Packing a 2.0-liter turbocharged inline-4, the 2012 Land Rover Range Rover Evoque promises better on-road performance than any Land and/or Range Rover before it while still maintaining strong capabilities off the beaten path. While our verdant Fontana, California, test site provides little opportunity to try out the latter on the 2012 North American Truck of the Year, its abundant pavement allowed us to see how this stylish, inspired-by-Posh-Spice SUV stacks up numbers-wise in the increasingly crowded luxury crossover segment.
Vehicle: 2012 Land Rover Range Rover Evoque
Odometer: 788
Date: 11/22/2011
Driver: Mike Monticello
Price: $41,145 base
Specifications:
Drive Type: Front-engine, all-wheel drive
Transmission Type: Six-speed automatic
Engine Type: Transverse turbocharged, direct-injected inline-4
Displacement (cc/cu-in): 1,999/122
Redline (rpm): 6,850
Horsepower (hp @ rpm): 240
Torque (lb-ft @ rpm): 251
Brake Type (front): 11.8-inch ventilated discs with single-piston sliding calipers
Brake Type (rear): 11.9-inch ventilated discs with single-piston sliding calipers
Suspension Type(front): Independent MacPherson struts, stabilizer bar
Suspension Type (rear): Independent MacPherson struts, stabilizer bar
Tire Size (front): 245/45R20 (99V)
Tire Size (rear): 245/45R20 (99V)
Tire Brand: Michelin
Tire Model: Latitude Sport
Tire Type: Asymmetrical summer
As tested Curb Weight (lb): 4,015
Test Results:
Acceleration
0-30 (sec): 2.7 (3.1 w/TC on)
0-45 (sec): 4.8 (5.2 w/TC on)
0-60 (sec): 7.4 (7.7 w/TC on)
0-60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec): 7.1 (7.3 w/TC on)
0-75 (sec): 11.0 (11.2 w/TC on)
1/4-Mile (sec @ mph): 15.5 @ 89.8 (15.7 @ 89.8 w/TC on)
Braking:
30-0 (ft): 29
60-0 (ft): 118
Handling
Slalom (mph): 62.9 dynamic mode ( 62.4 w/TC on)
Skid Pad Lateral acceleration (g): 0.83 dynamic ( 0.79 w/TC on)
Db @ Idle: 43.8
Db @ Full Throttle: 73.4
Db @ 70 mph Cruise: 64.1
Acceleration: Definite turbo lag off the line, and the brakes aren't strong enough to hold the Evoque in place for proper power braking at launch. Once to 3,000 rpm the engine feels quite strong. Some lag with each upshift. Shifts are quick but a bit abrupt. Manual shifting via steering wheel paddles (no console lever, just a knob). Sort of blips the throttle on manual downshifts. Will not hold gears to limiter.
Braking: The Evoque's first stop of 118 feet is actually pretty good considering it weighs 4,000 pounds. But by just the third stop the brakes were smoking heavily, and by the fourth stop we called it quits. For that, it gets a Poor rating.
Handling:
Skid pad: Good feel from the steering and reasonable grip from the tires. Chassis is responsive. There's a major difference here between ESC on and off (unlike in the slalom, where they felt the same). With it "off" the system didn't jump in at all. With it on, it massively cut the throttle to the point you could just keep the right foot planted.
Slalom: A real shame that the ESC system cannot be defeated, even in "DSC off" mode. The Evoque has surprisingly quick steering and a competent chassis with good damping, but if you get at all aggressive with it around the cones it cuts the throttle and adds brakes. It's counter-intuitive to have such quick steering, then right after you turn in, the stability system freaks out and cuts all your speed. Let this thing breathe and it would put up a respectable time.
gtrguy2012 says:
09:03 PM, 01/24/12
No thanks. $41 grand should buy you at least 300 hp.
blackdynamite1 says:
09:05 PM, 01/24/12
1. 4000 lbs? Rav4s tower over this and it's 2 tons?
2. Didn't Car and Driver get 6.4 seconds out of it?
3. If you pay over $50k for this, you need a foot square in your......
BD
blackdynamite1 says:
09:08 PM, 01/24/12
C&D got 6.9.
Many are hitting dealers with stickers well over $50k (Try and find one for $41k), which might explain why less than 3000 have been sold in over 3 months on the market......
