Aiming Higher: 2020 Range Rover Evoque Ups the Class, Not the Size

Steph Willems
by Steph Willems

During Jaguar Land Rover’s unveiling of the updated version of its smallest Range Rover model, the automaker made sure everyone knew the only carryover components from the not-fully-baked first-generation model were the door hinges. This is not your realtor’s Evoque, JLR assures us.

Revealed in its native UK, the second-gen Range Rover Evoque — arriving next year as a 2020 model — keeps the tidy footprint of its predecessor while boosting the model’s high-zoot trappings and technology. It’s more powerful, greener, and capable off-road than before, JLR claims, and there’s no longer even a whiff of Ford about the thing. Under that hood is an engine proudly flying the Union Jack.

There’s no mistaking it as an Evoque, either, though observers will no doubt notice a design that’s moved in the direction of the lengthier Velar. Still, the gripes hurled at the first-gen model, which first appeared in 2010, were not styling related. And there were many gripes hurled, no doubt about it.

With the 2020 model, JLR sought to correct past mistakes. Beneath the upcoming Evoque is a new platform — JLR’s Premium Transverse Architecture, which affords rear-seat passengers an extra eight-tenths of an inch of legroom via a mild wheelbase stretch. Keep in mind that it’s the same sized package as before, so miracles aren’t plentiful here. Improvements, yes. In addition to a body that’s 13 percent stiffer than before, cargo volume expands by 6 percent, to 21.5 cubic feet. Fold that rear bench down, and 50.5 cubes greet the proud Evoque owner.

Power-wise, the UK-market Evoque makes use of two Ingenium four-cylinder powerplants, each offered in three flavors. We’ll skip over the diesel offerings, focusing instead on the gas-powered motors most likely to see service on this side of the Atlantic. The 2.0-liter Ingenium range starts at 197 horsepower and 251 lb-ft of torque, moves up to 246 hp and 269 lb-ft, and tops out at 296 hp and 295 lb-ft. It’s the latter two engines we’ll be seeing here, if Jaguar’s U.S.-market XE powerplants tell us anything.

Joining these two engines is a 48-volt mild-hybrid system, which captures energy lost through braking and coasting and stores it in an underfloor battery pack. The juice returns to the drivetrain through a belt-integrated starter generator, providing a boost during acceleration and allowing the Evoque to shut down its internal combustion engine at speeds below 11 mph, though only if the brakes are being applied. In a year’s time, a three-cylinder plug-in hybrid should show its face.

All-wheel drive comes standard (UK drivers get a 2WD manual diesel), with multiple terrain modes to choose from, though JLR offers an Auto mode for owners who’d prefer the vehicle governs itself. Water fording, a chief concern for all Evoque owners, improves with this new model. You’ll now be able to tackle 23.6 inches of the wet stuff, up from 19.7 inches in the first-gen model. Should you be of the adventurous type, JLR’s ground view camera, which monitors the area ahead of and below the front bumper, might just prevent your oil pan from being carried away by a jutting slab of granite.

Inside and out, luxury cues abound. LED lighting fore and aft lends a contemporary premium feel, and flush door handles, while wholly unnecessary, nonetheless scream “I’ve paid for this — it’s worth it!” As you can see, the Evoque’s dash doesn’t lack padding, nor touchscreen acreage. The dual-screen setup is an optional feature, pairing two 10-inch surfaces in the center stack with a 12.3-inch digital gauge display.

Lastly, you’ll find both Apple CarPlay and Android Auto as standard kit on this vehicle, allowing the Evoque to offer the same level of connectivity as many generic compact sedans. What’ll a new Evoque set you back, you ask? The automaker isn’t telling, preferring to release its U.S. pricing at the 2019 Chicago Auto Show.

[Images: Jaguar Land Rover]

Steph Willems
Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 9 comments
  • Pete Zaitcev Pete Zaitcev on Nov 24, 2018

    Very interesting, but came a little too late for me.

  • IBx1 IBx1 on Nov 26, 2018

    There may be no carryover from the previous Evoque but this is just a slightly shorter Velour. Shame, I didn't think we needed another slab-sided refrigerator of a "range rover."

