By on November 13, 2012

Land Rover and Jeep are the original go-anywhere brands and the brands most resistant to losing sight of their hard-core mission. Unfortunately this focus can’t shelter them from the need to meet evermore stringent emissions and fuel economy standards. What’s an iconic sub-brand like Range Rover to do? Dress up a small cross over in high-fashion bling for the urban set. This presents today’s question: does the Evoque dilute the off-road brand or is it an extension into uncharted waters?

YouTube Preview Image

Exterior

Once upon a time, SUVs roamed the land with large-displacement engines and locking axles and you only bought a Range Rover if you owned a ranch or wore a crown. Now of course a trendy SUV is a fashion statement which explains why Victoria Beckham was chosen to flog the baby Rover. Of course, this makes total sense for the brand since the majority of Range Rover shoppers in America will never take their SUV off-pavement let-alone off-road. This departure from the full-size Range Rover’s Rubicon requirements meant the boffins could sharpen the Evoque’s edges, lower the stance, raise the belt line and slam the rear roofline. The result is perhaps the most aggressive vehicle Land Rover has crafted, and quite a relief to my eye since the Freelander and LR2′s proportions never looked right to me. Further extending the Evoque’s fashion credentials, Land Rover crafted both a three and five door Evoque, although the exterior dimensions are identical. Completing the Evoque’s reputation as the trendy Roverlet are puddle lamps integrated into the side view mirrors that project an Evoque silhouette on the ground when you approach the vehicle. Think of the Evoque as the “clutch purse” to the Range Rover Sport’s diaper bag.

 

Interior

Normally when you work your way down the model-line food chain you get cheaper interior bits. This is almost a universal law and is part of the reason shoppers will buy a 528i instead of a 335i. It would seem that Land Rover didn’t get the memo when designing the Evoque’s interior however as even the base Pure model we tested had a gorgeous stitched/padded pleather dash. Aside from looking good and attracting caresses from passengers, the Evoque’s touch points are notable better feeling than the more expensive Range Rover Sport. The Evoque also benefits from a fairly exclusive parts bin sharing turn signal stalks with the Range Rover line, steering wheel buttons with the Jaguar XJ and the gear selector with the Jaguar XK.

Range Rovers are known for their extensive (and expensive) options lists, but the Evoque take a different tactic bundling high levels of standard equipment into three different trim levels: Pure, Prestige and Dynamic (the two-door is available only in Pure and Dynamic). The base Pure model gets a standard aluminum roof for 2013 turning the ginormous fixed glass lid into an option (standard on Dynamic and Prestige). Also new on the option list for 2013 is a self-parking option that parallel parks your Baby Rover hands-free.

Seating in the Evoque is suitably plush with front thrones that are supportive and well bolstered for sporty driving. However, the driver’s seat doesn’t have the same range of motion as much of the competition and the foot-well is a bit crowded so if your body deviates much from my 6-foot 190-lb frame you should spend some time behind the wheel before you sign papers. The Evoque’s rear cabin is extremely well-appointed with no corner-cutting plastics of harsh seams to be found. Rear space is limited however by the Evoque’s footprint limiting the rear to two passengers with short legs, possibly three in a pinch.

Infotainment

Nestled in the middle of a sea of supple pleather is the same 8-inch touchscreen infotainment system found in the Jaguar XJ and he 2013 Range Rover. If you’ve experienced Land Rover’s old infotainment interface, forget everything you know about it, this is thankfully a totally different system. While the menu interfaces are still not as polished as BMW’s iDrive or Audi’s MMI, they are far more intuitive and responsive than anything Land Rover has done in the past. The system sports excellent USB/iDevice integration although we noticed it was not cable of charging an iPad. In keeping with the Evoque’s premium image, the base audio system is a 380-watt, 11-speaker Meridian surround system that sounded like it belonged in a much more expensive vehicle.

Options bundling helps keep dealer inventory manageable so logically Land Rover limits the gadget menu to two: the Climate Package and the Luxury Package. The $1,000 Climate Package is the only way to get heated front seats and includes the heated thrones, steering wheel, washer jets and an electrically heated windscreen. The only downside to this package is that the heated windscreen’s embedded wires may annoy some drivers, so check that out in sunlight before you buy. The $4,000 Luxury Package (standard on Dynamic and Prestige) is a must for the gadget hound as it includes navigation, digital music storage, keyless go/entry, HID headlamps, auto high beams, a surround camera system and a 17-speaker 825-watt Meridian sound system. While I would honestly rate the system below the offerings from the other Euro brands, the Evoque does score points in my book for allowing  destination entry while in motion.