BD
blueguydotcom says:
09:09 PM, 01/24/12
Crazy overpriced.
jm1212 says:
09:10 PM, 01/24/12
so why would anyone get this over a Q5 2.0T, much less a Q5 3.2?
billt9 says:
09:10 PM, 01/24/12
I'd assume this car is a Land Rover Range Rover Evoque Dynamic, not a regular Evoque, since you mentioned Dynamic Mode.
This sports trim gives up approach and departure angles for the sporty drive.
compressor says:
10:17 PM, 01/24/12
Easy guys. Everyone here knows people pay $50k for the looks (exterior and interior) alone. Nobody buying these cares about performance and probably will never realize how to turn off traction control.
kyolml says:
10:18 PM, 01/24/12
50k and you will die in the 3rd stop? i guess 50k is not a lot money these days (328i modest options cost that much), but still, no thanks, i don't want to die
maxwellhere says:
10:23 PM, 01/24/12
If I had 50 grand to blow, I'd get a two door one, despite the logic that there are better deals out there. They just look so damn cool! As to the performance, it's not surprising that it's not a sports car, but it seems fairly capable.
bmw__m5 says:
03:26 AM, 01/25/12
Good luck with those summer tires off-raoding and in the snow!
musicmotorman says:
04:31 AM, 01/25/12
It's really a joke. I just bought a 2012 Kia Optima SX and for what you get for the $$ compared to this Range Rover, I would never buy this Evoque. It's a beautiful car. It's just that the Range Rover people got their heads in their butts! It's a shame cuz it is a nice looking car!
jerintampa says:
04:40 AM, 01/25/12
It's one of the best looking SUV's out there besides, how many people have 3-4 full-onslaught repetitive braking situations. If you do, you really shouldn't be driving. Car is gorgeous and if I had the money I would buy it.
vhorizon says:
05:21 AM, 01/25/12
This car will guarantee multiple dealer visits and use of their loaner cars.
hooklyn says:
05:39 AM, 01/25/12
@ musicmotorman
You might get the same FEATURES but you are not getting nearly the QUALITY of the Land Rover...
You value QUANTITY whereas there are people out there who value QUALITY.
You have more features than a Ferrari 599 GTB, no one cares though...
That is a stupid comparison and one from someone who clearly has no experience with a Land Rover or other premium/luxury/high-end products.
Its not WHAT it does but HOW it does it that makes the difference.
miamifan1 says:
05:41 AM, 01/25/12
you people criticizing this thing for not performing better, not having more cargo room, not being any good for snow, etc., take a step back from the magazine racing and pidgeonholing this into any categories...
its a show car with an awesome interior. its a step away from 'common'. its just 'cool' for being different.
hooklyn says:
05:43 AM, 01/25/12
When will you guys learn;
When you add tons of features and options to a mediocre car you don't get a better car, you just get a more equipped one. A well equipped mediocre car is still a mediocre car.
Focus on the core components of a car and then build from there, not the other way around. I personally think all those crazy extras just get in the way or distract you from its core functions.
Adding heated seats or heated steering wheels or moonroofs or leather seats or dual-zone climate control all do nothing to change how the car is built and what it is built with and with what amount of care and attention to detail. Nor does it change the operability of it.
wikiwiki says:
06:05 AM, 01/25/12
Is glass really that expensive these days or do people like driving in coffins? How bad are the blind spots on all of these new vehicles being put on the road?
wjtinatl says:
06:23 AM, 01/25/12
Is Land Rover (Tata) the new GM? Great styling and lots of toys is nice, but jeez.... crap brakes on a 50k vehicle is just stupid. Massive fade is bad enough, but if the brakes can't contain the relatively weak turbo 4 at a dead stop, they better hope that accelerator and brake pedal are spaced miles apart, or we've found the next scapegoat for lousy American drivers.
transpower says:
06:44 AM, 01/25/12
The skid pad scores are dismal...so forget about it.
pc123456 says:
06:49 AM, 01/25/12
I liked this at the autoshow
then I saw one in person. Looks like a Ford Edge with its roof caved in.
Prediction: Flop.
miamifan1 says:
07:12 AM, 01/25/12
The brakes are clearly undersized. Maybe the Ford Edge connection is there after all ;)
The accel numbers, they're good enough imho.
