Find Reviews by Make:
What’s the difference between the Range Rover Evoque and the Nissan Murano CrossCabriolet? About $545, and the fact that people will actually buy the proposed convertible version of the Evoque, solely due to the “Range Rover” lettering on the front end.
These images aren’t just competent photoshops – they are real images of a topless Evoque, which will be unveiled as a “concept” at the Geneva Auto Show. Based on the Evoque three-door, 4 lucky passengers will get to ride in a very nice version of the Suzuki X90.
33 Comments on “North America’s Truck Of The Year Loses Its Head...”
Read all comments
The X-90 is one of my guilty pleasures. If I ever get myself financially capable of collecting cars, the X-90 is so going on the list.
There’s something about a tiny roadster-cum-offroader trucklet thing that makes it the perfect trollmobile.
What an utter, utter monstrosity.
And yet I am willing to bet it will sell like hot cakes to people who want to be ‘seen’ driving a Range Rover (I’m thinking rich-b*tches).
You can laugh now, but this car is one of the signs of the carpocalypse.
Wow, that is ugly.
And, it will also be expensive. An, irresistible combination.
It looks many many orders of magnitude better than that Murano abomination. I think Nissan banked on the “women will buy anything” stereotype and lost.
I remember someone recently pointing out that Nissan was the most diverse manufacturer/brand out there at the moment. Maybe it was Jalopnik or something, but they had a good point. Everything from near-supercars to a box on wheels to bloblike cute-utes to a tadpole-shaped EV to capable off-roaders to the Murano CrossCabriolet (dear me, just looked at a picture. My eyes.)
Point is, Nissan is really, really weird. They embody quintessential Japanese quirkiness injected with a je ne sais quois that they *must* have gotten from their affair with Renault. And that can’t be a bad thing.
I agree with rodface…looks better than the Muranovertible. It’s still an abomination, but I kind of want one.
I actually, no joke, felt a little bit like vomiting when I saw the Nissan convertible. It’s just such an ungainly, weird looking thing. The salesmen was trying to get me to act like I liked it, but I couldn’t even muster an “it’s out of my price range.” I just looked at him like he was crazy.
This isn’t a whole lot better.
There’s just something off about SUV convertibles. It’s just unnatural. They’re like the automotive equivalent of the human/fish hybrids from the Shadow over Innsmouth. They just aren’t… quite… right.
Yeaaaaaah…all those original Jeeps, Land Rover Discoveries and FJ40 Land cruisers are so unnatural. The Nissan is ugly though and this isn’t much better. Neither are SUVs though and heaven forbid you get those blingtastic rims off road. Useless vehicle.
Ugh…Defenders…not Discoveries
Nissan Murando? Is that a love child of Murano and Rondo?
chunky-monkey flavor?
If anyone wants to see whats wrong with modern cars than Range Rover is a good example, they’ve gone from building useful bulky SUVs to “Sporty Convertible Urban Cruisers”, or as I say “The worlds most complicated bath-tub”.
How thick will the A-pillar have to be to handle 2.5x the weight of the vehicle on rollover? Or was the hack job on the Kappa twins just poor engineering?
On rollover, the weight of the vehicle will be supported by the driver’s neck.
Is that a latch for a fifth seatbelt? If so, that would make it the only 5-seat convertible (not coutning the jeep) out there. (no headrest, so maybe not).
I think what you’re seeing is probably where the release is to fold the seat down…
My wife walked in, saw the picture at the top of the article, and said “That’s CUTE!” She is in their target demographic and liked it. That’s a good start.
A lot of females will like this car, and some of them will get one.
That’s not a Photoshop? It looks like something a Shriner would drive in a parade.
I like it. Being a Range Rover it should be competent off road which is more than you can say about BMWs entire range of SUVs. So when you think about it this car isn’t pointless at all if you want pointless buy a BMW Suv.
It is pointless actually, theres several convertible off-roaders that would be much better for “Urban Driving” and better off-road to boot.
They’re the Jeep Wrangler and the Suzuki Samurai.
Yuck. I’ve had a soft spot for four seat convertibles since the MkI Golf but still, yuck.
Definitely better than the Murano, I concur. And does the Evoque share a lot of bits with the Ford Edge, or do they just look uncannily similar in photos?
Perhaps some sort of roll bar set up would make this thing less ungainly?
Looks like a Weeble-mobile. (“Weebles” is a trademarked name for a child’s toy.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq0OQBdIhsc
stuart
At our local auto show, we looked at an oddball coupe – a Range Rover Evoque. This thing had the absolute narrowest gun-slit windows I have ever seen on a vehicle. The rear glass doesn’t even pop open. For that kind of money, I suppose no one in their right mind would ever want to sit back there. At least the convertible makes sense – in a way…
We were actually impressed with the Murano Cabriolet and sat in back. Wifey approved.
If I had an Evoque this ugly, I’d shave its butt and tell it to walk backwards…
If Kia built a convertible version of the Soul, you’d have to read the badges to tell them apart. It doesn’t look as bad as the other Evoques, at least not with the top down. The Evoque roofline is an abomination. Finding it appealing is right up there with having a 2012 Obama sticker on your car.
The Kia Soul would be a better convertible since its just a box-car for city driving, this Rovers just a joke unless if it can over-throw roof-less Wranglers.
I guess if the US can’t have the Defender, this’ll do.
Can’t wait for the comparo test with the Murano convert!
For some reason I see some smoking hot 20 year old trust fund chick driving one of these in a white thong bikini and 3000 dollar sunglasses down South Beach…
This is the Ron Reagan of Range Rovers.
I wonder if an Aztec convertible would look better or worse than this turd ‘o the road.
This trucklet is so sticky, blocky and so hip to be square that I like it, almost. But why, above that smug pug-nose, does it wear another car’s windshield? Nothing about the car body is aerodynamic, so how much fuel economy is gained by a fast windshield rake? A more upright windshield has many benefits: reduced reflections, less daytime solar heating, better side vision and an increase in perceived interior space. For me, it’s a better view of the road and the scenery.
This new RR oddity would be improved greatly by a more upright windshield. It would give it more personality and distinction. So far, only the new VW Beetle (and not the VW New Beetle) has gone against the grain with a more vertical windshield. Where Beetles dare, will others follow… someday?