Do we need an Evoque section?

[p38arover]

If so, where?

If we put it in the Pinnacles under Range Rover, then the RRS should be moved from D3/D4/RRS.

Should it go under Freelander? :confused:

[saiken]

I'd put it under freelander..... they're kind of in the same category but at different pricing points...

Is it the same chassis as the freelander or similar running gear?

[Leo]

D3/RRS share a heck of a lot of parts and problems, so it makes sense having them together. How related are Evoque and Freelander2? If as closely related as D3 and RRS then put them together. However how different is a Disco1 from early RRC, mechanically speaking? :wasntme:

[Jeff]

What is an Evoque?

Jeff

:rocket:

[Homestar]

Yep, as you have mentioned, you have 2 options - if the RRS is to stay in the D3/D4 section, then the Evoque should be in the Freelander section. If you put the Evoque in the Range Rover section, then so should the RRS. In my humble opinion, they should both be in the Range Rover section.

Just my 2 cents.:)

Cheers - Gav

[ramblingboy42]

What is an Evoque?

Jeff

:rocket:

dunno but an evoke is to call up , provoke, cause to appear, cant find an evoque in my dictionary......

[33chinacars]

My 2c worth D3/D4/RRS as is & Evoque with Freelander

Gary

[stig0000]

about the only things same between the evoque and fl2 is the lower part of the chassie, rear diff, and if im correct the center bearing for the tail sharft is the same, (but the sharft is diffrent):D

but other then that there all different, different motors, boxes, electrics are allso different with 19new harness added for the evoque, they dont even have the same landrover badge:p

so make of it as you want,, the to cars are very very different not just buy looks, i think it should just go in with range rover,

[Narangga]

Did your question evoke as much discussion as you thought it might Ron?

[isuzutoo-eh]

Give the Evoque its own spot. It's a whole new model, otherwise Series, 90/110/130 and Isuzu sections should be lumped together as they all have more in common than the Evoque and Freebie or L322

[p38arover]

90/110/130 and Isuzu sections should be lumped together

I think they should be. The only difference between early Countys is the engine so I don't think the Isuzu deserves its own area. Oh, wait. Maybe the V8 models need their own group - and the 200/300Tdi, and the Td5 models. I don't understand why the Isuzus have their own area.

[Basil135]

Does anyone on here actually own one??? :angel:

[mikehzz]

It could go in the pussy French names section? :)

[Bushie]

Does anyone on here actually own one??? :angel:

Excellent point.



Martyn

[p38arover]

Does anyone on here actually own one??? :angel:

Maybe not yet but at least one member has put down his deposit.

[Bushie]

Maybe not yet but at least one member has put down his deposit.

He'll have to talk to himself for a while then :D:D:D.


Martyn

[Xtreme]

Give the Evoque its own spot. It's a whole new model, otherwise Series, 90/110/130 and Isuzu sections should be lumped together as they all have more in common than the Evoque and Freebie or L322

^^ x 2

The Evoque is a whole new breed which will bring with it it's own unique
idiosyncrasies :wasntme:, requiring their own unique solutions.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

My $0.02, we should have a "small platform" or "AWD" section and have three sub-forums: Freelander 1; Freelander 2; Evoque.

On the RRS section, RRS was never top of the range, always marketed as a cheaper, smaller Range Rover model, not unlike the Disco 1 when released. Given that it shares the same platform as the D3 and D4 then IMHO it should stay where it is.

On the Isuzu section, there has never been a Land Rover workshop manual for the Isuzu engined vehicles so there is a greater need for Isuzu owners to share information. They should keep their section.

Diana

[p38arover]

On the Isuzu section, there has never been a Land Rover workshop manual for the Isuzu engined vehicles so there is a greater need for Isuzu owners to share information. They should keep their section.


If it is retained then only engine-related info should be there. Anything else should be in the other area.

[abaddonxi]

If it is retained then only engine-related info should be there. Anything else should be in the other area.

That's pretty much how the posts stand in the Isuzu section.

