Topic: Big Guy, Small Car Test Drive: 2017 Toyota C-HR

[AutoTrader.ca]

Controlled chaos.
Read more...

[Noto]

Power is rated at 144 hp and 139 lb-ft of torque. That puts it right in the thick of the competition, up on the Honda HR-V but down a little on the CX-3 and down 16 hp and 45 lb-ft on the Fiat 500X/Jeep Renegade twins. A turbocharger may have been a nice add for the C-HR, but the naturally aspirated engine does get the C-HR up and moving in quick fashion, perfect for squeezing through gaps in rush-hour traffic and the like.

See, that's where I dislike peak numbers.  I had a 132hp/128lb-ft Corolla, weighing around the same as my current Mazda3 with 148hp/135lb-ft.  While the Mazda feels slightly more spritely from 0-30km/h, I actually felt that the Corolla was faster with rural road passing.

Granted, the 2015 Corolla tested back to back with my old 2010 Corolla showed that the 2010 was faster (it's certainly lighter, and the CVT probably doesn't help much); that said, I wouldn't look to peak power figures to determine whether a car is faster or slower.

...and as for the FCA twins, the engine is a dog, strained and moaning away as it lugs around a ton of weight and delivering less than stellar fuel economy.  I'd hardly look to it as competition.

If you aren’t going to give us AWD, then at least go whole-hog-hatch-on-stilts and give us a manual option to really get that feeling. You still have the looks, the generous front seat space and good view out (well, forward and out), but with a nice slick-shifting manual box (Could the version found in the RWD 86 work here? Not sure.)

I'd actually think that the base model Corolla powertrain would be the one you're thinking of, since the GT86 uses the boxer engine co-developed with Subaru...totally different dimensions, whereas the transverse mounted engine used in the Corolla (on which the CH-R's platform is based) would be more similar.

[JacobBlack]

I'd actually think that the base model Corolla powertrain would be the one you're thinking of, since the GT86 uses the boxer engine co-developed with Subaru...totally different dimensions, whereas the transverse mounted engine used in the Corolla (on which the CH-R's platform is based) would be more similar.

Many transmissions can be used with multiple configurations of engines. Dan is correct in saying he'd like to see that particular tranny in this car, and also raises the point it might not be possible.
You're nitpicking.
Dan's awareness of what engine is in the GT86 is pretty strong, I think you'll find.

[HeliDriver]

^^ Not sure how in any possible universe a transmission from a RWD car with longitudinal engine could be made to fit a transverse-engined FWD vehicle. And aside from the obvious size difference, one is a transmission and the other is a transaxle. Like chalk and cheese.

[JacobBlack]

^^ Not sure how in any possible universe a transmission from a RWD car with longitudinal engine could be made to fit a transverse-engined FWD vehicle. And aside from the obvious size difference, one is a transmission and the other is a transaxle. Like chalk and cheese.

You're right, it is a transaxle, and thus wouldn't work at all. I think Dan's broader point was that good manuals exist in the Toyota family, and I think he adequately addressed the suitability issue with his question. Perhaps he was too subtle.

[84im]

I think this vehicle is seriously ugly, but I'm glad there are automobile manufactures that will push the envelope and and produce vehicles like the C-HR.
Kudos to you, Toyota.

Maybe that's why I like my VW Thing so much.  You can't mistake it for anything else. 

[johngenx]

I think Toyota's totally nailed the looks, and missed the boat on pricing completely.  It's more expensive than an AWD CX-3?  Wait, what?

I'd like to see the AWD take rates for the HRV and CX-3.  I bet they're high.  The take rate on the AWD Matrix was low as you had to take the less fuel efficient 2.4L engine and people just didn't see the Matrix as being CUV-like at all.  The new mini-utes are "Utes" and people want AWD.

[Noto]

Funny how the AWD Matrix is now the more desirable one

[johngenx]

Funny how the AWD Matrix is now the more desirable one

For sure for me.  If I were shopping used Matrices or Vibes, AWD would be the way to go.  It's a simple slip/grip system, but works well enough.  The old 1.8L AWD Matrices are actually pretty sweet used buys  - great fuel economy and very durable.  Slow as hell, but speed isn't the mission with them...

[dkaz]

Nice car, didn't realize it started from $25k. But it is an XLE trim and does have dual zone auto climate control standard while you have to spend $29k to get that on a CX-3.

Would be amazeballs if we got these seats in a Limited trim.

[Fobroader]

I think Toyota's totally nailed the looks, and missed the boat on pricing completely.  It's more expensive than an AWD CX-3?  Wait, what?

I'd like to see the AWD take rates for the HRV and CX-3.  I bet they're high.  The take rate on the AWD Matrix was low as you had to take the less fuel efficient 2.4L engine and people just didn't see the Matrix as being CUV-like at all.  The new mini-utes are "Utes" and people want AWD.

