Just for fun. - Sarah kingsley

Hi all

I wanted to see which of the following you would pick if these were the only cars on earth.

Would you pick either......

A) Volvo xc60 or B) range rover evoque ( the new model)

Me and my partner both think our dream cars are the best i wanted to see which you all think is the best or the one you would pick if these were the only cars on earth.

My choice was the volvo , my parnter choose the evoque. ( hes the only guy i know who likes it)

Just for fun. - SLO76
The Volvo is better made, more reliable, more practical, safer, better looking (in my opinion) and it’ll still be on the road years after the Evoque has been written-off by a major engine or gearbox failure. I wouldn’t touch any recent Land Rover or Range Rover, their reliability record is appalling.
Just for fun. - gordonbennet

Personally i wouldn't want either for numerous reasons, but seeing as they are the only choices left we're presumably at end of times, when reliability might mean survival or the other, so the Volvo it would have to be.

Just for fun. - Andrew-T

Personally i wouldn't want either for numerous reasons, but seeing as they are the only choices left we're presumably at end of times, when reliability might mean survival or the other, so the Volvo it would have to be.

Equally personally, I would just keep walking. I wouldn't waste good money on either of those gross lumps of road-hungry metal (and plastic).

Just for fun. - Engineer Andy

There's a whole world of difference between a 'dream car', presumably when money is no object, and a forced choice between two. Head vs heart.

Just for fun. - Metropolis.
Evoque, just make sure it’s a petrol model. Volvos aren’t what they used to be, now they’re using immensely complex engines and their reliability has gone majorly downhill.
Just for fun. - Avant

I think you've done the right thing - assuming that you enjoy driving - in going for the Audi Q3 in preference to either of those. But I agree with SLO and GB - if it had to be between those two it would be the Volvo every time, for the reasons they give.

I think I'm in a minority in thinking the Evoque ugly: but quite apart from that, JLR just don't get the message about reliability. Last time this was discussed on here someone who has looked closely said that LRs and RRs have sloppy finishing and exposed cables all over the place.

Edited by Avant on 09/02/2019 at 14:16

Just for fun. - Sarah kingsley

Interesting replies im looking forward to hearing from others.

I only mentioned about them being dream cars so you know why these two choices. But the question is which would you have if there were no other cars on sale.

I also dont like the look of the evoque all my friends love it and say how cool and posh it looks but i roll my eyes i just see a gangster car dont know why but i do it just doesn't say sophistication and class to me.

Just for fun. - bazza

Well I've often said I'd have to be paid to drive an Evoque as it's so hideous and clearly a triumph of marketing bling over function. But Volvo do seen to be slipping in terms of reliability in recent years, however, still preferable to anything currently made by JLR.

Just for fun. - Bromptonaut

The Volvo. Proper estate with decent towing capacity. Wouldn't give an Evoque house room.

Just for fun. - badbusdriver

Given the confines of the question, it would be the Volvo. But it really would be a forced choice as i'd want neither. The Evoque is a triumph of style over substance, though contrary to what Avant seems to hint at, going by what i have read, it actually drives and handles really well. As for the Volvo, while i'd have one over an Evoque, i'd still take a V60 over an XC60 any day of the week. No fan of the Q3 either, the new one may look less like an Allegro than the last, but it still shares the same dumpy proportions.

I also find it most curious that these two options are being described as dream cars?. So if you won the lottery you wouldn't bother with a Ferrari, Bentley or whatever, you'd get yourself an XC60 and an Evoque for your partner?.

Just for fun. - Avant

No - I'm sure the Evoque does drive and handle well, which is why it's favoured by many of the magazines. All I said was that I think it's ugly (opinion) and that it's unreliable (fact, although no doubt there are some good ones).

Just for fun. - Sarah kingsley

My partners dream car is an evoque.

My proper dream car i could never afford the volvo is my affordable dream car.

Just for fun. - Sarah kingsley

My proper dream car is a Lykan Hypersport.

Just for fun. - Sarah kingsley

I also like the look of the Xc40 but i know not a lot of people like that either.

Just for fun. - gordonbennet

What would i buy as a multi millionare, a 2018 on Toyota Century, and a new gen 70 series Landcruiser for general hacking, neither of which are sold here though the 70 series used to be, i had one for many years.

I too cannot abide the pretentious looks of the Ewok, it has nothing i want.

Just for fun. - Sarah kingsley

Gordenbennet , which car are you refering too as the Ewok?