[Ausfree]

My $0.02, we should have a "small platform" or "AWD" section and have three sub-forums: Freelander 1; Freelander 2; Evoque.

On the RRS section, RRS was never top of the range, always marketed as a cheaper, smaller Range Rover model, not unlike the Disco 1 when released. Given that it shares the same platform as the D3 and D4 then IMHO it should stay where it is.

On the Isuzu section, there has never been a Land Rover workshop manual for the Isuzu engined vehicles so there is a greater need for Isuzu owners to share information. They should keep their section.

Diana I agree, the Evoque is aimed at the same market that would buy a Freelander, so the Freelander section of the Forum should be changed to "AWD Section" with the appropriate sub-forums and leave the RRS where it is!!:) My 1c worth!!:whistling:

[sheerluck]

I agree, the Evoque is aimed at the same market that would buy a Freelander, so the Freelander section of the Forum should be changed to "AWD Section" with the appropriate sub-forums and leave the RRS where it is!!:) My 1c worth!!:whistling:

What about when the 2wd version of the Evoque is launched in July 2012? Should they be banished from the site altogether?:p

[Lotz-A-Landies]

If it is retained then only engine-related info should be there. Anything else should be in the other area.Agreed in part. The conversion of R380 boxes to suit the 4BD1 and the Isuzu gearbox conversions need to stay as does anything related to spring modifications to support the additonal weight of the 4BD1. All in all, which means the mods for the area need to be a bit consistent with retaining or moving threads.
What about when the 2wd version of the Evoque is launched in July 2012? Should they be banished from the site altogether?:pThat was the reason I suggested a "small platform" before the "AWD", although we could call it "AWD and 2WD Land Rover products"

Diana

[p38arover]

All in all, which means the mods for the area need to be a bit consistent with retaining or moving threads.

Agreed.

[VladTepes]

I agree, the Evoque is aimed at the same market that would buy a Freelander, so the Freelander section of the Forum should be changed to "AWD Section" with the appropriate sub-forums and leave the RRS where it is!!:) My 1c worth!!:whistling:

I think something along these lines is a good idea.

Just need to think up an ideal name for the forum that won't offend any owners (which rules out my idea of "useless vehicles with LR and RR badges").

Whatever decision is taken for theevoque I don;t see any raesonit has to affect the RRS sub forum - just leave that where t is - for now anyway.

[abaddonxi]

I reckon that Isuzu section should become a sub-forum of Defender etc.

Evoque should go in as a sub-forum of Range Rovers. All of the existing divisions are badge/model specific rather than being based in wheelbase/chassis type/etc.

Just looking forward, if there's a D100 based on Discovery chassis would we put it into the Discovery section?

[vnx205]

I think something along these lines is a good idea.

Just need to think up an ideal name for the forum that won't offend any owners (which rules out my idea of "useless vehicles with LR and RR badges").

... ... ...


Do you think people might be offended by my suggestion that we only need two categories:

Real Land Rovers

All the others

?
:p:p

I don't envy the task of anyone trying to come up with a suitable division. I believe that it is common whenever such a task is attempted, that there will be anomalies and exceptions.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

....<snip>
Evoque should go in as a sub-forum of Range Rovers. All of the existing divisions are badge/model specific rather than being based in wheelbase/chassis type/etc.
<snip...Even the 2WD variant. The only reason the Evoque is badged Range Rover is for marketing to tag onto the top of the range image, as we all know both Freelander 1 and Discovery have an image of very poor reliability in the US.

[lambrover]

To back up the Isuzu section (I was a long term poster in there, now have a 130 td5), it isn't just the engine that gets talked about. Because the Isuzu chews up gearboxes there is a lot of discussion on mating different gearboxes to the lt230 and engine, then you have all the turbo talk. I feel there is enough talk and things going on to leave it as its own section.

Just my thoughts though :)

[abaddonxi]

Even the 2WD variant. The only reason the Evoque is badged Range Rover is for marketing to tag onto the top of the range image, as we all know both Freelander 1 and Discovery have an image of very poor reliability in the US.

