12-06-2011, 04:29 PM | #68 | |
Private
2
Rep 86
Posts |
Quote:
More of an issue is our parking space which has a Vespa at the rear. The length difference will be important. So far, there are no alarming differences on the forums, in issues of reliability - both have their fair share. What is slightly concerning is that the BMW issues are still just as common as earlier in the year which may mean BMW is not addressing them. The same will equally apply to the RRE. Now that our ancient Mazda has had its first real failure in the front struts (which I've been expecting - but try and talk your wife into getting rid of her first car!), a decision is imminent. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-06-2011, 05:08 PM | #69 |
Lieutenant Colonel
104
Rep 1,511
Posts |
Filski,
I understand your current Mazda just died but the CX-5 was also on my shopping list. But unfortunately Mazda confirmed they aren't going to release the diesel in Canada.. Donno about Oz but the oil burner will have 310 lb/ft of torque... might be worth a look. |
Appreciate
0
|
12-10-2011, 10:41 PM | #70 |
Colonel
795
Rep 2,599
Posts |
First head to head of the X3 and Evoque, looks like the Evoque won over X3 in almost every dept, jeez!
http://theage.drive.com.au/motor-new...208-1okfi.html |
Appreciate
0
|
12-11-2011, 03:06 AM | #71 | |
Lieutenant
84
Rep 510
Posts |
Quote:
If I was limited to this level of budget, yes the Evoque would have come into consideration. However if this was the case, I would have most likely ended up with neither. At this price level my choice would have been the XC60 D5. Tony |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-11-2011, 04:26 AM | #72 |
Private
2
Rep 86
Posts |
Interesting review and light on details but ultimately a similar finding - the X3 is unbeatable if you won't ever venture far from the bitumen.
Tony - for many people a bigger engine is not an option due to budget. While I'd love a 30D it's just not possible to talk the wife into parting with that much cash. So the evoque is a fair comparison. I happened to drive the Volvo too and am puzzled why you'd choose that instead. The X3 is far better IMO. |
Appreciate
0
|
12-11-2011, 04:48 AM | #73 | |
First Lieutenant
22
Rep 309
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-11-2011, 05:38 AM | #74 |
Private
10
Rep 61
Posts |
I currently run a Freelander 2 and saw the Evoque as the natural successor to it and put a deposit down on one back in June before it was launched to the public. When I drove it, I had second thoughts. I couldn't adjust the seat enough to get comfortable - no tilt on the squab. The ride was nothing like as comfortable as on my Freelander, being very joggly on anything other than a totally smooth surface. The view out over the bonnet isn't as commanding as in the Freelander, the instruments are a mess and you get a real sense of claustrophobia in it with the narrow side windows. As I wanted the Sd4 automatic version in Dynamic spec - it was going to cost me over £40000 and I just didn't see the worth of it in the end for a car that's no bigger than a Golf. I was therefore going to go for the X3 2.0D but once I drove the 35D, my mind was made up and the Evoque order cancelled!
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-11-2011, 08:20 AM | #75 | |
Lieutenant Colonel
104
Rep 1,511
Posts |
Filski, I have to agree 100% with your post. I too drove both cars back to back and had the same impressions.
I told my wife that i wanted to enjoy DRIVING my next car after driving boring cars for the last 15 years. My impression is the rr is the car to buy if you plan to go off road and the bimmer is the one you want on road. Personally I couldn't see myself taking either car off road so the bimmer got the nod. Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-11-2011, 09:42 AM | #76 | |
Colonel
795
Rep 2,599
Posts |
Quote:
Last edited by Bimar; 12-11-2011 at 12:20 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-11-2011, 11:08 AM | #77 |
Private First Class
2
Rep 114
Posts |
whoa! it never crossed my mind that i'd feel like i got a "bargain" with a us$50k vehicle [35i, prem, prem sound, sap, tech]. thanks, i guess...
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-11-2011, 12:22 PM | #78 |
Colonel
795
Rep 2,599
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-11-2011, 04:50 PM | #79 | |
Lieutenant
84
Rep 510
Posts |
Quote:
Tony |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-21-2011, 12:45 AM | #80 |
Colonel
795
Rep 2,599
Posts |
Looks like the Evoque crash tests not that stellar either, Go X3!
http://www.caradvice.com.au/152150/m...ancap-ratings/ |
Appreciate
0
|
12-21-2011, 01:11 AM | #81 | |
Lieutenant
13
Rep 579
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-21-2011, 01:48 AM | #82 | ||
Private
2
Rep 60
Posts |
Quote:
3.0d is way better than the D5 which is getting a bit tired Handling was miles better - our test XC didn't like corners Technology in the X3 was better Cabin felt more roomy I live near Birmingham and there are loads of Evoques on the road now. They look like a piano has fallen on them! I suspect that most of all these vehicles will rarely go off road and that road manners and refinement will be more important. I am not convinced the Evoque is better in either respect. |
||
Appreciate
0
|
12-21-2011, 06:50 AM | #83 |
Private First Class
4
Rep 125
Posts |
Seeing that this thread is being quite popular, I think Land Rover already succeeded in Evoque project because what we actually should be comparing Evoque with among BMW model range should be X1, not X3. Evoque seems to be giving the impression that it belongs to an upper segment, but in fact "upper" maybe only pricewise .
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|