Just for fun. - gordonbennet

Gordenbennet , which car are you refering too as the Ewok?

It's my teasing version of Evoque, maybe a little unfair to the genuine Ewoks of Star Wars fame, they did at least look cute and were quite reliable for little uns in a fight :-)

Just for fun. - Sarah kingsley

That made me laugh. They are cute but im a huge fan of chewy all the way.

Just for fun. - 72 dudes

I've always been a bit of a Volvo fan, even though I don't currently own one (Two older Mercs and a 2017 Q3).

So I would take them in this order:

XC60; XC40: Ewok

I don't hate the Evoque, but to me they're all fur coat and no knickers if you see what I mean, and the unreliability of Land Rover products is quite remarkable, and yet people still beat a path to their door.

Just for fun. - Leif

I've always been a bit of a Volvo fan, even though I don't currently own one (Two older Mercs and a 2017 Q3).

So I would take them in this order:

XC60; XC40: Ewok

I don't hate the Evoque, but to me they're all fur coat and no knickers if you see what I mean, and the unreliability of Land Rover products is quite remarkable, and yet people still beat a path to their door.

Plastic mac and no knickers IMO. The Ewok is ugly, and vulgar, as are the other Land Rovers.

Just for fun. - liammcl

didn't another Ewok,
ie
Victoria "designer" *ahem* Beckham , design the style of the Evoke.

It's such a shame what "Spice" can do to some people's minds and bodies :(
There but for the grace of God, go I

metro.co.uk/2017/07/17/car-trouble-for-victoria-be.../

If there's only 2 cars on the road,
I would get a motorbike...
or a tank.. or a helicopter..

Liam

Just for fun. - liammcl

ps my dream car
is a bright green peugeot 106 1997 1.1

and when I say " dream" ,
I do ,
of course mean "nightmare "
:)

Liam

Just for fun. - badbusdriver

My proper dream car is a Lykan Hypersport.

Interesting and rather obscure (apart from Fast and Furious fans of course) choice. What is it about the Hypersport, just the looks?. Certainly very little info available on whether or not it is any good (apart from W Motors own website). Also, should you win the lottery, you may struggle to find one at all, let alone for sale, as there only seems to have been about 7 made before it was replaced by the Fenyr Supersport. This is how EVO magazine sum up the Hypersport:

So is the Lykan Hypersport just an irrelevant indulgence or a meaningful exercise in car design and development? For those who care more about front-end grip than diamond-studded headlights probably not, but there will always be a market for this kind of vehicle.

At a reported £2.7million it's unlikely many drivers will get to experience the Lykan Hypersport, and those who do probably won't worry about how it drives. But as a car to show off in (and a star sharing the screen with Vin Diesel) there’s nothing quite like it.

Based on this, i think i'd rather have the Ruf CTR 3 it takes it's mechanical components from.

By the way, if you like the Volvo XC40, why go for the Q3?

Edited by badbusdriver on 09/02/2019 at 18:35

Just for fun. - Sarah kingsley

The looks were part of it but mainly due to Fast 7 love that film franchise.

Also good question regarding the Xc40 it was my first choice but waiting times were crazy compared with the Q3. Which suprised me as i thought they would be similar but the Xc40 was months more than the Q3 and i already have to wait months for the Q3.

Just for fun. - badbusdriver

Also good question regarding the Xc40 it was my first choice but waiting times were crazy compared with the Q3. Which suprised me as i thought they would be similar but the Xc40 was months more than the Q3 and i already have to wait months for the Q3.

The XC40 certainly seems to be getting rave reviews from the motoring press, so possibly the hype and publicity are contributing to the waiting list. Also, Volvo probably don't have the production capacity to meet (at least the initial) demand. The sheer number of Audi's being made means they are unlikely to have the same problem. Volvo may well be very much 'on the up', but they are still relatively small fish compared to Audi, BMW and Merc in terms of numbers and different models, which in the case of those three are getting out of hand with niches being spotted and filled as quickly as the marketing bods find/invent them!. In terms of current models, there are 32 different Audi's, 39 different BMW's and 36 Mercedes listed on this website's reviews page, compared to 12 Volvo's!.

I'm not really a fan of SUV's myself (you maybe guessed!), i'd rather have something more practical and genuinely useful like a Citroen Belingo/Peugeot Rifter/Vauxhall Combo Life. But that's just me(!), and i hope you like the Q3 when you get it.

