Evoque Owners Club banner

1 - 20 of 42 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
67 Posts
Wow, to be fair I did think it would be an sdv6 land rover product.
Volvo? Where do the librarians and scientists buy their reliable and dependable family vehicles from next? The world has gone mad. No, wait, that already happened :whistle:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
The world has gone mad.
It's alright, the world is back on its proper axis according to the 2020 What Car? Reliability Survey
Every Land Rover model bar the Defender came out worst in its class and in the Luxury SUV class Land Rover scooped a straight 1-2-3-4 which must be a first. I know these surveys are seen as only "a bit of fun" by some, but surely this is getting beyond a joke.

Least reliable Family SUV - Range Rover Evoque (2011-2019)
Least reliable Large SUV - Land Rover Discovery Sport (2014-date)
Least reliable Luxury SUV - Range Rover Sport (2014-date)
  • 2nd least reliable Luxury SUV - Land Rover Discovery (2017-date)
  • 3rd least reliable Luxury SUV - Range Rover Velar (2017-date)
  • 4th least reliable Luxury SUV - Range Rover (2013-date)
 

·
Registered
Dynamic 3 door, 2013, SD4, santorini black with pimento and ebony
Joined
·
116 Posts
Complex cars bring complex problems.
 

·
Registered
MY13 dynamic 190 5 door - firenze red
Joined
·
90 Posts
the land rover guys are now broke repairing them and dont have the internet any more to complain. :ROFLMAO:
 

·
Registered
MY15 2.2L
Joined
·
2,089 Posts
It's alright, the world is back on its proper axis according to the 2020 What Car? Reliability Survey
Every Land Rover model bar the Defender came out worst in its class and in the Luxury SUV class Land Rover scooped a straight 1-2-3-4 which must be a first. I know these surveys are seen as only "a bit of fun" by some, but surely this is getting beyond a joke.

Least reliable Family SUV - Range Rover Evoque (2011-2019)
Least reliable Large SUV - Land Rover Discovery Sport (2014-date)
Least reliable Luxury SUV - Range Rover Sport (2014-date)
  • 2nd least reliable Luxury SUV - Land Rover Discovery (2017-date)
  • 3rd least reliable Luxury SUV - Range Rover Velar (2017-date)
  • 4th least reliable Luxury SUV - Range Rover (2013-date)
Reading your posts, I often get the feeling you don't like Land Rovers!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
My most unreliable was a Porsche Macan.
The most reliable Skoda Yeti ( 4 of them never missed a beat.)
My Evoque is now 9 months old ....and dare I say it totally reliable.:whistle:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Going back to OP....aren't Volvo manufacturing in People's Republic of Cheapness now?
😱 🤣
 

·
Registered
Evoque Si4 2012
Joined
·
4 Posts
It's alright, the world is back on its proper axis according to the 2020 What Car? Reliability Survey
Every Land Rover model bar the Defender came out worst in its class and in the Luxury SUV class Land Rover scooped a straight 1-2-3-4 which must be a first. I know these surveys are seen as only "a bit of fun" by some, but surely this is getting beyond a joke.

Least reliable Family SUV - Range Rover Evoque (2011-2019)
Least reliable Large SUV - Land Rover Discovery Sport (2014-date)
Least reliable Luxury SUV - Range Rover Sport (2014-date)
  • 2nd least reliable Luxury SUV - Land Rover Discovery (2017-date)
  • 3rd least reliable Luxury SUV - Range Rover Velar (2017-date)
  • 4th least reliable Luxury SUV - Range Rover (2013-date)
A land rover isn't just a car it's a part of the family, this just shows they need to go to a good home. I've had a Series II discovery and now an Evoque, they've both had their odd problems but still love the cars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
Revoke doesnt and has never owned an evoque , he just hangs around LR forums digging up trouble and then repeating it endlessly, He has gone through countless user names on various forums, often these usernames use the thank feature to congratulate each other on the latest nonsense.
 

·
Registered
MY15 2.2L
Joined
·
2,089 Posts
Yes many usernames! It doesn't help people get a clear view on things, as what can look like lots of people might only be 1 or 2.

I've mentioned it before:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
he just hangs around LR forums digging up trouble and then repeating it endlessly, He has gone through countless user names on various forums, often these usernames use the thank feature to congratulate each other on the latest nonsense.
Here we have the perfect example of a pot calling the kettle black. Just so that people know your track record, CG, how many times did they ban you on the DS forum? How many different names did you register to try and slip under the moderators' net?

Hmmm. you can talk. You have multiple logins on different forums, don't you? Be honest. What's your real problem?

Free speech is one of our remaining rights. Get used to it.