Yeah, I think without AWD most customers won't be able to reach those remote beaches to surf or all those peaks so they can BASE jump.....I'm kidding of course but an CUV without AWD will not sell around here.

[dkaz]

What are those seats from?

C-HR, not sure which countries have them.

[sacrat]

I think Toyota's totally nailed the looks, and missed the boat on pricing completely.  It's more expensive than an AWD CX-3?  Wait, what?

I'd like to see the AWD take rates for the HRV and CX-3.  I bet they're high.  The take rate on the AWD Matrix was low as you had to take the less fuel efficient 2.4L engine and people just didn't see the Matrix as being CUV-like at all.  The new mini-utes are "Utes" and people want AWD.

I agree completely. When I looked at these I found I liked the look, the front seats were comfy, it had a good safety suite. But when I look at what is lacking in the price ( AWD, nav, sunroof, leather, Android Auto, Apple Car Play) the value equation is missing. Dan, like several other reviewers  points to the Kia Soul as offering much more for much less if FWD is okay. I suspect that the Soul owners here would concur...

[Brig]

I think Toyota's totally nailed the looks, and missed the boat on pricing completely.  It's more expensive than an AWD CX-3?  Wait, what?

Toyota and Honda are still riding out their halos, it seems.  It doesn't seem to discourage the crowd that loves those marques.  But it does discourage open-minded buyers like me, especially when comparing trim levels and features.  For the same amount of money, I wanted more than the basic appliance that Honda and Toyota were offering. 

[johngenx]

Toyota and Honda are still riding out their halos, it seems. 

But not in all segments.  The Highlander is very price competitive, the Corolla is one of the best values in the compact class, and the RAV is a little high, but quite competitive.

Which is why I was surprised at the C-HR, and how expensive it is.

[dkaz]

It is price competitive. The C-HR XLE is optioned somewhere between the CX-3 GS ($23k) and GT ($28k, AWD), and almost exactly like the HR-V EX ($25k)

If they released a C-HR LE with features to rival the CX-3 GX or HR-V LX, it'll probably be $21-22k, very price competitive.

[Solstice2006]

Toyota and Honda are still riding out their halos, it seems. 

But not in all segments.  The Highlander is very price competitive, the Corolla is one of the best values in the compact class, and the RAV is a little high, but quite competitive.

Which is why I was surprised at the C-HR, and how expensive it is.

I think she means more than just the pricing.  People still buy Honda/Toyota for the badge, without even checking out the competition.  I find this vehicle pretty low in its class. Nothing I can find that says I would rather have this thing over a CX-3, HRV, Crosstrek. 

 

[JRM]

I think Toyota's totally nailed the looks, and missed the boat on pricing completely.  It's more expensive than an AWD CX-3?  Wait, what?

I'd like to see the AWD take rates for the HRV and CX-3.  I bet they're high.  The take rate on the AWD Matrix was low as you had to take the less fuel efficient 2.4L engine and people just didn't see the Matrix as being CUV-like at all.  The new mini-utes are "Utes" and people want AWD.

Yeah, I think without AWD most customers won't be able to reach those remote beaches to surf or all those peaks so they can BASE jump.....I'm kidding of course but an CUV without AWD will not sell around here.

I don't see this as being a CUV, but rather a hatch back, so not offering AWD makes perfect sense to me.

[Noto]

I think Toyota's totally nailed the looks, and missed the boat on pricing completely.  It's more expensive than an AWD CX-3?  Wait, what?

I'd like to see the AWD take rates for the HRV and CX-3.  I bet they're high.  The take rate on the AWD Matrix was low as you had to take the less fuel efficient 2.4L engine and people just didn't see the Matrix as being CUV-like at all.  The new mini-utes are "Utes" and people want AWD.

Yeah, I think without AWD most customers won't be able to reach those remote beaches to surf or all those peaks so they can BASE jump.....I'm kidding of course but an CUV without AWD will not sell around here.

I don't see this as being a CUV, but rather a hatch back, so not offering AWD makes perfect sense to me.

but it is specifically marketed as a CUV...and therein lies the debate.

[Fobroader]

I think Toyota's totally nailed the looks, and missed the boat on pricing completely.  It's more expensive than an AWD CX-3?  Wait, what?

I'd like to see the AWD take rates for the HRV and CX-3.  I bet they're high.  The take rate on the AWD Matrix was low as you had to take the less fuel efficient 2.4L engine and people just didn't see the Matrix as being CUV-like at all.  The new mini-utes are "Utes" and people want AWD.

Yeah, I think without AWD most customers won't be able to reach those remote beaches to surf or all those peaks so they can BASE jump.....I'm kidding of course but an CUV without AWD will not sell around here.

I don't see this as being a CUV, but rather a hatch back, so not offering AWD makes perfect sense to me.

I'm totally with you, anyone that considers this hatchback sans AWD a CUV should not be allowed around sharp objects.....but thats what its marketed as.