Powertrain

If  you’re worried about drivetrain reliability ,peeking under the Evoque’s boxy hood will either allay your fears or give you a lesson in world geography. Nestled sideways in the engine bay is a Ford-sourced 2.0L engine shared with everything from the Ford Taurus to the Volvo S80. (Before Land Rover enthusiasts turn their noses up at a Detroit engine, remember that the old Rover V8 was really a Buick 215.) Starting with an aluminum block, Ford added twin cams with independent variable valve timing, bolted on a Borg Warner (KKK) K03 turbocharger and lathered on the direct-injection sauce to deliver 240HP at 5,500RPM and 250lb-ft of twist from 1,750-4,500RPM. The small engine idles as smoothly as BMW’s 2.0L turbo, and like the German mill it has a vaguely diesel sound to it thanks to the direct injection system. Power is sent to all four wheels via an Aisin 6-speed transmission (Aisin is Toyota/Lexus’s in-house transmission company) and a standard Haldex AWD system from Sweden. The international combination is enough to scoot the Evoque from 0-60 in 7 seconds, about the same time as a Range Rover Sport HSE. My only disappointment is that while Tata had their hands in the Ford/Volvo parts bin they didn’t swipe Volvo’s smooth 325HP inline-6 engine for the Evoque Dynamic model.

Drive

No Range Rover would be complete without a bevy of off-road features. Of course, the Evoque is the on-road off-roader so there’s no height-adjustable air suspension, the differentials don’t lock and there’s no low-speed transfer case. Instead, buyers get a simplified terrain management system with push buttons instead of a knob that tell the traction and stability control system what to expect. Our Facebook readers asked us how the Evoque “handles wet leaves,” the answer is: as well as any other crossover. Since this is essentially the same AWD system that is in the LR2 and the Volvo XC60, the Evoque is similarly capable with the going gets wet/muddy/sandy. I wouldn’t want to try my hand rock-crawling with the Evoque, but it’s not claiming to be rock-capable anyway. Sure the Evoque does offer short overhangs, 8.4-inches of clearance and nearly 20-inches of water fording capacity, but the Volvo XC60 offers more.

In reality the Evoque is designed to traverse the urban jungle and it shows with moderately stiff springs, low profile rubber and impeccable road manners. Of course there’s no denying that Evoque is a front-heavy vehicle and it won’t ever feel as nimble as a BMW X1, but it is surprisingly well-behaved when it meets a corner. The AWD system is tuned to lock the center coupling as often as possible resulting in predictable corner carving wet or dry. The Dynamic trim’s optional lower profile rubber and MagneRide active damping suspension further refine the Evoque’s corner carving skills but they do take a toll on refinement delivering a ride that borders on harsh.

When the road straightens, the reality of a 240HP engine motivating 4,000lbs comes to light. While the Evoque’s 7 second 0-60 time isn’t sloe, the 2.0L turbo equipped X1 dispatched 60 in 6.2 seconds with the 3.0L turbo X1 entering sports sedan territory. The BMW X1 is also more efficient than the Evoque dishing out 22MPG City and 33MPg Highway thanks to the 8-speed transmission and a lighter curb weight.

There aren’t too many luxury crossovers that I would willingly flog on the winding mountain back-roads in Northern California, but the Evoque is a member of this select club that includes the BMW X1 xDrive35i and the Volvo XC60 R-Design with Polestar (I still can’t believe how long these names are). There is just one problem, the Evoque’s brakes aren’t up for the kind of abuse the chassis and engine can dole out, fading noticeably during a session that wouldn’t have made the Volvo or the BMW break a sweat. Even so, the Evoque is fun to drive hard and looks good in the process.

