Fuck the Evoque.

"Nibby" (nibby68) 06/25/2014 at 09:10 • Filed to: None

4

63

Looks like shit. Has no visibility, is essentially a glorified Escape for twice the price, and is too small inside to be useful. The only thing I like it is that it seems to have pretty good off road prowess for a small crossover. The rest can die.

Mini rant

EL_ULY > Nibby 06/25/2014 at 09:12

0

yeah..... but successful ladies and their husband's 19 year old girlfriends like them a lot

...and Miami bros

macanamera > Nibby 06/25/2014 at 09:12

2

Not to mention, it says Range Rover on it and has a four banger.

Nibby > EL_ULY 06/25/2014 at 09:13

0

And trophy wives.

Milky > Nibby 06/25/2014 at 09:15

5

You're just Jelly it can further off road (probably) then the Sequoia, a 'real' SUV.

JR1 > Nibby 06/25/2014 at 09:15

0

It is an overpriced guilty pleasure of mine.

EL_ULY > Nibby 06/25/2014 at 09:15

2

especially. I think the seats are spray on tan resistant

Nibbles > Nibby 06/25/2014 at 09:15

4

But

Two doors!

Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs > Nibby 06/25/2014 at 09:16

0

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > Nibby 06/25/2014 at 09:17

2

Different strokes I s'pose. I rather liek the way they look, although I wouldn't be caught dead driving one.

They need to make a Dakar version to give it some real chops though.

spanfucker retire bitch > Nibby 06/25/2014 at 09:23

0

I actually like the way it looks, but that's what makes the rest of it such pure garbage. The visibility is awful due to the high beltline, and the interior room is awful due to the low roof. Not to mention, a Range Rover with a turbo I-4 just seems wrong.

All in all, the actual aesthetics I think are all it has going for it, but it's those same aesthetics that cripple the hell out of it.

Nibby > Nibbles 06/25/2014 at 09:26

0

Hideous shit.

Nibby > Milky 06/25/2014 at 09:27

1

Doubtful.

Nibbles > Nibby 06/25/2014 at 09:32

2

Two door short wheelbase SUV with actual offroad ability

Your argument is invalid

RazoE > Nibby 06/25/2014 at 09:33

0

The only thing I like it is that it seems to have pretty good off road prowess for a small crossover. The rest can die.

Isn't that the point?

TwinCharged - Is Now UK Opponaut > spanfucker retire bitch 06/25/2014 at 09:37

0

Interior room? Really? I thought it was quite adequately sized inside.

EL_ULY > Milky 06/25/2014 at 09:38

1

i don't know about that

Milky > Nibby 06/25/2014 at 09:40

0

Until proven wrong its my belief.

Rico > Nibby 06/25/2014 at 09:42

0

I think this is one of the ugliest crossovers on the market. Looks like someone stepped on a Range Rover.

Brian Silvestro > Nibby 06/25/2014 at 09:54

2

Macan > all other crossovers

spanfucker retire bitch > TwinCharged - Is Now UK Opponaut 06/25/2014 at 09:56

0

For the size of the vehicle? Not really. It's too compromised - like the "4-door coupes" that the Germans love to make.

Low roofline (though not really aggressively sloped) is a big reason why it's rather cramped for its exterior size. Not to mention the high-beltline makes it feel even worse than it is.

spanfucker retire bitch > Brian Silvestro 06/25/2014 at 09:56

1

10/10

Would DD, take softroading and tow 5,000lbs of whatever the fuck I want.

Nibby > Brian Silvestro 06/25/2014 at 09:57

1

Forester > all other crossovers

Brian Silvestro > Nibby 06/25/2014 at 10:03

1

I disagree with that.

Nibby > Brian Silvestro 06/25/2014 at 10:10

0

Drive one and you'll understand.

MojoMotors.com > Nibbles 06/25/2014 at 10:10

0

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > Nibby 06/25/2014 at 10:11

2

A girl on my swim team has one, as does somebody else in my school. I think they look good, and the interiors look great:

Brian Silvestro > Nibby 06/25/2014 at 10:12

0

I haven't driven either, but I'm confident the Macan is better in every way.

xxxxxx > Milky 06/25/2014 at 10:13

0

No way in hell that off roads better than a Sequoia.

xxxxxx > Milky 06/25/2014 at 10:14

0

Your belief is wrong.

Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire > Nibby 06/25/2014 at 10:14

1

Is the Forester even a crossover? If it is, then the AMC Eagle is the greatest crossover of all time. ALL TIME!!!

Nibby > Brian Silvestro 06/25/2014 at 10:19

0

The Macan sure is better in terms of comfort, luxury, speed/accel... but when it comes to space and utility... legroom, value, turning radius, bad weather conditions, off road, the Forester has it beat.