This reminds me of the OG Audi TT. That car, like this, was a show car for the street. That car was lackluster to drive, it had no character whatsoever, Just awesome styling and interior. This one, I bet, is also a boring experience.
Agree with above, it's gonna flop. But then again, the LR2 on which it's based, is a flop as well.
compressor says:
07:15 AM, 01/25/12
I don't think anyone here gets it.
Nobody buys a CUV based on performance. If they drive soundly during a test drive that is all that matters. The rest is all in appeal to the owner (i.e. looks)
cr_driver says:
07:21 AM, 01/25/12
For $45-55K, I couldn`t buy such a car, cause it is underpowered, slow, too little, not even mentioning Land Rover`s infamous reliability.
Despite the fact that I like its styling, both inside and out.
All in all, not my cup of tea for that pricetag.
06sti says:
07:34 AM, 01/25/12
I agree with most of the above comments. It is dissappointing because it is so appealing on an aesthetic level, that we want it to be a terrific car overall. Turns out it's not a car guy's car, but a design exercise intended for wealthy 20-40 year old women. That's ok though, they're a big part of the car buying market.
wackford says:
07:42 AM, 01/25/12
I concur with many others that this vehicle is wayyyyy over priced.
For 10 grand less it might be interesting. At its current price, it's
not even worth considering.
hooklyn says:
07:52 AM, 01/25/12
Most of you or no one for that matter probably knows this but Victoria Beckham was contracted to aid in the design of this car.
THAT is who it appeals to. 30-50 year old women looking for urban chic styling in a handsomely appointed and comfortable package. They won't be taking it off-road and they won't be racing at street lights. They might have something else in their stable for that already.
For its purpose, it is an awesome vehicle. I have seen several cruising around my area and they look fantastic. I would be willing to bet that people would pay even more than $50k for the thing. It looks unlike anything else on the road and has a very rich presence. If it even drives 50% like a full-size Range Rover, it will drive rich too.
Go drive a Range Rover and your views of them will change. Mine did.
And to take it a step further given its intended purpose and demographic, I doubt those people even care/know how much power it has or what its skidpad or braking distances are. Most people in general, regardless of market segment or demographic know these things about their cars.
Its like a Fiat 500 for people with more money. Sure, there are plenty of better cars for the money but the style and design and uniqueness are what appeals to their owners.
miamifan1 says:
08:03 AM, 01/25/12
@hooklyn:
x2. spot-on. and yes, range rovers drive like the "experience" you hope for.
drhorrible says:
08:43 AM, 01/25/12
I like the styling but the brakes really need to be beefed up. I would buy if it were a little cheaper but reliability issues and prices to service it will keep me away. Still it is unique in looks.
blackdynamite1 says:
08:50 AM, 01/25/12
High-maintenance, expensive, annoying hot chick
Just like it's owners......
BD
ed124c says:
09:11 AM, 01/25/12
I don't get it. It has turbo lag, the brakes are spotty, the slalom and skid pad are mediocre, it's heavy, probably has poor visibility and reliability, and to top it off, it's expensive. I think it is decent looking, but that doesn't in any way excuse its flaws.
This is another car for people with more money than sense.
jtnct says:
09:13 AM, 01/25/12
So its over priced, has bad turbo lag, and the brakes can't take several hard stops? IL or Top Gear should compare this Rover and tell the UK what a POS it is!
hooklyn says:
09:19 AM, 01/25/12
@ jtnct
Topgear DID test this last year. They liked it a lot actually if I recall correctly.
Top Gear UK DOES tend to prefer British cars though. Root for the home team just like people here do with many crap American cars.
compressor says:
09:55 AM, 01/25/12
Mention skid pad to a casual driver next time. Now take that response as the reason why nobody cares about IL test data and will buy this based on looks, if they have the money. Heck, say "insideline" to 95% of people and they will think you are trying to peform some fraudulent transaction.
pika206 says:
10:04 AM, 01/25/12
Yeah, i'm more interested in real world Landrover Qualities, like hill descent control, and whether the turbo lag effects lowrange mode when trying to crawl up the slippery. Nobody is going to to be panic braking multiple times in a row. But i would like to have good easy control going up and down on a snowy hill.