The only 2wd Land Rover? I think it deserves its own section.:p

[Michael2]

Trawling through news posts it seems that Land Rover are setting the company up for a split.

They will badge Freelander, Disco and Defender as Land Rovers
and Evoque, RRS and Range Rovers as Range Rovers.

I stopped by Land Rover today to have a look at an Evoque first hand. I was very disappointed in the driving position, the window sills on the doors were up to my shoulders instead of my elbow, what a non-Land Rover (non- Range-Rover) driving position!

I can see both sides of the argument here,

put it with the badge - Range Rover

or

put it with the size - Freelander

I'd just as much wait and see how many Evoque types will visit this site, and wonder how many others would even be bothered venturing into an Evoque forum.

[p38arover]

I can see both sides of the argument here,

put it with the badge - Range Rover

or

put it with the size - Freelande


It's not an issue of size. Grouping relates to similarities in mechanical/electrical construction/parts.

[Ausfree]

LandRover is casting it's marketing net wide with the introduction of the two wheel drive Evoque, it's plugging a gap in the market and that can only be good because it's bringing yet another type of person into the "LandRover Family" so to speak. Sure, the majority of buyers of this product may look upon it as just another car, but some may become influenced by the name and move onto what some of you call a "proper LandRover":D
Quite simply, if it is badged "LandRover" or "RangeRover" it should be included in the Forum!!;)

[saiken]

It's not an issue of size. Grouping relates to similarities in mechanical/electrical construction/parts.

I think you've pretty much summed it all up.... It needs it's own section under the RR. It doesn't share enough to live with the freelander and as such should get its own little area.

[51jay]

Arn't all Range Rovers 2 wheel drive...one on the rear axle and one on the front :D
If evoque owners even want to talk to us lot I think under Range Rover would be best as they probably think that that is what their new toy is :p

[stig0000]

i think it sould go in the volvo xc60 forum,, as it shares more parts with that then any other rover,

[scarry]

i think it sould go in the volvo xc60 forum,, as it shares more parts with that then any other rover,

That's it,problem solved:D:D

Still can't work out how it has anything to do with a RR,apart from the name.Has none of the RR heritage,looks,etc.
A RR has always been a large powerful luxury 4wd,the worlds best.

[p38arover]

That's it,problem solved:D:D

Still can't work out how it has anything to do with a RR,apart from the name.Has none of the RR heritage,looks,etc.
A RR has always been a large powerful luxury 4wd,the worlds best.

I see a problem for the NSW RR Club.

I was at a meeting a few years back when allowing entry of the RRS was being debated. It was finally agreed that owners could join because the vehicle had an RR badge.

[scarry]

I see a problem for the NSW RR Club.

I was at a meeting a few years back when allowing entry of the RRS was being debated. It was finally agreed that owners could join because the vehicle had an RR badge.

But even though the RRS does share a lot of similarity to the D3/4 range,it is also sort of very similar to a RR,where as with the evoque,there is not much similarity at all.(in my opinion)

The evoque is actually changing the meaning of RR as it has been known for many years,although this is just my opinion & maybe not the opinion of the general public & others on this site,ie, LR enthusiasts.

I know we at times have to have changes,& if LR think that's the way to go,well so be it.

As for the NSW RR club,looks like there will be some further debates.........

Similar to what is happening here......

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Arn't all Range Rovers 2 wheel drive...one on the rear axle and one on the front :D
If evoque owners even want to talk to us lot I think under Range Rover would be best as they probably think that that is what their new toy is :pNo not correct!

They are 4WD when all wheels have traction, although the ratio of drive may be different to each wheel. Depending upon which model, when the CDL (when present) is disengaged and traction is lost on one wheel they revert to no wheel drive.

They may be 2WD when traction is lost, the CDL is locked or they have a viscous coupling and traction control is turned off. Although, when traction is lost the drive goes to the wheel that has lost traction, so once again they may be 1WD or 0WD!