Home – The Free Speech Union
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
958 Posts
Ah!
Revoke.
Whilst on the subject can you advise as to how many people have successfully sued JLR over the DPF issues ?
I know it's been going for quite a while now and you have advocated a firm of solicitors who are taking it on.
Just curious.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
The difference is I got banned from DS forum for complaining about ex owners continually ruining the forum chat, As hmmm says you cant see the wood for the trees on that forum. You set up many many usernames to add to the confusion and chaos

On all other forums I am known as 'chicken george' no pretend names no silly games. no bans not arguements, even hosting a summer freel2 BBQ, still in contact with mods/users who have moved on, nice friendly normal behaviour.
People on this forum should be warned of your duplicity

I shall not discus this further, end off.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,118 Posts
Well I never. What a kefuffle! I never knew such things went on on these forums as this is the only one I’ve ever been on. Hang ’em all I say. 🙄
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
Ah!
Revoke.
Whilst on the subject can you advise as to how many people have successfully sued JLR over the DPF issues ?
I know it's been going for quite a while now and you have advocated a firm of solicitors who are taking it on.
Just curious.
Government pre-action conduct and protocols require the parties engaged in civil disputes in England and Wales to attempt to resolve their differences amicably before cases will be considered for a court hearing. Instituting legal procedings is therefore the final stage of the process, seen by the law as a "measure of last resort" after all other attempts at resolving disagreements have failed. Anecdotal evidence collected over a number of years suggests that JLR Retailers and JLR-partnered finance houses deliberately stretch out faulty exhaust cases which they know they will lose during alternative dispute resolution hearings, or which they plan to concede on appeal after a first hearing has gone against them. (sometimes they do this on the day of the appeal, with the parties assembled). One way or another, generally after the maximum time permitted by the pre-action protocols has expired, the defence concedes in these cases or the decision is made in favour of the claimant. It seems that (so far) no party involved in ADR has rejected its decision in relation to the known exhaust design fault on D8 chassis SUVs and, until that happens, the prospect of a court hearing remains remote.

What is really going on?

Cases tend to drop into a familiar pattern. The claimant produces copious evidence that the systemic exhaust design fault has caused them extra costs and that JLR knew about the fault when the car was sold. Frequently this will involve a replacement DPF that JLR has already replaced at its own cost at least once. The defence always says the same thing, "there is nothing wrong with the vehicle, the claimant's driving style is responsible." Everyone with an ounce of engineering knowledge knows that there is something wrong with the exhaust system. Even chicken george, in his heart, knows today that it's unfair to blame the drivers who have done nothing with their Evoque 2.0L diesel that they didn't do with every car they had owned up until this one. But let's not get sidetracked into repeating old arguments, the matter is no longer worth debating. The bigger question is this : why, when its own documentation and the statements of its engineers provide ample proof of an engineering defect, does every case have to get dragged out for as long as possible when JLR knows that its chances of mounting a successful defence are vanishingly small? Why not just pay up at the start of each case and save everyone else's time and money?

The answer is that it is relatively easy to intimidate the average person and cow them into submission. Many people that I have spoken to about this expressed extreme nervousness about the prospects of taking on a car company, even in a pseudo-legal framework such as ADR. When you see some of the letters they have received you can understand why. Black Horse even tries to intimidate claimants' legal representatives if they think this will gain them leverage. It is a dirty business and they will pull every trick in the book to make the claimant give up before the final hurdle. Maybe some of the people this has happened to are reading this and thinking, "yes, that's what happened to me" - maybe we'll hear from one or two, who knows?

I don't "hate" - or even "dislike" - JLR, that's an illogical assertion. How can you hate an inanimate object? Things I find distasteful include narcissism, greed, lying, fraud and other baser human behaviours that have no place in civilised society. I loathe bullies and anyone who betrays public trust for their own selfish ends. I am sorry that the Design team under Gerry McGovern didn't listen to Nick Rogers' senior technical managers after they discovered the awful truth about the engine space available for the close-coupled DPF (combined DOC-CSF as fitted to the Jaguars). I wish they had rearranged the components so that these cars had been able to perform as they were supposed to. But they didn't. They put out misleading sales materials, knowing that what they were telling people wasn't true. This was done to keep the sales numbers up. The executive office came up with a strategy that it hoped would minimise the financial fallout from having a seriously faulty exhaust design on its top two selling models which included spreading the fake cover story of "driving style" being the causal phenomenon. Deception and concealment of a known fault forms a central part of the allegations contained in the Shaaya case in New Jersey and, if there is ever to be a group legal action here, it would no doubt form part of that, too.

