What is it with "designers" at the mo?
Who has decided that you need no rear visibility?
Bet it has a reversing camera system?
uke:
Who has decided that you need no rear visibility?
Bet it has a reversing camera system?
uke:
teddywood1
Well-Known Member
i really do agree with you i sat in the evoque and i though i was in a van i had to adjust the mirror a lot to find the back window , and while i was there a woman came in and she said i would have brought one of those, but did not because she liked a bigger back window she had come to collect her new range rover , luck sod.What is it with "designers" at the mo?
Who has decided that you need no rear visibility?
Bet it has a reversing camera system?
IanSG19
Member
I was told by a guy at the LR Experience in Luton that the reduced window area as seen on the ghastly Evoque and now FL3 (especially on the rear passenger doors) is to enable them to come into line with new Euro regs on side impact protection. It gives the impression of the roofline (i.e. internal headroom) being lowered, but it isn't - it's just that the structural part of the door is raised to allow more beams, etc.
The upcoming regs are the reason for the end of the Defender, as they are airbag-incompatible due to the lack of crumple zones (other than the impact vehicle)
My colleagues haven't seen prototype mules before, so commented mainly on the crap paint-job!
The upcoming regs are the reason for the end of the Defender, as they are airbag-incompatible due to the lack of crumple zones (other than the impact vehicle
)My colleagues haven't seen prototype mules before, so commented mainly on the crap paint-job!
wickford90
Well-Known Member
Not a fan of it then.
Singvogel
Well-Known Member
I don't like it!
The wheels are nice though.
I'm surprised the 'design-engineers' haven't come up with a different shape for the wheels though - like octagonal or hexagonal - 'shape is all' these days it seems.
My Freelander is already, in my opinion, a classic - I decided that when I saw the first pics of the FL2 - I immediately bought the car I have now, before they stopped making them.
Imagine not having a spare wheel on the back door - no way!
SV.
The wheels are nice though.
I'm surprised the 'design-engineers' haven't come up with a different shape for the wheels though - like octagonal or hexagonal - 'shape is all' these days it seems.
My Freelander is already, in my opinion, a classic - I decided that when I saw the first pics of the FL2 - I immediately bought the car I have now, before they stopped making them.
Imagine not having a spare wheel on the back door - no way!
SV.
So Land Rover seperated their 2 brands.
It used to be Range Rover was a model, within the Land Rover Franchise.
Then they seperated it, to create a distinctive Range Rover line ; Evoque , RRS , RR.
The idea being that LR would be the functional brand, with RR being the Poser's brand.
The only issue with this is, the longer this goes on, the less and less functional the LR branded cars are actually getting. When they move the FL2 to a size above the Evoque, to try to bridge the gap between the Evo and T5 platform. They are removing the affordable, functional, practical LR model.
I honestly dont know what they think about sometimes.
It used to be Range Rover was a model, within the Land Rover Franchise.
Then they seperated it, to create a distinctive Range Rover line ; Evoque , RRS , RR.
The idea being that LR would be the functional brand, with RR being the Poser's brand.
The only issue with this is, the longer this goes on, the less and less functional the LR branded cars are actually getting. When they move the FL2 to a size above the Evoque, to try to bridge the gap between the Evo and T5 platform. They are removing the affordable, functional, practical LR model.
I honestly dont know what they think about sometimes.
WLJayne
Well-Known Member
Money. Specifically new Chinese and Indian poser money.
WLJayne
Well-Known Member
I do like the rims, but I think the RREV is too posey looking and that seems to be the design direction they are taking the brand. I don't like cars which are designed to be a big "**** you" to the plebs. That's why I've got alot of respect for Mercs, they look nice but even the S class doesn't say "I cost 80k, go **** yourself you gutter filth."
Most of all they're just ugly, big sports cars. No longer meaty looking rugged 4x4's like the ones up to the Evoque.
Most of all they're just ugly, big sports cars. No longer meaty looking rugged 4x4's like the ones up to the Evoque.
Hippo
Lord Hippo
Thats what I thought. Bit too suspect for my thinking. I would bet it's all a guess as peeps who spy these cars don't really know. Bit of hype fills the page. With a lot of engine/transmission bits shared by the evoque and FL2 they it could be either car. Or just something covering what they're really testing.
DiscoPol
Well-Known Member
I don't like it!
The wheels are nice though.
I'm surprised the 'design-engineers' haven't come up with a different shape for the wheels though - like octagonal or hexagonal - 'shape is all' these days it seems.
My Freelander is already, in my opinion, a classic - I decided that when I saw the first pics of the FL2 - I immediately bought the car I have now, before they stopped making them.
Imagine not having a spare wheel on the back door - no way!
SV.
thems ****roen rims
englishbullterrier
Active Member
Bloody disgusting. Reminds me of the Poof Rover (sorry, Range Rover) that apparently, that ****-head Victoria Beckham had a hand in designing.
WLJayne
Well-Known Member
Hippo
Lord Hippo
Got any vid's of it oft road? Must be well impressive if it's got more ground clearence than a Freelander.thems ****roen rims[/IMG]looky here this is my ****roen showing it has more ground clearance than a gaylander
DD3
New Member
Calm down gang - its progress, and bear in mind we are not the target market for these vehicles, not for 10 years or so. We, well wife has a friend (female) with an Evoque and me having ridden in it just the once, it is light years away from any other LR I have ever been in - the owner loves it. We are defo the spare wheel on the back door generation. I'll wager the new one wont be called Freelander - more likely Discovery.
WLJayne
Well-Known Member
The problem is that I think that manufacturers are strugling to maintain the cycle of consumption. Ultimately, a car has four wheels and gets you from A to B. They have to keep making more complex and more expensive models telling us they're essential to justify their continued business, when the models thet were making in the early 2000's were arguably the peak of necessary performance in terms of relative reliability and comfort.
The same is happening to mobile phones, computers, TV, cinema (do we really need 3d and HFR?) pretty much everything. Nothing is new, it's only new gimmicks. This cycle is hugely wasteful and isn't really advancing technology - that would be something like a Range Rover powered entirely by Hydrogen Fuel cells or some kind of clean reactor. The focus on gadgets is there to prevent us from moving into more sustainable and cheaper forms of technology and energy generation - they don't want us to buy a car that will last 30 years because they will then go out of business. So instead of making good Land Rovers like they always did (lasting 40 years or more), they now make more and more complex and luxurious pointless **** that has a very short life cycle to keep everyone consuming.
This cycle of compound convolution for the sake of keeping the consumer cycle model on life support is nothing short of insane, ecocidal genocide. I worry that the wheel of consumption has been turning faster and faster every decade and before too long I think it will explode somehow.
THAT's why I object to these things, ultimately.
Last edited:
