Compare Range Rover Evoque Coupe vs Range Rover Evoque L551 vs Peugeot 3008 II

Variants
Si4 240PS AWD 6AT
Si4 240PS AWD 9AT
Si4 285PS AWD 9AT
TD4 150PS
TD4 150PS AWD
TD4 150PS AWD AT
TD4 180PS AWD
TD4 180PS AWD AT
eD4
SD4 190PS AWD
SD4 190PS 4WD 6AT
SD4 190PS AWD 9AT
TD4 150PS AWD AT
TD4 150PS AWD
D165 AWD
D165 MT
D200 AWD
P160
P300e AWD
1.2 130 AT
1.2 130
1.5 HDi 130 AT
1.5 HDi 130
1.6 HDi 100
1.6 HDi 120 AT
1.6 HDi 120
1.6 180 AT
1.6 PHEV
1.6 THP 165 AT
2.0 HDi 150
GT 2.0 HDi 177
GT 2.0 HDi 180

Capacity

Cargo Capacity
591 L / 20.9 cu-ft ~ 1383 L / 48.8 cu-ft
520 L / 18.4 cu-ft ~ 1482 L / 52.3 cu-ft
Fuel Capacity
53.0 L / 14.0 gal
Passengers
5
5
5
Payload
578 kg / 1274 lbs

Chassis

Brakes | Front
Ventilated discs
Ventilated discs, 349 mm
Ventilated discs
Brakes | Rear
Disc
Ventilated discs, 325 mm
Disc
Offroad | Approach Angle
20.0 deg
Offroad | Climb Angle
45.0 deg
Offroad | Departure Angle
30.6 deg
29.0 deg
Power Steering
Electric Steering
Electric Steering
Electric Steering
Suspension | Front
MacPherson strut
MacPherson strut
MacPherson strut
Suspension | Rear
Multi-link
Multi-link
Semi-independent, coil spring
Tire Size
225/65 R17, 235/65 R17, 235/60 R18, 235/50 R20, 245/45 R21
Turning Circle
11.3 m / 37.1 ft
10.7 m / 35.0 ft

Construction

Battery | Capacity
13.2 kWh (gross)
Body Style
3-door Crossover

Dimensions

Ground Clearance
215 mm / 8.5 in
212 mm / 8.3 in
219 mm / 8.6 in
Size | Height
1649 mm / 64.9 in
Size | Length
4371 mm / 172.1 in
4447 mm / 175.1 in
Size | Width
1841 mm / 72.5 in | 2098 mm / 82.6 in (mirror unfolded) | 1906 mm / 75.0 in (mirror folded)
Track Width | Front
1625.0 mm / 64.0 in
Track Width | Rear
1629.0 mm / 64.1 in
Wheelbase
2660 mm / 104.7 in
2681 mm / 105.6 in
2675 mm / 105.3 in

Performance

Electric Range
68.0 km / 42.3 mi

Powertrain

Engine | Bore
83.0 mm / 3.3 in
Engine | Stroke
92.3 mm / 3.6 in

Reviews

Neofiliac score
8%
27%
21%
Pros
  • So ugly that many thought it had character
  • Some offroad capabilities
  • Low fuel consumption
  • Good towing capacity
  • Low fuel consumption
Cons
  • Very tight inside
  • Low cargo capacity
  • Bad drivetrain
  • MacPherson struts in the front
  • Bad ZF 9HP transmission
  • Pretends to be "SUV"
  • Very ugly
  • FWD-based
  • Only available with small engines
  • Stuck with MacPherson struts in the front
  • No powerful engine options
  • Only available with small engines
  • No independent rear suspensions

Price

Offers (incl. referral links)
Remove
Remove
Remove
Add up to 4 products to the comparison using the search bar above
Information on this page is provided on an as-is basis. No warranty on accuracy is implied. This page may contain affiliate links to third-party merchants such as Amazon and eBay. If you make a purchase using the supplied link, we may receive a commission. Neofiliac places the utmost respect for your privacy. We use no cookie whatsoever beyond that needed for the proper functioning of the website.