In terms of numbers, Covid has brought an avalanche of new DPF failures and a forum poster (off the top of my head I can't remember where) said 2-3 weeks ago that one solicitor had indicated that they were currently dealing with "over a hundred" cases. Total numbers of successful claims I do not know. Successful defences from the JLR side I believe to be zero. It remains my belief that JLR does not want this issue examined in a full court. I maintain that it is easy to prove that a systemic fault exists and that, if properly presented, a case brought before the finance ombudsman should be successful. JLR likes to divide and rule. That's why it is important for owners of Epace, Evoque and Discovery Sport to know that this is a cross-model D8 platform problem.


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
958 Posts
Government pre-action conduct and protocols require the parties engaged in civil disputes in England and Wales to attempt to resolve their differences amicably before cases will be considered for a court hearing. Instituting legal procedings is therefore the final stage of the process, seen by the law as a "measure of last resort" after all other attempts at resolving disagreements have failed. Anecdotal evidence collected over a number of years suggests that JLR Retailers and JLR-partnered finance houses deliberately stretch out faulty exhaust cases which they know they will lose during alternative dispute resolution hearings, or which they plan to concede on appeal after a first hearing has gone against them. (sometimes they do this on the day of the appeal, with the parties assembled). One way or another, generally after the maximum time permitted by the pre-action protocols has expired, the defence concedes in these cases or the decision is made in favour of the claimant. It seems that (so far) no party involved in ADR has rejected its decision in relation to the known exhaust design fault on D8 chassis SUVs and, until that happens, the prospect of a court hearing remains remote.

What is really going on?

Cases tend to drop into a familiar pattern. The claimant produces copious evidence that the systemic exhaust design fault has caused them extra costs and that JLR knew about the fault when the car was sold. Frequently this will involve a replacement DPF that JLR has already replaced at its own cost at least once. The defence always says the same thing, "there is nothing wrong with the vehicle, the claimant's driving style is responsible." Everyone with an ounce of engineering knowledge knows that there is something wrong with the exhaust system. Even chicken george, in his heart, knows today that it's unfair to blame the drivers who have done nothing with their Evoque 2.0L diesel that they didn't do with every car they had owned up until this one. But let's not get sidetracked into repeating old arguments, the matter is no longer worth debating. The bigger question is this : why, when its own documentation and the statements of its engineers provide ample proof of an engineering defect, does every case have to get dragged out for as long as possible when JLR knows that its chances of mounting a successful defence are vanishingly small? Why not just pay up at the start of each case and save everyone else's time and money?

The answer is that it is relatively easy to intimidate the average person and cow them into submission. Many people that I have spoken to about this expressed extreme nervousness about the prospects of taking on a car company, even in a pseudo-legal framework such as ADR. When you see some of the letters they have received you can understand why. Black Horse even tries to intimidate claimants' legal representatives if they think this will gain them leverage. It is a dirty business and they will pull every trick in the book to make the claimant give up before the final hurdle. Maybe some of the people this has happened to are reading this and thinking, "yes, that's what happened to me" - maybe we'll hear from one or two, who knows?

I don't "hate" - or even "dislike" - JLR, that's an illogical assertion. How can you hate an inanimate object? Things I find distasteful include narcissism, greed, lying, fraud and other baser human behaviours that have no place in civilised society. I loathe bullies and anyone who betrays public trust for their own selfish ends. I am sorry that the Design team under Gerry McGovern didn't listen to Nick Rogers' senior technical managers after they discovered the awful truth about the engine space available for the close-coupled DPF (combined DOC-CSF as fitted to the Jaguars). I wish they had rearranged the components so that these cars had been able to perform as they were supposed to. But they didn't. They put out misleading sales materials, knowing that what they were telling people wasn't true. This was done to keep the sales numbers up. The executive office came up with a strategy that it hoped would minimise the financial fallout from having a seriously faulty exhaust design on its top two selling models which included spreading the fake cover story of "driving style" being the causal phenomenon. Deception and concealment of a known fault forms a central part of the allegations contained in the Shaaya case in New Jersey and, if there is ever to be a group legal action here, it would no doubt form part of that, too.

In terms of numbers, Covid has brought an avalanche of new DPF failures and a forum poster (off the top of my head I can't remember where) said 2-3 weeks ago that one solicitor had indicated that they were currently dealing with "over a hundred" cases. Total numbers of successful claims I do not know. Successful defences from the JLR side I believe to be zero. It remains my belief that JLR does not want this issue examined in a full court. I maintain that it is easy to prove that a systemic fault exists and that, if properly presented, a case brought before the finance ombudsman should be successful. JLR likes to divide and rule. That's why it is important for owners of Epace, Evoque and Discovery Sport to know that this is a cross-model D8 platform problem.


Thanks for that.
Just a "not yet" or "I don't know" would have been fine though.
:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Veteran
1 - 20 of 42 Posts
Top