand...


From: The cars : Jaguar X-TYPE | AROnline


his would not be a simple re-bodied version of the Mondeo, although sadly this would be label applied to the X-Type later in life. In terms of prestige, this really shouldn’t have been an issue, the B5 Audi A4 had been co-developed with owner Volkswagen’s Passat and shared far more with each other than had X-Type and Mondeo. Strange then that, Mondeo was the class leader, not Passat, yet being Mondeo related was somehow seen as undesirable.

The platform itself was no simple carry-over, either, the 2000 Mondeo had no AWD system to accommodate, and although some panels such as front strut tops were identical, most bore no resemblance. Further more, the wheelbases of the two cars did not even match, nor did their lengths, widths or tracks.

The AJ-V6 that would be used in the X400 was a development of the same unit in the X200. If the origins of the architectures were complicated, the engine itself made their lineage seem positively straightforward. The AJ-V6 was based on Ford’s Duratec 25 and 30 V6 engines, usually used in transverse applications. The origins of the engine however were outside of the Ford family. In the early Nineties, Porsche were developing a lightweight 60° all aluminium alloy V6, but as Porsche struggled in the pre-Boxster era and plans for front engine, rear drive designs were shelved (and would be until the 2009 Panamera saloon), the engineering was sold to Ford and Cosworth. How much of this design still exists today is debateable, but it would seem to be here that the Duratec V6’s story began.
The first derivatives appeared in 1994 from Ford’s Cleveland engine plant, hence many referring to the engine family as ‘Cleveland’ V6s and appeared in cars such as the Mondeo and Cougar, the compact and light engine winning critical acclaim. The modern engine became the perfect basis for development by Ford, Lincoln, Mercury, Mazda and Jaguar, and meant that the manufacturers did not have to make do with a ‘chopped’ V6 based on a 90° V8 as rivals Mercedes-Benz and Audi had, prohibiting packaging in a transversely mounted architecture.


n fact, contrary to many accounts, the engine shares little more than its block. When the AJ-V6 was launched, it was often claimed to be based on the AJ-V8 as many felt it had more in common. At launch, the new 3.0 V6 derivative was gifted with continuously variable valve timing and variable inlet tracts making it the most potent and efficient V6 engine to use the Duratec block, developing 240bhp and 221lb ft of torque.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
NEW OWNER OF A RANGE ROVER SPORT 3.6 TDV8 HAVING SUSPENSION PROBLEMS
Replies
3
Views
821
brianp38dse
brianp38dse
S
Hello All. We own a Range Rover Vogue 2003
Replies
6
Views
663
Hippo
Hippo
G
Sport L494 Sport Purchasing Advice
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
Mark Piercy
Mark Piercy
300bhp/ton
P38A Should you lift a Range Rover? Air/Coil?
4 5 6
Replies
108
Views
11K
300bhp/ton
300bhp/ton
T
Range Rover Evoque Keyless Entry problems
Replies
3
Views
539
Hippo
Hippo
Back
Top