Just for fun. - badbusdriver

32 Audis, 39 BMWs that's way too many. I remember when there was just an Audi 50, 80, 100 and 200. BMW had the 3, 5, 6 and 7 series. The world has gone mad, with manufacturers trying to fill niches that don't exist.

The Audi 50, wow, i wonder who else remembers that little gem?. Found this one for sale, according to the ad, only 4 in the UK!

www.carandclassic.co.uk/car/C1066994

And if you do find another, it is unlikely to be standard!.

Just for fun. - 72 dudes

The Audi 50, wow, i wonder who else remembers that little gem?. Found this one for sale, according to the ad, only 4 in the UK!

www.carandclassic.co.uk/car/C1066994

And if you do find another, it is unlikely to be standard!.

IIRC, we had the Polo in the UK, so no need for the 50 to be sold here. One of the early examples of VAG badge engineering.

Correct Trilogy.

I like the change up points marked on the speedo in red. 112km/h for third gear, that's 69 MPH, bet the little engine was screaming at that point.

Just for fun. - gordonbennet

The world has gone mad, with manufacturers trying to fill niches that don't exist.

I think they're more cruelly cynical than that, someone creates a niche which suddenly appeals for a variety of reasons, usually by accident, the big players see the possibilities and their marketing hyenas go into overdrive to make that niche the new must have by the most crass advertising imaginable.

Everyone had to have a hot looking hatch at one time, now it's an infinite variation of pseudo SUV's half of which would get stuck on a kerb if it didn't wreck their stupid wheels trying to mount it, maybe we're seeing the electric must have gradually stuttering into life, a fad which could easily be the next and very costly Betamax farce because we simply don't have the charging infrastructure to cope and i doubt we can afford to construct it, nor provide enough reliable affordable power if we did.

Just for fun. - RaineMan

I think the Evoque is one of the ugliest cars around. It also seems much favoured by Skool Runners. So it would be the Volvo out of the two. One car for all time; either a Bentley Turbo or a '64 Ford Galaxie!

Just for fun. - John F

Volvo, please. Evoques always make me smile - they look as though a giant has sat on a Range Rover and squashed it!

Affordable dream car is somewhat oxym****ic. My two are the RR Dawn for the day car and Bugatti Chiron for fun.

Just for fun. - Engineer Andy

I think the Evoque is one of the ugliest cars around. It also seems much favoured by Skool Runners. So it would be the Volvo out of the two. One car for all time; either a Bentley Turbo or a '64 Ford Galaxie!

To me, the Evoque looks like some crushed the roof. Its brother, the Disco Sport, is a nice looking car. Shame they aren't well engineered, in my view.

Just for fun. - Sarah kingsley

Interesting. A friend has an XC40 and he loves it , my partner and my friend both still think im an idiot for going for the Q3 as for the same price i could have had an inscription pro Xc40. The Q3 is the base model. Maybe i did make the wrong decision but it is what it is.

My partner says its not to late to cancel and change to the Xc40 and my friend said its worth the extra wair for an inscription pro Xc40. But im just so stubborn once i have made my mind up.

Just for fun. - gordonbennet

You're paying for it Sarah, your choice, when they are stumping up the cost they can have a say.

It sounds like the equivalent XC40 would be fully loaded with toys and trinkets, where the Q3 won't have quite so many, if you wanted a car jammed full of toys (to go wrong) you would have searched one out, they didn't mean that much to you so quite rightly you've chosen what is for you, and more power to your elbow.

I stubbornly stick to my old Landcruisers, despite people like Clarkson telling anyone who will listen how wonderful Range Rovers are and how awful and slow and old fashioned my choice is, well i stick with what i know is likely to give me years of trouble free service, yes they cost a lot to buy even when many years old, and they don't handle like a hot hatch, but they suit me and what i use them for...when someone else is paying for my motoring i'll take some notice of what they suggest, until then...

Edited by gordonbennet on 10/02/2019 at 11:45

Just for fun. - Avant

The list price of the base model (new) Q3 is a lot less than an XC40 Inscription, so maybe you were offered a good deal on the Volvo.

I had a good long test drive in an XC40, and it doubtless suits many people's style of driving. If you like driving a Nissan Qashqai, you'll like the XC40: too wallowy for me and there was a feeling of remoteness in the steering. Very like the V60 that I was going to trade in. And it has given in to that infuriating (and possibly dangerous) trend of having heater and A/C controlled by a touchscreen.