Being stylish isn’t cheap. Just ask the folks at Prada. The cost of the Evoque’s style is an MSRP range from $41,995 to $60,095, a stating price nearly $10,000 higher than the faster and more efficient X1. Even adjusting for feature content the difference is still nearly $8,000. This kind of pricing premium is nothing new to the brand, just price a Range Rover out if you don’t believe me. In a way, this pricing premium (and the resulting exclusivity of the mode) and a dedication to world-class interiors are what make the Evoque as much a Range Rover as the go-anywhere Range Rover. Let me answer the “is it worth it?” question with a question: what kind of shopper are you? Do you shop Prada or Wal-Mart?

Land Rover provided the vehicle, insurance and one tank of gas for this review.

Specifications as tested:

0-30: 2.6 Seconds

0-60: 7.0 Seconds

1/4 Mile: 15.4 Seconds @ 90MPH

Average Fuel Economy: 24.5 MPG over 811 miles

 

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

63 Comments on “Review: 2013 Land Rover Range Rover Evoque (Video)...”


  • avatar
    hf_auto

    “Do you shop Prada or Wal-Mart?”
    If BMW= Wal-Mart, I wonder what that makes the Fords, Mazdas, and Kias of the CUV world ;-)

  • avatar
    cirats

    Kudos for a great set of pictures. Too many sets are all low angle shots (and often the same low angle shot over and over).

  • avatar

    I would most definitely say that this car is worth the price, and is a genuine Range Rover product. It offers style and panache that nothing else in its class can touch–just like the full-sized Range Rover–and where else can you get a luxury SUV coupe (besides the ungodly Murano CrossCabriolet)? And, as we’ve seen in numerous videos, the Range Rover easily lives up to the brand’s terrain prowess.

    I like this car so much, in fact, that the main character in my novel drives an azure-with-white-roof Range Rover Evoque Coupe on a lengthy car chase.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      Worth the price based on what metric?

      Reliability? Fail.

      Quality? Fail.

      Build Quality? Fail.

      Genuine Luxury? Fail.

      Value? Fail.

      This vehicle is a rebadged Ford Edge selling at an even greater premium, that’s likely to bring up the rear in reliability rankings, and suffer from atrocious depreciation.

      If one chooses to go down this road, one might as well get an actual Land Rover. At least that’s a truly comfortable vehicle for all its faults (and there are many).

      • 0 avatar
        MrWhopee

        Are you sure it’s based on the Ford Edge? This is a rather small SUV, while the Edge is HUGE.

      • 0 avatar
        th009

        The Edge is based on the Ford/Mazda CD3 platform, while the Evoque is built on Land Rover’s LR-MS, which in turn is a modified version of the Ford EUCD platform. In any case, they are different platforms.

        As MrWhopee said, the Edge is way bigger: it’s 13 inches longer and weighs about 500 lbs more.

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        Actually, regardless of the difference in wheelbase and overall length, they’re similar enough products derived from a shared platform, developed by Ford.

        For all those who think I relentlessly bash Ford (I don’t, but I do speak what I believe to be genuine truths about Ford, whether popular or not), savor this:

        This Evoque and well-trimmed Ford Edge, in the same color, next to each other, are virtually identical, and the Edge has the better looking interior, they have the same motor, and most importantly, the Edge buyer is by FAR the more intelligent person for saving $20,000 due to their willingness to “suffer” the indignation of a blue oval badge (whereby Ford is more reliable than Land Rover and doesn’t carry the baggage of idiotic poser-itis).

      • 0 avatar
        tuffjuff

        Don’t mind Deadweight Troll, he’s clearly not got any facts straight… or any facts to BE straight, on this (or many other) issue(s). Previous threads show him to have a huge anti-Ford bias, and an even larger anti Ford Edge biased; the fact he wrongly feels this vehicle has anything to do with the much large Edge (it does not) shows that if he DIDN’T think that, he probably wouldn’t have made his initial, wrongly negative comment to begin with.

        Also, I’m not sure how you judge reliability on a vehicle that’s only been out for a year, or how without sitting in one you’d have any idea about much of any of the rest of the vehicle… but hey, that’s where Deadweight Troll comes into play, to give us (mis)information!

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        tuffjuff, you are aware that ad hominem attacks are not only verboten, but that they actually undermine one’s credibility when attempting to sell or rebut a viewpoint, right?

        It would appear that my opinion of the Evoque has struck a personal nerve deep inside you. Breathe deeply, calm your pulse, and return to the true authority on the Evoque that you’ve cited prior: James May.

