Chris B wrote:

How important is it that you are "weather-resistant"? How do you think CRV and Tiguan get on in floods, snow, ice and on slippery leaves?

I have not missed a business meeting or getting home thanks to owning a LR and I've an new FL2 XS on the way - not an Evoque as its more money for the same mechanical packege, smaller inside and a bit flash. New XS will not have a glasss roof, too expensive and the manual seats are just fine as Mrs B hardly ever drives "my" car.

FL2 is a great car, built in Halewood from a lot of UK-sourced parts. Yes I've had a clutch and DMF under warranty and at 85,000 some of the refinement has gone but it's a fun car to drive, regularly 40+ mpg, only just put on 2rd set of tyres after OEs, happy in muddy fields and forests as well as on M'ways.

pab wrote:

But if you want something which can go anywhere, even if you have no intention of ever doing so, and are prepared to accept the compromises which that involves, well then you're in the right place.

I am employed as a news editor and could not have phrased it better in a million years!

And yes, I take my LR2 offroad on a weekly basis and LOVE it! CAR HISTORY
1997 Saab 900 SE 2.0 Turbo
2003 Volkswagen Passat 1.8T
2008 Land Rover LR2 SE 2.3 I6

Why, thank you. {Blush!}

I should probably clarify that my comments weren't aimed at the OP, or any other poster in this thread, but at the media who seem to persist in these pointless comparisons. And, to an extent, at Land Rover for marketing the FL2 as a shopping car. If I were LR I'd be aiming the Evoque more at that market, and the FL2 at those who actually want a Land Rover.