BMWs are the opposite: rightly beloved of many, but you have to concentrate rather than relax behind the wheel to get the best out of one. For me (and these things are always personal) Audis and other VW Group cars hit the sweet spot in between. I can relax while still enjoying the drive, and of course concentrate on the road ahead.

So you're in no way an idiot in going for the Q3 rather than the XC40. Both are very good cars, but your choice is as good as your friend's.

Edited by Avant on 10/02/2019 at 12:40

Just for fun. - Sarah kingsley

Thanks Guys for your support. Im a very tough women who follows her mind not her heart and i never follow the crowd. I dont know if anyone will agree with me but i picked the Q3 instead of the Xc40 not just because of waiting times but also Avant your right i got a very good deal on the xc40 but even that did not tempt me.

The thing is i most of my female friends are always only bothered in if there car is "on trend" , what colour the seats are can they come in white , does it have the latest tech. But not me im more bothered in is it comfty , quite, can do my mileage, suits my needs and is it fun to drive , these are the things i look for i dont care what it looks like on the outside my female friends said the Q3 looks like a blop and looks dull. I thought well it ain't dull to drive. I love the q3 and i think audi have done a good job with there design of the new q3 and it suits me.

Its super comfty even the base model i found very comfty were the base model Xc40 i did not find comfty until i tried the inscription then the Xc40 was comfty but to me that just showed me overall audi has the better comfort.

Its quite i did a long test drive of the q3 and it never once bothered my hearing condtion. I think audis have good sound proofing.

And the big one for me was that it was fun to drive , now im no racer or speeder im a sensible driver but i love driving and not once did the Xc40 make me smile were the q3 did i enjoyed driving it and cant wait to get into mine. I just felt a connection behind the wheel of the q3.

I also did not find the Xc40 quite either not sure what there sound proofing is like?

So there were a few reasons why i picked the q3. Im also not one for tech its just more stuff that can go wrong.

Just for fun. - Sarah kingsley

My parnter has remimded me my Q3 is not the base model its the next one up the s line i dont know why i keep thinking its the base model for. Thats why it came to a similar price as the inscription pro xc40 but i could have save £3k on the xc40 as i was offered a good deal of £3k less. Both cars without deals came to around £37k.

Thought i would update my mistake.

Just for fun. - badbusdriver

My parnter has remimded me my Q3 is not the base model its the next one up the s line i dont know why i keep thinking its the base model for. Thats why it came to a similar price as the inscription pro xc40 but i could have save £3k on the xc40 as i was offered a good deal of £3k less. Both cars without deals came to around £37k.

Thought i would update my mistake.

I think the term "base model", certainly in the context of most modern cars, is rather misleading, as even the bottom of the range car is going to be equipped with everything you actually need!.

Not like the "base model" of the Dacia Sandero, where you only get it in white, wind up windows, manual mirrors and no radio (just the DIN slot so you can get something from halfords).

Just for fun. - SteveLee

Not particularly an Evoke fan, but I'd probably take that as it has much more personality than the Volvo. Yes it'll go wrong more often, but what would "last" longer is an interesting conversation. Land Rover cars are troublesome but mechanically very robust (Volvo used to be, but not any longer) yes the LR product is likely to become economically unviable to repair (at a main dealer) sooner. But if you had a great tech that can keep the cars on the road my money would be on the Evoke to last longer.

My last RR P38 had lots of niggly problems but I kept on top on maintenance (ie preventative maintenance) it's now 20 years old and does not have a spec of rust and is still going strong - it's an unreliable but incredibly robust vehicle. My Lexus RX never goes wrong, requires very little maintenance, but was rusting by its 10th birthday. What will live longer? The Range Rover undoubtedly. What will be more reliable? The Lexus - reliability and longevity are often seen as the same thing - where they're not really, but we're in the age of throwing things away when they become troublesome.

Just for fun. - corax

Not particularly an Evoke fan, but I'd probably take that as it has much more personality than the Volvo. Yes it'll go wrong more often, but what would "last" longer is an interesting conversation. Land Rover cars are troublesome but mechanically very robust

If you look on Discovery 3 Good and Bad for example - engine failure, transmission failure, power steering, electromechanical handbrakes. That's not mechanically robust. A colleague has a series Land Rover pick up. It's on it's third gearbox. Yes, you can keep them going, but only by throwing money at them constantly. There's no logic to owning one, it's a completely emotional choice.