  • avatar
    philadlj

    Top Gear’s James May drove an Evoque in Death Valley to test its off-road mettle. It didn’t do that badly, all things considered.

    Here’s the video:

    youtube.com/watch?v=iw1aT5c1Lus

    • 0 avatar
      hubcap

      Tell me you didn’t just cite a Top Gear episode as proof of its off road ability. The crew from BBC are certainly entertaining but accuracy isn’t one of their fortes… especially during their “expeditions”.

  • avatar

    I think LR has hit it out of the park. It’s highly aspirational, but at a lower price point than supercars.

    To rag on the specs is to ignore that half the market is female or doesn’t care.

  • avatar
    blowfish

    does the Evoque dilute the off-road brand or is it an extension into uncharted waters?

    as long as she can keep flying off the shelf & sell like hot cakes.

    the lesser her owners put her thru the real off rd challenge the better off for her.

    afterall is very embarrassing to have owner complaints as not exactly as advertised.
    they sell very well to drivers that never go off rd.

  • avatar
    CJinSD

    http://www.prada.com/en?cc=US

    Just a look at the landing page says it all. The emperor’s new Range Rover.

  • avatar
    th009

    Is it really an X1 competitor? While it’s compact, I would say that it’s aimed significantly higher, even somewhat above the X3.

  • avatar
    Mandalorian

    It is okay. I personally have no desire for one, but it helps LR with their emissions and it isn’t horrible like a Cygnet.

    For the money though, I’d rather have a bona fida 4×4 V8 BoF SUV like a Tahoe, Yukon or Escalade (I know AWD)

  • avatar
    danio3834

    “Before Land Rover enthusiasts turn their noses up at a Detroit engine, remember that the old Rover V8 was really a Buick 215.”

    Funny because every time I see a 5 year old Land Rover depreciated to 1/4 it’s original value at an auction, I turn my nose up and walk away.

    • 0 avatar
      Landcrusher

      Yep, wasn’t that engine a sixties design that Rover altered and managed to make even less reliable than was acceptable in the sixties? Older Rovers could be fixed in the field. Modern ones? Do they reliably crawl home?

      I think the market knows this about Rover. Luxury and prestige, not off road prowess, are the real sellers. The respectable soft road performance is an accessory, not the main draw.

      Their buyers really on road service, not pliers.

  • avatar
    gslippy

    I’d say the Evoque is the best-looking SUV on the road, inside and out. I sat in one at this year’s auto show and was pleasantly surprised to see that I fit (at 6’6″, that’s important).

  • avatar
    racer-esq.

    This shows the importance of design. This is a less well built Ford Escape, selling out at $40 – $60K. Because unlike the Escape it actually looks good.

    Look at the recent success of Audi. Audis are well known to be nose heavy cars that catch on fire spontaneously, with build quality that makes even other problematic German cars like BMWs seem like 1990s Toyotas in comparison. But they look stunning, especially the A5 and A7. And they are breaking sales records.

    What I am interested in seeing is what happens to the Defender. I am predicting that it will become a transverse engine, unibody “cute-ute” on the same platform as the Evoque, but more bare-bones. That will piss some people off.

    • 0 avatar
      CJinSD

      I’ve seen exactly one Evoque, and I live somewhere that Range Rovers are quite common. I’ve also seen a few Fire Escraps and dozens of new CR-Vs. Maybe there are numerous Evoques on Rodeo Drive, but I think they’ve slithered too low for their market in spite of their use of real stitching on synthetically molded dash boards.

      • 0 avatar
        onyxtape

        Same here. Lots of the “normal” LRs here, but I’ve only seen one Evoque driving around. The first time we saw it at the Neiman Marcus parking structure, my wife and I dropped our jaws – and not in a good way – as in “WTF that is one fugly thing”. The funny thing was that another couple about 30 feet away did the exact same thing and we talked about how ugly that thing was in the elevator.

        Are people here really liking the styling on this? It looks like an expensive Murano Cabriolet (which one cannot kill with fire) to me.

      • 0 avatar
        corntrollio

        I’ve seen two Evoques, but a lot more Range Rovers, as one might expect. One of the Evoques was a 2-door, surprisingly enough.

        As for females, not sure on the 2-door as it was parked, but the two guys in the 4-door appeared to be trustafarian-types whose mom/dad bought it for them.