Milky > xxxxxx 06/25/2014 at 10:26

2

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Sequoia only a rear LSD, not to mention its huge and weighs 5klbs +.

You've seen the Top Gear Evoque clip right? Clever systems get that little crossover a lot further than I would of though.

TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. > Milky 06/25/2014 at 10:28

0

Well it's lighter, shorter wheel base. Ground clearance and approach angle are lower (about an inch) but that is due to the crappy road tyres so a decent set of AT tires will change that. I think you could squeeze it into places you could not go with a Sequoia.

xxxxxx > Milky 06/25/2014 at 10:29

0

The Sequoia has low range and a locking center diff

Nibbles > MojoMotors.com 06/25/2014 at 10:29

0

I have a secret lust for one of these with the 3.5 GDI.

Brian Silvestro > Nibby 06/25/2014 at 10:29

0

This is all probably true.

Milky > TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. 06/25/2014 at 10:33

1

Ohh without a doubt, I used to off road a XJ Cherokee and in that thing I was squeezing through some trails. IMO a Sequoia is just too big for the off roading I like.

Stupidru > Nibby 06/25/2014 at 10:36

1

But rich housewives love them for shopping at Whole Foods because it lets the other moms from neighboring towns know that their Escape is for peons. "Betch I don't care that you could buy another $30k worth of organic cumquats. My car was designed by Victoria Beckham and yours wasn't"

Milky > xxxxxx 06/25/2014 at 10:40

0

So it would only be better at a mud pit, gotcha. Just personal experience / preference in off roading I'd take the smaller & nimbler vehicle.

*disclaimer - I said "probably" & "correct me if I'm wrong" because I'm no expert on Sequoias.

xxxxxx > Milky 06/25/2014 at 10:43

0

Find an Evoque doing this

Nibby > Stupidru 06/25/2014 at 10:44

1

Hahahaha. Fuckin' Whore Foods, man. That place is a complete ripoff. Trader Joes FTW

Alex B > Nibby 06/25/2014 at 10:59

0

I love these.

Alex B > Nibby 06/25/2014 at 11:01

0

Nope. Didn't like the forester.

Alex B > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/25/2014 at 11:02

0

The people at my school do the RR Sport.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > Nibby 06/25/2014 at 11:12

4

Build a better compact 3-door CUV, instead.

Visibility is an issue, but with all new cars having high belt-lines... when isn't it?

I like the way it generally looks, although wider windows would be welcomed... safety regs and NHTSA/IIHS side impact crash standards, and the european equivalent regulations are the primary reason that a lot of vehicles have gun-slits for windows, because vehicles are being built on a bunker methodology, in general.

Although, I have to say... Subaru could beat the pants off this vehicle in most factors except luxury, and maybe subaru's reputation for (lack of) aesthetics, for less money.

An XV Crosstrek with a 2015 WRX engine, WRX STI DCCD 6-speed manual + limited slip axle diffs, strong hubs, good brakes, properly valved long-travel Bilsteins, and strong forged wheels... optionally with revised doors and roof from the Cross Sport Design concept car.

All the electronic traction control modes in Range Rover's computer don't overcome ACTUAL 3-diff, torsen torque-biasing limited slip axle differentials, and a driver-controlled center differential split, with symmetrical axle shafts, driving forged wheels with monoblock brakes.

5-door XV body, and a 3-door version with the Sport Cross's wider coupe doors and 3-door shooting brake roofline would cost about what WRX STI does... in the $30K range, rather than the $40-50K range.

Milky > xxxxxx 06/25/2014 at 11:15

2

This looks about the same.

KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs > Nibby 06/25/2014 at 11:17

0

If you want another reason to hate on it, consider that the design consultant for the Evoque was none other than Victoria Beckham.

Yes, *THAT* Victoria Beckham.

KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs > spanfucker retire bitch 06/25/2014 at 11:19

0

No brake controller, limited tongue weight capacity, would be better served by a half-ton pickup for the price...

Nibby > Alex B 06/25/2014 at 11:21

0

Your loss

Atomic Buffalo > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 06/25/2014 at 11:23

1

None of this is of the slightest interest to people who wear $500 shoes.

Luc - The Acadian Oppo > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 06/25/2014 at 11:23

1

heck even if we could just get the crosstrek with the turbo and I would buy it. all the other stuff you listed would just be a bonus.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > Atomic Buffalo 06/25/2014 at 11:26

1

I don't care. I don't wear 500$ shoes... I don't even have 500$ worth of multiple pairs of shoes. I want a BETTER, FASTER, LESS EXPENSIVE 3-door CUV. the elitists can have their Evoque... But it is not irrelevant because of all that... it is irrelevant because Subaru isn't smart enough to build that proposed vehicle and profit from it.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > Luc - The Acadian Oppo 06/25/2014 at 11:35

1

I keep waiting for the XV Turbo announcement, now that BRZ has fallen flat, and WRX and WRX STI are introduced, and have had their limelight time. Maybe after XV Hybrid has been on the market for a little while.