6sptl says:
10:55 AM, 01/25/12
41K???? Are these people out of their minds? A car for those that are impressed by brand names only. For the same money you can buy an MDX which is larger, faster, has the same handling an is infinitely more reliable. I gues the Range Rover name is worth 15K.
wikiwiki says:
11:44 AM, 01/25/12
Kind of looks like a Ford to me.
aston_dbs says:
11:57 AM, 01/25/12
Looks pretty cool and funky until... it breaks down... and again... and again.
If I want funky AND reliable, I'd take Acura ZDX.
IMHO, that funky CUV looks MUCH better in reality than in pictures (cool 'blacked out' interior too...)
bankerdanny says:
11:59 AM, 01/25/12
Fat, slow, stupid, and unable to stop is no way to go through life.
hooklyn says:
12:26 PM, 01/25/12
You people are nuts. Comparing this to an MDX for performance and efficiency and practicality.
The key essence of the Evoque is STYLE and QUALITY.
Something the MDX doesn't have to the extent of the Evoque.
Sure, to get the highest quality and most aesthetically pleasing product you sacrifice performance and efficiency but that is a trade-off that only its owner, not you, has to make.
Many of you are looking at the Evoque through eyes that clearly can't afford it. Value and reliability and gas mileage and cargo room are all practical arguments from people with lesser means.
The Evoque appeals to 2 people;
For Women - Winter car while their SLK/Z4/TT/Boxster/(FILL IN ANY OTHER HIGH-END CONV./ROADSTER) is in storage
For Men - Urban Chic Hipsters/Yuppies with some money - same people that the X6, A7, CLS550, etc. appeal to. Those cars are all more expensive and less practical than their more conventional couterparts, X5, A6, E550, but people accept that sacrifice for the style and panache and presence those exude.
These are people who buy Diesel Jeans or Paper Denim Jeans instead of Levis.
These are people who eat Sushi instead of a Burger.
These are people who drink Stella instead of Budwiser.
For that crowd, this will do well and they wouldn't even consider an Acura MDX anyways.
These are also people who, in droves, buy a 328i over a Taurus SHO. I am not going to tell you that a 328i is a better 'value' (in the traditional sense) than a SHO, its not. But BMW still sells 95,000 3-Series while Ford sells 63,000 Taurus (all trims).
Some of you guys are so conservative around here and just seem to focus on dollars and cents and value and efficiency (as you define it). Just do it for the sheer enjoyment of it.
6sptl says:
12:56 PM, 01/25/12
Mentioning quality and Range Rover in the same sentence shows an absolute ignorance about the brand. Plush pretty leather is a sign of opulance not quality. Range Rover along with Jaguar has one of the worst, if not the worst, reliabilty history of any brand sold in NA. They should come equipped with underbody nets to collect the little parts that you leave behind when you drive it and a resident electromechanic to repair the myriad of electric engine and other bugaboos that crop up constantly. They are the epitomy of a well dressed turd.
hooklyn says:
01:03 PM, 01/25/12
@ 6sptl
You are confusing quality and reliability.
Quality pertains to materials and build and fit & finish and refinement and attention to detail
Reliability pertains to its ability to maintain normal functionality/operability
There is a reason why there is two words used, because they are two entirely different concepts.
6sptl says:
01:17 PM, 01/25/12
Hooklyn; reliabilty is a function of the quality of engineering, mechanical components and assembly. If you took a Yugo and lavished every interior surface with alcantara and provided it with a nice radio you wouldnt consider it a vehicle of good "quality".
What you should say is: the interior is finished with very high quality materials however the rest of the car is pure junk.
aston_dbs says:
01:58 PM, 01/25/12
@hooklyn: "You are confusing quality and reliability..."
LOL... I wonder who is actually confused???
So... what's the point of having 'quality' cars if you cannot really drive them?
Just sit in it, enjoying its 'quality' while its sitting nicely on your driveway (or in the shops)?
Such an ignorant AND clueless statement:
"...The key essence of the Evoque is STYLE and QUALITY. Something the MDX doesn't have to the extent of the Evoque...
...Many of you are looking at the Evoque through eyes that clearly can't afford it. Value and reliability and gas mileage and cargo room are all practical arguments from people with lesser means..."
agt1717 says:
02:00 PM, 01/25/12
Would buy a Rav4 V6...goes to 60, under 7 secs,at around half the price.
aston_dbs says:
02:07 PM, 01/25/12
@hooklyn: "You are confusing quality and reliability..."
LOL... I wonder who is actually confused???