So I guess you are suggesting the Evoque should be in the 2WD section.

[DT-P38]

Personally, I don't really care, we all know how we think about them.... black/white, good/bad, ugly/nice...

Just be consistent for the sake of users and mod's. Sort by badge would defineltley help novice users find what they are after.

Shouldn't we be welcoming and looking after newbies by making things as easy as posible for them?

What does AULRO's Charter or Mission Statement say with regards to members and vehicles? If there is nothing to reference, perhaps that where the real issue is?

:angel:

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Personally, I don't really care, ...
... What does AULRO's Charter or Mission Statement say with regards to members and vehicles? If there is nothing to reference, perhaps that where the real issue is?

:angel:Perhaps you are thinking that AULRO is a membership based organisation with a constitution, Charter or Mission Statement, it's not and the term "member" misleading in that sense. It is an internet forum owned by someone, not unlike Facebook, where we are subject to the benevolence of the owner. Any subscription we may make is to defray costs associated with purchasing internet access and maintaining the physical server.

Even though the Evoque has the marketing label Range Rover I don' see it fitting in with the L322, P38a or even the RRc as they are or were in a different class to the softroader Evoque.

[DT-P38]

Perhaps you are thinking that AULRO is a membership based organisation with a constitution, Charter or Mission Statement, it's not and the term "member" misleading in that sense. It is an internet forum owned by someone, not unlike Facebook, where we are subject to the benevolence of the owner. Any subscription we may make is to defray costs associated with purchasing internet access and maintaining the physical server.

Even though the Evoque has the marketing label Range Rover I don' see it fitting in with the L322, P38a or even the RRc as they are or were in a different class to the softroader Evoque.

HONESTLY, I wasn't thinking that hard at all!!!

It just makes sense that there would be some "frame work" for growth and evolution of an entity this size. Maybe it's just all inside "the creators" head. Either way, this shouldn't be that much of a hard one...

Sounds both blasphemous and cheeky, but has anyone asked the almighty AULRO creator for guidance or perhaps direction? Where does one "lay their mat" to kneel and call him? LOL!

[101RRS]

Does anyone on here actually own one??? :angel:


Only the hairdressers :o

I am of the view that the D3/D4 should go in the RRS section :cool: and the Evoque in the Freelander Section, but then the FFRR is becoming more like the RRS so maybe the FFRR should also go into the RRS section :wasntme:.

But then as the early RRC has a FC101 engine and running gear - maybe the RRC should be in the 101 section.

[Ausfree]

Only the hairdressers :o

I am of the view that the D3/D4 should go in the RRS section :cool: and the Evoque in the Freelander Section, but then the FFRR is becoming more like the RRS so maybe the FFRR should also go into the RRS section :wasntme:.

But then as the early RRC has a FC101 engine and running gear - maybe the RRC should be in the 101 section.Yep, I was waiting till somebody said a " Hairdressers Car". As far as I am concerned, if it is a LandRover or a RangeRover it is a LandRover or a RangeRover, what we have to realise now is that not everybody who owns a LandRover is a hairy chested alpha male. Sorry, Garry I know you own a Freelander!!!:D:D

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Yep, I was waiting till somebody said a " Hairdressers Car". As far as I am concerned, if it is a LandRover or a RangeRover it is a LandRover or a RangeRover, what we have to realise now is that not everybody who owns a LandRover is a hairy chested alpha male. Sorry, Garry I know you own a Freelander!!!:D:DSorry THEY ARE ALL LAND ROVERS (except for the early ones that were Rovers or Leylands), there is no such manufacturer as Range Rover. Range Rover is merely a marketing name used by Leyland and subsequently by Land Rover on some models.

BTW Garry owns a RRs.

[Ausfree]

Sorry THEY ARE ALL LAND ROVERS (except for the early ones that were Rovers or Leylands), there is no such manufacturer as Range Rover. Range Rover is merely a marketing name used by Leyland and subsequently by Land Rover on some models.

