Here's a worrying thought for everyone:

If Land Rover can sell 3 times as many Evokes as Freelanders, at around 1 1/2 times the price, why would Land Rover bother with the Freelander, or it's replacement, at all?....

rchrdleigh wrote:

Evoque is taller than LRX but about the same length.

I agree if you take the bare statistics there is quite a difference. What has not been taken into account is that the Evoque sits lower on the chassis than the Freelander which reduces the difference inside the cabin although it is still lower but not by as much as 4 inches.

Tigger wrote:

Here's a worrying thought for everyone:

If Land Rover can sell 3 times as many Evokes as Freelanders, at around 1 1/2 times the price, why would Land Rover bother with the Freelander, or it's replacement, at all?....

All new Defender might be more of a threat to Discovery 4 than Freelander.

I suspect (and hope) that Freelander will continue as it ticks all the boxes that most current owners want. Yes there are things that could be better and I'd really like to see one on the Evoque chassis and with some of the Evoque bits and pieces but I'm still firmly in the Freelander camp when it comes to looking at a replacement of my current 2nd Freelander 2.

rchrdleigh wrote:

I agree if you take the bare statistics there is quite a difference. What has not been taken into account is that the Evoque sits lower on the chassis than the Freelander which reduces the difference inside the cabin although it is still lower but not by as much as 4 inches.

rchrdleigh wrote:

All new Defender might be more of a threat to Discovery 4 than Freelander.

I suspect (and hope) that Freelander will continue as it ticks all the boxes that most current owners want. Yes there are things that could be better and I'd really like to see one on the Evoque chassis and with some of the Evoque bits and pieces but I'm still firmly in the Freelander camp when it comes to looking at a replacement of my current 2nd Freelander 2.

Ground clearance on an Evoque is slightly better than it is on a Freelander. The Evoque chassis is a different design to Freelanders and the body sit lower on the Evoque chassis although the chassis itself has a slightly better ground clearance. Probably didn't explain what I was trying to say properly and at the end of the day we're probably only talking about a difference of 2 inches at most but to an over 6ft driver/passenger those 2 inches might be all the difference between comfort and discomfort.

Wading depths are predicated as much on where the air intake is located as anything else and in both Freelander and Evoque it's on the front wing. Stated wading depths for both are the same.

rchrdleigh wrote:

Ground clearance on an Evoque is slightly better than it is on a Freelander. The Evoque chassis is a different design to Freelanders and the body sit lower on the Evoque chassis although the chassis itself has a slightly better ground clearance. Probably didn't explain what I was trying to say properly and at the end of the day we're probably only talking about a difference of 2 inches at most but to an over 6ft driver/passenger those 2 inches might be all the difference between comfort and discomfort.

I have to agree with you first impressions may lead to the view you have. All I can say is that having driven both an Evoque (5 door) and Coupe (3 door) I was left feeling much more impressed by the ride, handling and performance both on and off road.

Why not try for a test drive next time you're at your Dealers - you might be suitably surprised or it might serve to confirm your current views.

rchrdleigh wrote:

I have to agree with you first impressions may lead to the view you have. All I can say is that having driven both an Evoque (5 door) and Coupe (3 door) I was left feeling much more impressed by the ride, handling and performance both on and off road.

Why not try for a test drive next time you're at your Dealers - you might be suitably surprised or it might serve to confirm your current views.

You already own a Land Rover and if you believe the marketing people Evoque is not targeted at you but at a sector of the market that have not previously considered a Land Rover/Range Rover product and by all accounts they have been succesful in attracting new customers to the brand.

For the rest of us who are happy with the rest of the LR/RR range let's hope they keep making the models we want.

Evoque is an entirely different package to a Freelander, for a start there seems now to be more of a separation between the Range Rover name & Landrover - this can be seen on the dealer totem poles & all present literature. The emphasis on Range Rover has always been on luxury & on Landrover it's ruggedness but with the new marketting they seem to be getting more seperated.
The Evoque is for various different types of folk including those who don't want a large bulky 4x4 but something that has the capabilities of a proper Landrover/Rangerover but more of a car like look, for those who want a more sporty looking vehicle & more sporty to drive, for those who I guess want a fashion accessory.

I like it/ I love it, it, I have driven on the unleashed event the Dynamic 2.0Turbo petrol & bung it in the dynamic mode & it handles/corners like a sports hatchback. Yesterday I drove at Harwoods in Edenbridge a Dynamic SD4 manual as I wanted to see the difference & though I personally far prefer a petrol car to a diesel this SD4 manual was excellent. I just can't work out why LR only offer the petrol version in automatic guize A sporty model is better suited to a manual gearbox imo.
The Freelander is there if you want a more practical 4x4 as it has more rear end space etc but lacks on spec in comparison significantly & if you tried driving it in a sporty fashion you would probably lose it on a bend as the Evoque has far less body roll but then that is not what a FL is designed for is it. If you want less toys etc the FL2 is good except for a wasted screen that just sits there looking at you until you use the sat-nav. That said a FL does what it is intended for & that is a damn good 4x4.

The Evoque is there if you simply want something that is different, has the LR brand behind it, does pretty much the same as a FL2 in terms of 4x4 capabilities, & you are not bothered about less rear end space but handles like a hot hatch (Dynamic) or has a very sumtuous interior (Prestige) then this car is for you. The Pure is very nice indeed too considering it is the entry model that probably has better spec than the equivalent priced FL2 for the more premium side of the brand! (Past) Freelander 2 HSE 2010 MY In Rimini Red.
(Past) RR Evoque Dynamic Lux Si4 In Firenze Red.
(Past) RR Evouque Pure Tech in Barollo Black with bespoke Firenze Red colour coding.
(Present) Freelander Metropolis 2015 MY In Santorini Black with Ivory Premium Leather.

In Canada the starting price for an Evoque (Pure auto $46,995) is only $2000 (1300 pounds) more than a base Freelander 2/LR2 ($44,995). In the U.S.A the price difference is a bit bigger at ~ $6000. Since the LR2 is getting old(~6 model years now.) and not a huge seller in North America, expect the the Evoque to essential replace it until the Freelander 3 comes out. I'm a 2x LR2 owner but at today's prices no reason to buy one unless you need the slightly larger cargo space. The Evoque is faster, has newer tech, better fuel economy and more standard features(Nav). It makes sense for Land Rover because the Evoque targets the majority of the braindead buying public since most of the Freelander 2's "curvy styled" competition (BMW X1 & X3, Acura RDX, Infinity EX, Audi Q5) are not "real" SUV's but outsell it here at the same price with less features (... and 100x the number of dealerships).


The good new is at least the Evoque is based on the Freelander 2.

jutrem wrote:

The good new is at least the Evoque is based on the Freelander 2.