    • 0 avatar
      Mandalorian

      Consumer Reports rated Audi as 8th most reliable and most reliable non-Japanese. They are not as bad as you say. I know there are some horror stories, but compare it to Ford 4-speed Automatics, Torqueflight, etc.

      • 0 avatar
        racer-esq.

        I wish that was true, I would love to pick up an S5, or even A5, in a couple years. But I hear bad things, especially for things like the four-link front suspension. I looked into leasing, but the good lease deals are on the less popular models (e.g. FWD A4). I probably did overstate BMW’s quality relative to Audi, Audi quite possibly has surpassed modern BMWs.

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        Actually, Audi is 23rd DOWN in CR’s reliability ratings. Look at the 2012 Auto Buyer’s Edition.

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        That’s almost enough to restore my faith in CR, judging by the problems we’ve had with our 2012 A6. “Nobody makes bad cars anymore,” is a lie told by fans of crummy cars.

      • 0 avatar
        banker43

        This month’s Consumer Reports states Audi is up 18 to 8th.

      • 0 avatar
        onyxtape

        Let’s say Audi hypothetically became #1 in reliability and nothing breaks on it (snickers). You still have things like a $4000 timing belt job. Among many other expensive maintenance items that are priced stratospherically compared to other cars in its price range. And speaking of the timing belt – a friend’s A4 just broke its belt at 75k when Audi says to change it at 90k. Several quotes around the area to fix the damage were all close to $10k.

      • 0 avatar
        corntrollio

        What “bad things” are you hearing about the A4/A5′s front four-link suspension? Because it’s actually quite easy to deal with and probably better than the typical BMW-owner’s experience with their front suspension. The links and bushings are quite easy to obtain, and they’re not that hard to install either, but sure, the bushings might wear out at some point.

        Also, the timing belt job is not $4000, unless the stealership is really ripping you off. It’s still probably a 4-figure job, but probably just barely, and the service interval for it is 110K. $1000-1200 at 110K is not that bad, again all told.

        As I’ve mentioned before, I compared a Honda service record vs. an Audi service record recently, both at 100K miles, and it looked like the Honda owner actually spent more than the Audi owner, largely because the Honda had major services at 60K and 90K that were quite expensive. The timing belt at 110K would probably push the Audi slightly ahead, but hey, you drove an A4 instead of a post-90s Civic.

    • 0 avatar
      hubcap

      “What I am interested in seeing is what happens to the Defender.”

      I think the Defender will revive some of the sturdiness LR has been known for. I see it squaring off against the Wrangler and I really don’t think it will stay on the XY side of the chromosome divide.

      At least I hope so.

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      Onyx, of course us used car buyers know all that stuff. To the new car buyers Audi is courting, none of that matters.

      CR’s reliability rating is nothing more than bragging rights to them.

  • avatar

    I love it. It’s brilliant because it will make a boatload of money for JLR at little expense to their brand image. Good for them.

    • 0 avatar
      CJinSD

      Maybe in the land of speed bumps and traffic cameras, but I suspect it has already peaked in the US. Considering it was the 195th best selling car in October while its year to date ranking is 191, the facts are on my side.

      • 0 avatar
        hifi

        It doesn’t sell the same volume as a camry. It’s a $50K+ niche car. For LR, this is a homerun. And they can’t keep up with the demand.

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        Land Rover San Diego has a dozen Evoques in stock and advertises discount financing on them. Land Rover Carlsbad has eight more. They seem to be keeping up with demand in my market.

      • 0 avatar
        iainthornton

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/9476228/Jaguar-Land-Rover-switches-to-24-hour-production-at-Halewood-on-Evoque-demand.html

        Yeah. Right. They can’t sell them.

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        Like I said, maybe in the land of speed bumps and traffic cameras. Its sales rate is already slumping in the US, as the Evoque is a bit on the expensive side for a neutered fashion accessory.

  • avatar
    stuntmonkey

    In person, it’s just mindblowing how small the rear window is, the vertical height of the glass is barely larger than the length of your hand from base of palm to tip of fingers. No wonder it needs all those cameras.

  • avatar
    MK

    These are such nice looking vehicles, even if as the poster above said that it’s basically an upmarket Escape.

    I see a white one every few days driving home and it always catches my eye. I’d never buy one new of course, or without budgeting for repairs down the road but this is easily the best looking cute-ute out there. Very nice interior as well.