So... what's the point of having 'quality' cars if you cannot really drive them?
Just sit in it, enjoying its 'quality' while its sitting nicely on your driveway (or in the shops)?
Such an ignorant AND clueless statement:
"...The key essence of the Evoque is STYLE and QUALITY. Something the MDX doesn't have to the extent of the Evoque...
...Many of you are looking at the Evoque through eyes that clearly can't afford it. Value and reliability and gas mileage and cargo room are all practical arguments from people with lesser means..."
smilez says:
02:22 PM, 01/25/12
"Would buy a Rav4 V6...goes to 60, under 7 secs,at around half the price"
"50k and you will die in the 3rd stop? i guess 50k is not a lot money these days (328i modest options cost that much), but still, no thanks, i don't want to die"
"I just bought a 2012 Kia Optima SX and for what you get for the $$ compared to this Range Rover, I would never buy this Evoque"
All really, really solid comparisons.
Also, does anyone really expect Land Rover to sell a vehicle at around $30k? Yeah, not happening.
I'm also seeing it as going from the LR2 to this. That was a HUGE step in technology, performance and style.
saunupe1911 says:
02:42 PM, 01/25/12
The bottom line is that our wives, sisters, and mothers would love to drive thing and that's who its appealing to. Very attractive exterior, a plush interior, and a few comfort features is all it needs.
But those breaks are alarming though. I wonder if this characteristic is isolated only to this test vehicle. If so then Land Rover has "trouble, trouble"....in my Bernie Mac voice.
saunupe1911 says:
03:04 PM, 01/25/12
@aston_dbs,
Wrong! Even rich people value reliability! People hate to be left stranded in the middle of nowhere or on the freeway. It's freaking embarrassing. Everyone enjoys a reliable car. Status has nothing to do with it.
stillwalking says:
05:28 PM, 01/25/12
I would love to buy this Evoque for my wife if we had that kind of money to spend on (and maintain a potentially problematic) vehicle. It's beautiful and my wife does not go off-roading. The smoking brakes have me thinking differently, not the price. It's about what you'd expect. Even though it's Land / Range Rover entry level, they still want SOME measure of exclusivity.
ken_sai says:
05:39 PM, 01/25/12
Gotta love the negative comments. 41k doesn't buy you much these days. Try load up an X1, it will probably get you to 41k, nevermind the X3. The fact is, this car should appeal to city drivers that care about styling, interior finish and brandname than performance numbers and interior room. I would say this car aims for middle class Victoria Beckham's out there that are looking for alittle bit exclusivity.
brookse1 says:
01:11 AM, 01/26/12
I'll tell you what you DON'T get hooklyn... an off-road vehicle that will ever actually GO off road - unless you consider a shopping mall parking lot off road. Hence, posers. Reminds me of the rice boys that plaster their cars with stickers or guys that put mufflers on their truck... very cool, we're all impressed. (PS: Love the "lesser means" comments... I personally know people whose businesses are worth north of $500 million, maybe $1 billion, and they don't drive cars this expensive. But then again, they have nothing to prove. You ARE a dork.)
aston_dbs says:
08:14 AM, 01/26/12
@saunupe1911:
"Wrong! Even rich people value reliability! People hate to be left stranded in the middle of nowhere or on the freeway. It's freaking embarrassing. Everyone enjoys a reliable car. Status has nothing to do with it."
Mmmhhh... that's actually my WHOLE point???
For those who value money AND time would NOT buy these types of vehicles.
Only those who 'feel' the need to have 'the brand' to be 'included in the crowd'
bimmerjay says:
09:52 AM, 01/26/12
"I'll tell you what you DON'T get hooklyn... an off-road vehicle that will ever actually GO off road - unless you consider a shopping mall parking lot off road."
Who is saying this is an off-road vehicle? Nothing in the specs suggest that. This is a luxury soft-roader competing in a segment that has been around for more than a decade. There are now only a handful of SUVs on the market that have any substantial off-road capability, so I'd argue that this car is more the norm than the exception. Perhaps the people who buy Xterras, 4Runners, Wranglers and Raptors that don't take those off-road are the real "poseurs".
hooklyn says:
09:58 AM, 01/26/12
Ok, a few things that I can help you guys with;
AT BEST, quality is an all encompassing metric of a vehicles collective traits, reliability being one them.
