Range Rover Evoque Review

Regardless of which engine you go for, the Range Rover Evoque boasts good economy and emissions, which should help keep a cap on long-term running costs and company car tax contributions. The D180 sits somewhere in between, with 150g/km of CO2 and 38.4 to 41.3mpg. Opt for the D240 and you鈥檒l still emit less CO2 than the equivalent lowest-powered automatic diesel Evoque, with 163g/km quoted. Fuel economy sits at 37.9 to 40.4mpg, however. The most powerful diesel, the D240, emits 163g/km of CO2 and returns 37.9 to 40.4mpg on average. The petrol models emit more CO2 and return slightly worse fuel economy figures than their diesel counterparts. The hot-hatch-baiting P300 is the biggest polluter of the range with 186g/km of CO2, although fuel economy remains much the same as the other petrols: 28.7 to 30.3mpg on average. We鈥檇 plump for the D180 diesel, which seems to offer the best trade off between performance, economy and emissions. The Range Rover Evoque starts in insurance group 26 for the lowest-powered petrol and diesel models, climbing through groups 29 to 39 for the R-Dynamic D180 and HSE P300 models respectively.

There are no real gains to be had in its handling, though, because the tall i3 never feels all that secure, due to its narrow tyres. While they help to reduce rolling resistance and improve efficiency, they also hamper the level of grip on offer, so the BMW doesn鈥檛 inspire as much confidence. 鈥?Used electric cars: should you buy one? You can still exploit the instantly deployable torque that characterises EVs, though. The i3s matched the Kia鈥檚 7.0-second 0-60mph time and was actually quicker from 30 to 50mph, taking 2.2 seconds compared with 2.4 seconds in its rivals. However, the less powerful motor couldn鈥檛 match the e-Niro or Kona Electric at higher speeds, because the BMW accelerated from 50-70mph in 4.2 seconds, while its rivals took 3.7 and 3.8 seconds respectively. When it first arrived, the i3 was the most impressive EV to drive, but despite upgrades, rival brands have made big strides with tech and set- up, and the BMW now feels less convincing.

Its smaller footprint also means the i3 isn鈥檛 quite as practical; the 260-litre boot is more limited and those reverse rear doors make access to the cabin more difficult, while it鈥檚 also tighter once you鈥檙e sitting back there. However, despite being not dissimilar to its competitors, the i3 was actually designed for the city, where it excels. The much tighter 9.4-metre turning circle and excellent steering lock mean it鈥檚 easier to manoeuvre, which is helped by the great visibility offered by the i3鈥檚 relatively raised-up driving position. With no transmission tunnel, the cabin feels very spacious in the front and BMW has used this to boost storage, with trays and cup-holders for oddments. That dash shape also gives lots of stowage room. Emergency braking is very important in city cars, and whereas its rivals feature it as standard, the i3 doesn鈥檛, despite being designed for urban areas. You have to pay 拢790 for the Driving Assistant Plus package, which also adds adaptive cruise, pedestrian detection and a few other functions.

As a result, the i3 is rated as a four-star car from its 2013 crash test by Euro NCAP. BMW also didn鈥檛 score that well in our Driver Power 2019 satisfaction survey, finishing 25th in the makers鈥?chart. That鈥檚 five from bottom and the lowest of the three brands here. But the i3 is one of the oldest electric cars on sale, even though it doesn鈥檛 feel like it, and the model鈥檚 reliability has proven strong so far. You might think a premium brand like BMW would have the edge over Kia and Hyundai when it comes to residual values, but EVs are a different ballgame and this trio is more closely matched than you might think. The i3s will hold onto more money, with our experts predicting a 40.7 per cent residual value, making it worth 拢13,900 after three years. The Kia will retain 40 per cent, so because it鈥檚 cheaper it will lose 拢13,201, which equals depreciation of 19,794. The Hyundai is also rated at 40 per cent, which means it鈥檒l shed 拢19,707, and be worth 拢13,138.

BMW鈥檚 拢239 three-year servicing pack is the best value of the trio, although this still seems like a lot given that EVs have fewer moving parts to maintain. The Kia will cost 拢259 to service over 36 months, while three check-ups on the Hyundai come in at 拢287. 鈥淭he i3 used to come as a range-extender with a small petrol engine to boost range. This new 120Ah model offers more range than an original i3 REx with a full battery and a tank of fuel. The Kona Electric shares much of its tech with the e-Niro, but there鈥檚 a key difference. The Hyundai SUV launched with two battery options: a smaller, cheaper 39kWh unit and this 64kWh variant offering more range. Like the e-Niro, the Kona Electric has a 7.2kW charger on board that Hyundai claims will top up the battery in nine hours and 35 minutes, while it鈥檚 just 75 minutes for an 80 per cent 50kW rapid charge.