Edited by corax on 10/02/2019 at 13:44

Just for fun. - drd63
Its a close call but I’d take the Evoque just from a looks point of view. I know Land Rover have their reliability issues and this isn’t exactly reliability more toughness but I was in Morocco on a 10 day off road motorcycle event and our backup vehicle was a v8 130 Defender, carrying kit, spare bike, food water etc. Properly equipped with winch roll cage, updated suspension. Day 2 at speed it was barrel rolled and went over 3 times, landed on its wheels. After we junked most of the cab and used the winch to pull some other bits straight it completed the rest of the trip. Hugely impressive.
Just for fun. - SteveLee

Not particularly an Evoke fan, but I'd probably take that as it has much more personality than the Volvo. Yes it'll go wrong more often, but what would "last" longer is an interesting conversation. Land Rover cars are troublesome but mechanically very robust

If you look on Discovery 3 Good and Bad for example - engine failure, transmission failure, power steering, electromechanical handbrakes. That's not mechanically robust. A colleague has a series Land Rover pick up. It's on it's third gearbox. Yes, you can keep them going, but only by throwing money at them constantly. There's no logic to owning one, it's a completely emotional choice.

Are you seriously noting a car that went out of production 33 years ago as being unreliable because it had three transmissions? There are plenty of BMW horror stories regarding engines, three transmissions in 33 years - VAG would bite your arm off for that kind of reliability! Yes Land Rovers are troublesome but I don't think they are any worse than anyone else for mechanical longevity. I know plenty of BMW owners whose cars have required new engines in the warranty period.

A good example of what I mean by robust is one of the car programs (Top Gear?) did a silly test when they jumped various obstacles in SUVs whilst towing (horse boxes?) The Volvo actually broke a suspension component doing it - Volvo accepted it was substandard then re-engineered and re-issued the part - how the hell did a weak suspension component on an SUV make it through to production? Land Rover put their cars through ridiculously strenuous tests - well beyond the call of duty - and beef up anything that breaks. They take their cars being "off-roaders" seriously and build them to take the abuse. Other manufacturers simply don't.

BMW were furious with Land Rover spending a lot of money re-engineering the oil pick up and sump arrangement of their precious X5 engine. If it was good enough for the X5 then it was good enough for Land Rover - the problem was, it wasn't - with the stock X5 sump and pump set up, the L322 fitted with that engine couldn't complete the standard LR tests without suffering oil starvation and subsequent engine failure.

I stand by my point, Land Rovers are lots of trouble - bit they ARE also very, very robust.

Just for fun. - SLO76
“Are you seriously noting a car that went out of production 33 years ago as being unreliable because it had three transmissions?“

Discovery 3 went out of production in 2009. They were far from robust being notorious for engine and gearbox problems along with air suspension issues and electrical failures.

I’d agree that earlier Land Rovers were largely mechanically robust (aside from gearbox problems) but more recent variants are trouble with the biggest capital T you can find.

I took plenty of original Discovery’s in against Shoguns and the old Perkins designed 2.5 diesel engines were bombproof but the gearboxes were made from cheese. The first gen Freelander was terrible for problems but again the Perkins designed 2.0 diesel was tough as they come.
Just for fun. - badbusdriver
“Are you seriously noting a car that went out of production 33 years ago as being unreliable because it had three transmissions?“ Discovery 3 went out of production in 2009. They were far from robust being notorious for engine and gearbox problems along with air suspension issues and electrical failures. I’d agree that earlier Land Rovers were largely mechanically robust (aside from gearbox problems) but more recent variants are trouble with the biggest capital T you can find. I took plenty of original Discovery’s in against Shoguns and the old Perkins designed 2.5 diesel engines were bombproof but the gearboxes were made from cheese. The first gen Freelander was terrible for problems but again the Perkins designed 2.0 diesel was tough as they come.

While Corax does reference the Disco, the vehicle requiring 3 gearboxes was in fact a "series Land Rover pickup". Assuming it is a series 3, that would make it 1985 at the absolute youngest, though more likely to be >1983. Though it is still worth pointing out that a Land Cruiser J40 of the same era as the LR, is unlikely to ever need anything replaced other than routine servicing parts. You could probably say the same about cars like the Nissan Patrol and Daihatsu Fourtrak too.