For those of you who say reliability and quality are the same I would ask of you;
What is a higher quality product, a Ferrari 458 Italia or a Honda Civic??
Thats what I thought...
Now,
@ brookse1
When did Land Rover ever say this was supposed to be some off-road tour-de-force? They didn't. Your expectations are just misaligned with the intent that LR has for this car. You are operating under the expectation that simply because it is a LR RR that it is supposed to be an off-road beast.
That would be like saying that simply because a Cayenne V6 is a Porsche it is supposed to perform like some supercar. Its not and neither is this Evoque in regards to its off-road prowess.
Money/Wealth has nothing to do with the appeal of the Evoque. $45k-$50k can buy you a lot of different vehicles. Ford F150, Audi S4, Lotus Elise, VW Touareg, Corvette, Land Rover Evoque, etc.
Style is what this is all about.
And as they say 'money can't buy you class'...
hooklyn says:
10:06 AM, 01/26/12
@ brookse1
And what are these companies? I am a financial analyst by profession and do net present value calculations using several different methods including; discounted cash flows, CAPM, or WACC...
You have no idea how big a company that is worth $500m - $1B is, do you?
And it isn't as though you are wealthy by association. The president of my company earns $14M+/year. That has not one thing to do with me...
It sounds like YOU are the one who is trying to prove something...
hooklyn says:
10:21 AM, 01/26/12
@ aston_dbs
"or those who value money AND time would NOT buy these types of vehicles. "
So what about the people that buy Ferraris and Astons and Lambos and Bentleys and Rolls Royces, etc? Do those people not value money and time? They are god awful unreliable too.
What do they value?
You seem to be referencing upper-middle class ($100k-$300k household income) as 'wealthy' in your eyes. That is not wealthy to me.
People with 7-figure incomes are going to buy whatever they want... Look at what sells to those customers. Not reliable cars.
Global Sales for 2011
BMW - 1.38M
Audi - 1.32M
Merc - 1.26M
...
Lexus - 404k
Reliability, much like gas mileage, is a function of cost. People who are the most cost/price sensitive prioritize reliability or gas mileage. TYPICALLY that is not the wealthy.
* Emphasis on TYPICALLY as in NOT an absolute which would NOT represent literally 100% of people of wealth.
I don't think the guy in my office who drives a Maser GranTurismo really cares if his car breaks. He has a GL450 he can drive while it is in the shop.
And those of you with a Civic go try and tell him your car is 'higher quality' (because it is more reliable). He will first laugh at you and then punch in the head until you see things straight...
legacygt says:
11:06 AM, 01/26/12
Interesting because these results and the commentary are pretty lackluster while almost every review for the Evoq is a rave. This either says a lot about the Evoq's "intangibles" or says something about auto journalists getting blinded by good looks. Still I'm pretty sure I've read some glowing reviews about the Evoq's performance so something just doesn't fit right.
thecrudman says:
11:45 AM, 01/26/12
It's downright criminal that this car comes with sooo many engine/drivetrain choices in Europe but only one/two here. Where're the diesels? Where's the manual transmission?
aston_dbs says:
01:52 PM, 01/26/12
@hooklyn:
"So what about the people that buy Ferraris and Astons and Lambos and Bentleys and Rolls Royces, etc? Do those people not value money and time? They are god awful unreliable too.
What do they value?"
You are comparing these vehicles with the Evoque???
What do THEY value???
Seriously...?
I am definitely not wasting more of my time with you...
"You seem to be referencing upper-middle class ($100k-$300k household income) as 'wealthy' in your eyes. That is not wealthy to me."
Huh? I guess I missed the part where I uttered that statement?
Even $1 million these days cannot really buy much.
My dad is super wealthy (it's his money, God bless him), he can pretty much afford anything he wants in this life. And I learned from him (and I agree) that wasted time = wasted effort = wasted money.
So please, stop bragging to the wrong people... It's kind of sad.
hooklyn says:
06:42 AM, 01/27/12
@ aston_dbs
You are using ONE EXAMPLE (or a few) to represent the collective. In my profession I am involved in hundreds of case studies involving clients from all walks of life. You can't even begin to generalize what appeals to the wealthy using your dad as one example.
And you are referencing the adage 'time is money'. I won't disagree but that is not what we are discussing here.
I can use this FACTUAL information to help guide you though.
You said reliability and value are what are important to people of wealth, correct?