    • 0 avatar
      racer-esq.

      The Escape and Evoque have the exact same 240 HP 2.0 liter Ford turbo/6-speed automatic drivetrain. But the Escape is on a more modern Ford platform than the Evoque’s. But who cares, the Escape looks like a weird blob and the Evoque looks like some futuristic street fighter.

      It definitely has to be the 3 door version though, the 5 door version is much less clean.

  • avatar
    hifi

    I bought an Evoque Dynamic 5dr after driving the X3 and X5, Q3 and GLK. I’ll admit, the exterior and interior design made it the only vehicle that excited me. It easily handles beach driving and flooded roads from hurricane Sandy. So far I couldn’t be happier.

  • avatar
    akitadog

    “Land Rover and Jeep are the original go-anywhere brands and the brands most resistant to loosing sight of their hard-core mission.”

    I’m going to be “that guy” by saying that the word you want is “losing,” not “loosing.” Unfortunately, this misspelling seems to be pervading the language as badly as “conversate” (or other related misuses like “disorientate” or “commentate”). Let’s catch it early and nip it in the bud. That is, if it isn’t too late.

  • avatar
    blau

    Conversate, v., to satisfy completely a desire to converse.

    Ex., Chatty Cathy was almost impossible to conversate.

    • 0 avatar
      akitadog

      Blau, I’m curious to know where you found that definition.

      In almost all online dictionaries in which I’ve seen the word “conversate,” it’s noted as “nonstandard,”; i.e. it’s made-up.

      It’s basically a word that’s used when people mean to say “conVERSE,” (caps denote the stressed syllable) but they simply don’t know the word. Apparently, a critical mass of people use the word “conversate,” so we’re stuck with the dictionaries having to recognize this bad usage as to be so common as to warrant an entry.

      It’s truly a sad commentary on the state of our education. I’m curious to know how many teachers, especially younger ones, think that “conversate” is a real word.

  • avatar
    LeeK

    I think this car looks fabulous and scores with its intended demographic perfectly. This is exactly what luxury car owners want: style, exclusivity, a high enough price to announce to the world your economic status, and decent driving dynamics. I think these Evoques will be a hit for Land Rover.

  • avatar
    akitadog

    Hubcap and Blau,

    Read this:
    http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/is-conversate-a-word.aspx

  • avatar
    Marko

    Meh. I’d much rather have a better-equipped Grand Cherokee.

  • avatar
    probert

    The Rover v8 was a heavily reworked version of the buick 215 as the original couldn’t stand up to the higher speeds in Europe.

    For me the Kia zsportage is beautiful, handles great and weighs 700 pounds less. But I’m sure I’m missing the point, but when it comes to Land rovers I always have missed the point.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      The Evoque is a special case of lunacy. I saw one on at the airport today.

      About the only good thing I have to say about it is that the exterior design is nice in a masculine sense (a paradox, since the vehicle is anything but masculine in any other manner), but that this unfortunately means that interior head room in the rear is far less optimal than it could have been.

      Consumer Reports 2013 Auto Edition is out and they criticize it for its “choppy ride,” and not relative to its similarly priced peers, but relative to even far less expensive vehicles.

      If the Evoque isn’t an example of disposable faux douchery, it’s awfully close.

      I despise CUVs in general (notice I didn’t say true SUVs with off road capability or immense cargo/people space, since those vehicles still fill a legitimate need for many people), but I almost can’t think of any CUV at the 18k to 25k price point that I wouldn’t rather have than the Evoque. I’d take a Mazda CX-5, Honda CRV, or Chevy Equinox all day and everyday over it.

  • avatar
    tonyeads

    Virtually every review praises the design, and I must say I am dumbfounded. Top Gear I can understand — they would praise the Yugo if it had been made in Britain. But to take a boxy crossover and squish down the back end and that’s design? It is something no other crossover has done, true, but there’s an obvious reason for that: it looks dumb.

    • 0 avatar
      Davelee123

      What? Jeremy Clarkson “The man who killed the British motor industry”. He didn’t think much of rover and he spent most of the 1990s telling people to buy a ford mondeo because it was cheaper than a BMW and just as good. Top gear did a whole feature about how crap British sports cars were. Clarkson is a ford man at heart.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India