  • Kmars2009 I rented one last fall while visiting Ohio. Not a bad car...but not a great car either. I think it needs a new version. But CUVs are King... unfortunately!
  • Ajla Remember when Cadillac introduced an entirely new V8 and proceeded to install it in only 800 cars before cancelling everything?
  • Bouzouki Cadillac (aka GM!!) made so many mistakes over the past 40 years, right up to today, one could make a MBA course of it. Others have alluded to them, there is not enough room for me to recite them in a flowing, cohesive manner.Cadillac today is literally a tarted-up Chevrolet. They are nice cars, and the "aura" of the Cadillac name still works on several (mostly female) consumers who are not car enthusiasts.The CT4 and CT5 offer superlative ride and handling, and even performance--but, it is wrapped in sheet metal that (at least I think) looks awful, with (still) sub-par interiors. They are niche cars. They are the last gasp of the Alpha platform--which I have been told by people close to it, was meant to be a Pontiac "BMW 3-series". The bankruptcy killed Pontiac, but the Alpha had been mostly engineered, so it was "Cadillac-ized" with the new "edgy" CTS styling.Most Cadillacs sold are crossovers. The most profitable "Cadillac" is the Escalade (note that GM never jack up the name on THAT!).The question posed here is rather irrelevant. NO ONE has "a blank check", because GM (any company or corporation) does not have bottomless resources.Better styling, and superlative "performance" (by that, I mean being among the best in noise, harshness, handling, performance, reliablity, quality) would cost a lot of money.Post-bankruptcy GM actually tried. No one here mentioned GM's effort to do just that: the "Omega" platform, aka CT6.The (horribly misnamed) CT6 was actually a credible Mercedes/Lexus competitor. I'm sure it cost GM a fortune to develop (the platform was unique, not shared with any other car. The top-of-the-line ORIGINAL Blackwing V8 was also unique, expensive, and ultimately...very few were sold. All of this is a LOT of money).I used to know the sales numbers, and my sense was the CT6 sold about HALF the units GM projected. More importantly, it sold about half to two thirds the volume of the S-Class (which cost a lot more in 201x)Many of your fixed cost are predicated on volume. One way to improve your business case (if the right people want to get the Green Light) is to inflate your projected volumes. This lowers the unit cost for seats, mufflers, control arms, etc, and makes the vehicle more profitable--on paper.Suppliers tool up to make the number of parts the carmaker projects. However, if the volume is less than expected, the automaker has to make up the difference.So, unfortunately, not only was the CT6 an expensive car to build, but Cadillac's weak "brand equity" limited how much GM could charge (and these were still pricey cars in 2016-18, a "base" car was ).Other than the name, the "Omega" could have marked the starting point for Cadillac to once again be the standard of the world. Other than the awful name (Fleetwood, Elegante, Paramount, even ParAMOUR would be better), and offering the basest car with a FOUR cylinder turbo on the base car (incredibly moronic!), it was very good car and a CREDIBLE Mercedes S-Class/Lexus LS400 alternative. While I cannot know if the novel aluminum body was worth the cost (very expensive and complex to build), the bragging rights were legit--a LARGE car that was lighter, but had good body rigidity. No surprise, the interior was not the best, but the gap with the big boys was as close as GM has done in the luxury sphere.Mary Barra decided that profits today and tomorrow were more important than gambling on profits in 2025 and later. Having sunk a TON of money, and even done a mid-cycle enhancement, complete with the new Blackwing engine (which copied BMW with the twin turbos nestled in the "V"!), in fall 2018 GM announced it was discontinuing the car, and closing the assembly plant it was built in. (And so you know, building different platforms on the same line is very challenging and considerably less efficient in terms of capital and labor costs than the same platform, or better yet, the same model).So now, GM is anticipating that, as the car market "goes electric" (if you can call it that--more like the Federal Government and EU and even China PUSHING electric cars), they can make electric Cadillacs that are "prestige". The Cadillac Celestique is the opening salvo--$340,000. We will see how it works out.
  • Lynn Joiner Lynn JoinerJust put 2,000 miles on a Chevy Malibu rental from Budget, touring around AZ, UT, CO for a month. Ran fine, no problems at all, little 1.7L 4-cylinder just sipped fuel, and the trunk held our large suitcases easily. Yeah, I hated looking up at all the huge FWD trucks blowing by, but the Malibu easily kept up on the 80 mph Interstate in Utah. I expect a new one would be about a third the cost of the big guys. It won't tow your horse trailer, but it'll get you to the store. Why kill it?
  • Lynn Joiner Just put 2,000 miles on a Chevy Malibu rental from Budget, touring around AZ, UT, CO for a month. Ran fine, no problems at all, little 1.7L 4-cylinder just sipped fuel, and the trunk held our large suitcases easily. Yeah, I hated looking up at all the huge FWD trucks blowing by, but the Malibu easily kept up on the 80 mph Interstate in Utah. I expect a new one would be about a third the cost of the big guys. It won't tow your horse trailer, but it'll get you to the store. Why kill it?
Next