Would you say that Lexus is more reliable and offers more value than BMW/Merc/Audi?
Avg. Annual Household Income of Owners
Audi - $184k
Merc - $175k
BMW - $170k
Lexus - $142k
Bachelors Degree Attainment
Audi - 32%
Merc - 28%
BMW - 29%
Lexus - 26%
So, I can tell you, based on these facts, what educated (presumably smart) and wealthy people buy. Its not the most reliable / best value...
** SOURCE
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_20/b4178023174411.htm
I would venture to say that the people buying the Audi/BMW/Mercs would buy this Land Rover. Maybe it isn't an issue or wealth and education (though this statistic proves that it is) but it has more to due with the priorities of each.
You can have wealth and be ostentatious and you can have wealth and be frugal. I can say, from personal experience, that typically, people of wealth tend to 'work hard and play hard'. Many people of great wealth (not all) find the merit in enjoying the fruits of their labor. If not, then why have wealth at all if you aren't going to value it.
The two most renewable sources on this planet;
- money
- water
I would even say, IMO, that the people who have wealth and are extra frugal with it are more controlled by their money then otherwise. They are too afraid to lose it in fear of never getting it back.
That is the difference in mentality between someone of fortunate means and someone who generates/creates wealth.
aston_dbs says:
07:51 AM, 01/27/12
@hooklyn:
For once I agree with you: It's all a matter of priority, AND what each person think is worth it.
Even though my dream car, IMO, the DBS (or the latest gorgeous Virage) is not worth its $250k price tag.
Why?
Because my 2 kids in private school deserve better for their education; I'd stick with my 911 for now (well worth it IMO)
My father is the 'old money' type of guy. And I grew up with it as well.
The latest Audis, BMWs (and this Evoque) are certainly targeted for the 'new money' (More 'hip' & 'trendy' I guess...)
hooklyn says:
08:31 AM, 01/27/12
@ aston_dbs
The Virage is quite gorgeous. I have seen 2 on the road so far and a few more at the dealership. I love it. Even if 99% of people can't differentiate ANY Aston from another.
I wouldn't say it is an old money/new money thing but rather an old person/young person thing.
From the same study, Avg. Owner Age;
Audi/BMW - 49
Merc - 52
Lexus - 56
Cadi.Lioncon - 62
So what I think is impressive is that Audi guys, ON AVERAGE, earn more money, are more likely to be educated, AND are younger. And this is still among luxury car owners, not just car owners in general. Here are other normal brand stats of owners for perspective.
BRAND - HOUSEHOLD INCOME - DEGREE ATTAINMENT - AGE
VW - $78k - 20% - 44
Honda - $62k - 18% - 45
Ford/Chevy - $52k - 15% - 49
It is a different generation now and the trend setters are changing. Anyone I know in my demographic, 25-35 year-old, educated professionals, would gladly spend similar or even more money for this Evoque over an MDX. I personally would get a Touareg but I am unique.
And that doesn't make us shallow. It just means we value style and design over practicality and affordability. Just different.
Statistically, my generation, 25-35, will earn more money in our lifetime than any other generation before us. We are more focused on career success than starting families and settling down. We will have more money and reach success (however you define that in your career) quicker.
I don't want to be reduced to driving a Camry. That, to me, just means I have given up on even trying/caring. If you are going to buy a car, might as well do it right and make it worth your while.
"Complacency fosters mediocrity."
- ME
For me, its 100% or nothing... I think most in my demographic and socioeconomic class would agree with this. Growing up in a technology age we are all in hurry to 'make it' and because of our access to resources and how quickly things are changing we can and faster than ever before. I am the ONLY person in my office of appx. 45 people under 30. I LOVE that.
Yuppies drive this car. And those are going to be the employers in the new age of business in a short time.
will_greer says:
08:36 AM, 01/27/12
Great looking car, inside and out. Depending on which demographic they're targeting, the performance may be plenty. The BMW X3 really presented a competitive challenge in that area, though.
They need to offer a high performance, low-volume variant that does 0-60 in less than 6.5 seconds (bonus points for under 6) and comparable handling in order to have total credibility.
carbrough says:
11:50 AM, 01/27/12
How is it that your test is sooooooo much different than the trashing that CR did on the Evoque??! Are you guys even on the same planet? BTW, I believe your tests to be more credible for what it's worth...