BTW Garry owns a RRs.
Sorry, no understand???? LandRover and RangeRover are the same Manufacturer, RangeRover is like Fairlane used to be to Ford or Lexus is to Toyota???:confused: are you splitting hairs???:D:D btw, he also owns a diesel FL1( early model with the L series diesel) that he is trying to sell, also he has an excellent Thread in the Freelander Section of the Forum on checking VCU's.!!!

[p38arover]

Sorry, no understand???? LandRover and RangeRover are the same Manufacturer, RangeRover is like Fairlane used to be to Ford or Lexus is to Toyota???:confused: are you splitting hairs???:D:D btw,

No, the Rangies have Land Rover badges and labelling. I think you'll find the Lexus doesn't carry any Toyota badging and is sold as a separate marque - especially in the USA. The Fairlane carried a Ford badge.

[camel_landy]

If so, where?

If we put it in the Pinnacles under Range Rover, then the RRS should be moved from D3/D4/RRS.

Should it go under Freelander? :confused:

I was just about to ask the very same question... But then I saw this thread.

IIRC - The only things on the Evoque, which are the same as the Freelander 2, are:

* Diesel engine
* Gearbox
* Rear diff
* Some of the rear suspension and top suspension mountings.

Although originally 'based' on the Freelander, everything alse is completely different... Even the floorpan and layout underneath is different.

M

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Sorry, no understand???? LandRover and RangeRover are the same Manufacturer, RangeRover is like Fairlane used to be to Ford or Lexus is to Toyota???:confused: are you splitting hairs???:D:D btw, he also owns a diesel FL1...Wot me pedantic? ;)

But it irks me when RR people get all the airs and graces about their owning RR and not LR, when I was in the RR Club of NSW there was a furore when Richard Asquith, the President (and owner of Asquith & Johnson, now Trivett Land Rover Parramatta), took a prototype Perentie on a Club trip, similarly when the Discovery 1 was released they weren't going to accept Disco owners as members unless they also had a RR and the Disco's weren't to go on trips. After that I didn't stay in the Club long enough to find out the result.

My point, just because a vehicle has a particular marketing label, doesn't mean that it fits in that area. Would the Lexus GX470 be in the Lexus area or the Prado area, I say with the Prado because they share much of the same platform.

I did not know Garry still had the FL1, but my comment was to suggest that he had a stake in the argument of RRs being with D3/D4.

[p38arover]

Only the hairdressers :o

...i.e., RRS owners. :D

[101RRS]

but my comment was to suggest that he had a stake in the argument of RRs being with D3/D4.

Never [bigwhistle]

[Phideaux]

Anyone read the Top Gear reviews? Clarkson expected to hate it, instead made it his COTY choice. I (bushfire-fighter retired, Freelander2 owner(20,000km in 4mo:cool:, 10% dirt/off-road)), expected to hate it. I do hate the look and passenger windows. Sooner or later some of the target demographic (hairdressers & soccer mums, latte-swilling poseurs) are going to take them off-road or on-sell them to people who will, where owners will discover that the limitations are no-low-range & no-2"-lift(clearance) & driver competence. Five years time, people will be doing mods to them, the way they do to 40-year-old RRs.

So I support a combined "small-platform" classification - including Freelander1&2/Evoque & (gasp)2WD because this is a Land Rover forum and we don't all have to be purists with winches & dirt-under-fingernails. If the trendoid Evoque expands the LR support base, why quibble?

[Lotz-A-Landies]

... Sooner or later some of the target demographic (hairdressers & soccer mums, latte-swilling poseurs) are going to take them off-road or on-sell them to people who will, where owners will discover that the limitations are no-low-range & no-2"-lift(clearance) & driver competence. Five years time, people will be doing mods to them, the way they do to 40-year-old RRs.
...The difference between the Evoque and 40 year old Range Rovers, is that 40 year old Range Rovers were competent off road vehicles the day they rolled off (the many) assembly sheds 40 years ago. The Evoque, lacking low range, is only a soft roader today and in 5 years time in spite of any current or future mods.