Thing is though Steve, Land Rover spend all this time and money making cars like the Range Rover capable of very impressive off road ability. But how many customers are actually going to do this?. Perhaps if they diverted some of the funds away from this, and instead used the funds to make the cars more reliable......?.

After all, this off road ability seems to be little more than bragging rights.

Edited by badbusdriver on 10/02/2019 at 18:21

Just for fun. - corax
While Corax does reference the Disco, the vehicle requiring 3 gearboxes was in fact a "series Land Rover pickup". Assuming it is a series 3, that would make it 1985 at the absolute youngest, though more likely to be >1983. Though it is still worth pointing out that a Land Cruiser J40 of the same era as the LR, is unlikely to ever need anything replaced other than routine servicing parts. You could probably say the same about cars like the Nissan Patrol and Daihatsu Fourtrak too.

Those are the sort of vehicles I was thinking of, maybe I should have noted them. I don't want to quote the often overused saying, but they don't use Land Rovers in desolate parts of the world like Africa or the Outback because they learnt long ago that they couldn't rely on them.

I actually like the look of them (apart from Evoque), but they remind me of British Leyland with their standards of quality and disdain for their customer base.

Just for fun. - badbusdriver

I actually like the look of them (apart from Evoque), but they remind me of British Leyland with their standards of quality and disdain for their customer base.

In terms of looks, for me, RR's high point (apart from the original 2 door) was the 2002 third generation. Subsequent facelifts made it progressively more 'bling', which i didn't like at all, and i'm not a fan of any current shape LR/RR products. I just wonder what they are going to come up with to replace the Defender?.

Just for fun. - SteveLee

In terms of looks, for me, RR's high point (apart from the original 2 door) was the 2002 third generation. Subsequent facelifts made it progressively more 'bling', which i didn't like at all, and i'm not a fan of any current shape LR/RR products. I just wonder what they are going to come up with to replace the Defender?.

Yep, totally agree with that, the P38 is still my favourite Range Rover (to look at), some of the less blingy L322s (the 2002 third gen you mention) are okay - don't like the latest shape at all. The problem for me is I'll only buy petrol, so in the later L322s that's likely to be the supercharged model - which usually means blingy 22" wheels etc. Early L322s are troublesome and BMW engined - so they're off the list!

The later Range Rover Sport is a good compromise (not the awful heavy Discovery based model up to 2013ish)

Just for fun. - SteveLee
a Land Cruiser J40 of the same era as the LR, is unlikely to ever need anything replaced other than routine servicing parts. You could probably say the same about cars like the Nissan Patrol and Daihatsu Fourtrak too.

Thing is though Steve, Land Rover spend all this time and money making cars like the Range Rover capable of very impressive off road ability. But how many customers are actually going to do this?. Perhaps if they diverted some of the funds away from this, and instead used the funds to make the cars more reliable......?.

After all, this off road ability seems to be little more than bragging rights.

There have been Land Cruisers with dodgy engines (big-end failure rings a bell - the petrols are very good). Fourtraks are terrible rust buckets. Nissan had a terrible problem with rust and big-end failure as well! (that said mk1 Ranger Rovers are terrible rust-buckets too.) But yes normally - all of them will be more dependable than a Range Rover - I'd still rather have the Range Rover - they are just special to drive, interior ambiance, suspension tuned for comfort. I love driving Range Rovers, the others I can take or leave. Is that worth putting up with a break down or two? To me - yes, when I had a baby in the car - no.

I get the point about bragging rights and diverted resources - but this is why Land Rover products live on and are cherished for decades by devoted owners.

Just for fun. - Sparky Mark
He’s a hairdresser isn’t he. Only joking.
I would go for the Volvo only because I’ve had landrovers before and you’ll need a spend and save card for your local dealer if you don’t have a manufacturers warranty.
Just for fun. - Avant
Just for information, on most Audis SE is the base model, then Sport, with S-line at the top. That would explain why Sarah’s Q3 is as expensive as an XC40 Inscription.
Just for fun. - Sarah kingsley

Year i dont know why i keep thinking its the base model. The new q3chas 3 trim levels the base model is sport then S line and then top model is Vorsprung

Edited by Sarah kingsley on 11/02/2019 at 12:40

Just for fun. - Avant

Which means you've probably done the right thing in going for the S-line. The trim level ione up from the bottom often has useful bits of equipment as standard, whereas the top of the range trim adds mainly 'cosmetics'....and that's where the manufacturers make the most money.