Subaru is now talking about perhaps bringing the 5-door body style back to WRX and STI... after canceling it with the new generation. I think that is back-pedaling, and a slight mistake, rather than going with an XV turbo with organ transplants from 2015 WRX, and maybe a little bit of plastic surgery to make it look a bit like WRX with a hood scoop and headlights.

A taller-riding XV with a turbo engine would side-step the CAFE stricter passenger car standard, and put a portion of their FA20DIT turbo sales into the light truck standard, which is less strict, reducing Subaru's exposure to CAFE fines to the government if they don't meet the passenger car fleet average regulations. (which shouldn't exist, but that is another topic for another time.)

Besides that, a rally car deserves ground clearance. I never really understood 'slammed' WRXs and WRX STIs. It defeats some of the purpose.

I would be in line to buy a turbocharged XV with a 6-speed, especially if painted blue anywhere near World Rally Blue Pearl.

bpands > Atomic Buffalo 06/25/2014 at 11:43

0

But it is of interest to true jalops.

King Ginger, not writing for Business Insider > Nibby 06/25/2014 at 11:44

0

But what if it came in a Dakar level trim? Come on, you know you'd take it sideways a bit.

bpands > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 06/25/2014 at 11:46

0

Considering they own a sixth (at last check) of Subaru, I don't think Toyota would let them have it.

Nibby > King Ginger, not writing for Business Insider 06/25/2014 at 11:51

1

NEVER

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > bpands 06/25/2014 at 12:06

0

Toyota can go (expletive deleted) be BFFs with BMW... they are kicking Subaru to the curb, even if they still have ~16% share, Fuji Heavy Industries, and it's Subaru automotive division is still a separately managed company.

And frankly, if Toyota wants their FHI stock to go up in value... they need to step off, and encourage Subaru to do the best that Subaru can do... right now Subaru is turning into a "mini-me" to Toyota... with bland mainstream products, and no enthusiasm, while their enthusiast offerings whither on the vine.

Have you seen the Legacy and Outback? As "good" as the new Forester is... it is bland as hell, and doesn't even LOOK as good as it used to, or the RAV4 is. Venza is cleaner looking, and more practical than Outback. Camry offers more for the dollar than Legacy does, as does Corolla compared to Impreza, unless AWD is a priority.

Subaru needs to start being SUBARU again, and not trying to copy the mainstream big-name players... they aren't big enough to compete toe-to-toe like that... and need to offer something different than the mainstream. Subaru needs to be a real alternative, not just an also-ran.

cazzyodo > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 06/25/2014 at 12:21

1

When I test drove the Crosstrek I told the salesman "this thing struggles up hill...I hope they one day put a WRX engine in one. I would buy it in a heartbeat."

Then I drove the Forester cuz it was all research for my mom haha. But really. I would buy a WRX Crosstrek.

iforgotmyburnerkeyagain > MojoMotors.com 06/25/2014 at 13:11

0

ewww

TillTheWheelsFallOff: Brocoma > Nibby 06/25/2014 at 13:25

0

You're absolutely wrong. Sorry, but with the amount of assists placed in the Evoque, it's really easy to drive. That's offroad, on-road, whatever. Too small inside? What are you trying to carry? 8 kids and a jetski? If you need a Suburban buy a dang Suburban not a 2 Door SUV.

Nibby > TillTheWheelsFallOff: Brocoma 06/25/2014 at 13:34

0

I never said it wasn't hard to drive or that it drove poorly. I'm sure it's nice to drive. However, I think crossovers and SUVs should offer MORE space than wagons, sedans, and hatches. Not saying it needs 3 rows, but it should have plenty of space inside.

Besides, it's not an SUV. It will NEVER be an SUV. It's a crossover. Not a body-on-frame SUV. You want a 2 door SUV? The only one on the market is the Wrangler.

Now THIS. THIS is what I call a proper 2 door SUV.

TillTheWheelsFallOff: Brocoma > Nibby 06/25/2014 at 14:01

0

Visibility is part of a good driving experience, which it has plenty of, thanks to its computers.

Of course it's not a BOF, SA SUV, it's even part of the RR line up. For me, RRs were never supposed to be the end-all be all off roader but the do-it all. Want to go skiing/kayaking/biking when it's a fucking mess out there? It'll take you there. It's a comfortable, livable, even (dare I say) metropolitan alternative to the Wrangler or any "traditional" SUV. That's why the GC, Cherokee, and now Renegade will/have worked for Jeep.

What's the point of owning a SA, BOF vehicle, if you'll never use it?

If the Evoque claimed to be a LR product then I could see the frustration, but I really don't think it's lying for what it is. It's not a "glorified" anything.