Jump to content
Create New...
  • William Maley
    William Maley

    Review: 2018 Toyota C-HR XLE Premium

      What happens when a car has a bit of an identity crisis?

    I need to get something out of the way before diving into the review of the 2018 Toyota C-HR. Originally the C-HR was to join Scion’s lineup, but the C-HR would become a Toyota as the Scion brand would shut its doors in late 2016. With this change of brands, does this leave the C-HR with an identity crisis?

    The C-HR is short for ‘Coupe High Roof’ and the design makes that very clear. Proportions are very similar to a coupe with a long front and stubby back. Other coupe details to be aware of are a set of wider fenders, a sloping roofline, and a rear spoiler. It makes for a very polarizing design that many will agree catches your eye for better or worse

    Toyota’s designers must have been infatuated with diamonds as you’ll notice this shape throughout the C-HR. Key examples include the pattern on the cloth seats and arrangement of buttons on the steering wheel. The center stack is slightly angled towards the driver to emphasize a sporty nature. Material quality is about average with a mix of soft-touch plastics on the dash, and hard plastics for the door panels and center console. The C-HR’s ergonomics are excellent as controls are laid out logically and easy to use.

    I found the front seats are lacking in lower-body support. I’m 5’9” and after driving the C-HR for an hour, I found my thighs and legs started to ache. This comes down to a short bottom cushion. Shorter drivers will likely not run into this issue. ‘Claustrophobic’ is the word to describe the C-HR’s back seat as the small rear windows make it feel small. Not helping is the limited amount of legroom as I found my knees touching the backside of the front seat. CH-R’s cargo space is in the middle of the class when the rear seats are up at 19 cubic feet. To give some perspective, the Mazda CX-3 is the smallest at 12.4 cubic feet, while the Honda HR-V has the largest at 24.3. Fold the rear seats and the C-HR is at the bottom of the class with 36.4 cubic feet. The Mazda CX-3 has 9.1 cubic feet more space when its rear seats are folded.

    All C-HRs come equipped with a 7-inch touchscreen radio with the basics; AM/FM, Bluetooth, and inputs for USB and aux cords. While I found the system to be intuitive to use with a simple menu structure and decent performance, I did find myself wishing Toyota had included Apple CarPlay and Android Auto or the option of a larger system with navigation.

    Powering the C-HR is a 2.0L four-cylinder with 144 horsepower and 139 pound-feet of torque. This is paired with a CVT and front-wheel drive. All-wheel drive is nowhere to be found despite the C-HR offering it in markets outside the U.S. Driving in town, the C-HR feels lively thanks to a responsive throttle. But above these speeds, the C-HR reveals a major weakness; put your foot down and the engine takes its sweet time to get up to speed - taking over 11 seconds to hit 60 mph. This makes certain tasks such as passing a slower vehicle treacherous. Under hard acceleration, the CVT is quite loud. Toyota does offer other engines for the C-HR elsewhere, including a hybrid. Reading through various test drives, the hybrid is slightly quicker; recording a 0-60 time of 11 seconds.

    Fuel economy figures for the 2018 C-HR are 27 City/31 Highway/29 Combined. My average for the week landed at 28.1 mpg.

    Like most new and redesigned Toyota models, the C-HR rides on the modular TGNA platform. I have praised this platform on both the Prius and Prius Prime as it makes them feel playful on a winding road. This extends to the C-HR. Despite a higher ride height, body motions are kept in check when cornering. Steering feels precise and has ample weight when turning. Ride quality is on the firm side, but it will not beat up passengers. A fair amount of tire and wind noise comes inside when driving on the expressway.

    The Toyota C-HR is quite expensive for a subcompact crossovers. The base XLE begins at $22,500. My XLE Premium tester begins at $24,350 and with some added accessories, the final price was $25,633. That’s without leather seats, navigation, or a sunroof. Toyota is quick to point out that the C-HR does come equipped with a number of active safety features such as adaptive cruise control and lane keep assist as standard. That only helps the base XLE when it comes to arguing value. The XLE Premium has a tougher time since you can get into a well equipped Hyundai Kona Limited FWD with a sunroof, leather seats, a 7-inch touchscreen with Apple CarPlay and Android Auto integration; and 18-inch alloy wheels for only $53 more. You do miss out on the active safety features since as you can only get those on the top-line Ultimate, but the Kona presents a better value than the C-HR when you compare features bit by bit.

    The Toyota C-HR left me very frustrated as the week came to a close. The crossover has some charm with sharp driving dynamics and a very willing chassis. But it is clear that the C-HR feels more like a Scion than a Toyota as it was built to be cost-effective as it doesn’t offer any options. What you see is what you get. The problem is that competitors offer more equipment for similar money. The C-HR also trails competitors in terms of cargo capacity and performance. I do believe there is a crossover that can stand out from the growing field of subcompact models, but Toyota needs to think of the C-HR as one of their own models, not as a Scion.

    Disclaimer: Toyota Provided the C-HR, Insurance, and One Tank of Gas

    Year: 2018
    Make: Toyota
    Model: C-HR
    Trim: XLE Premium
    Engine: 2.0L DOHC, 16-Valve Four-Cylinder with Valvematic
    Driveline: CVT, Front-Wheel Drive
    Horsepower @ RPM: 144 @ 6,100
    Torque @ RPM: 139 @ 3,900
    Fuel Economy: City/Highway/Combined - 27/31/29
    Curb Weight: 3,300 lbs
    Location of Manufacture: Arifiye, Sakarya, Turkey
    Base Price: $24,350
    As Tested Price: $25,633 (Includes $960.00 Destination Charge)

    Options:
    Carpeted Floormats and Cargo Mat - $194.00
    Mudguards - $129.00


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    The rear end makes me think Honda more than Toyota...but the styling overall is definitely from the Prius & Marai 'dare to be weird' school of style.   I guess it's their answer to the Velociter and Juke for a small 4dr hatch CUV-ish thingy.   As far as an entry-level CUV, the HR-V, Kicks and others seem more practical. 

    Rather than viewing it as a small CUV, one call also view it as a compact hatch, an alternative to the milquetoast Corolla hatchback.  One gets more edgy style in this than the Corolla. 

    Edited by Cubical-aka-Moltar
    • Like 1
    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    a have a strange liking for this, even though it's a slow dog and terribly space inefficient.  I think it looks ok and the interior is simple dash, looks ok, has some style.  It's one of the few Toyotas that is semi coherent in styling.  I mean for a cheap crossover wanna be its not terrible.  Nicer than the Juke.  I think it needs a motor.

    Edited by regfootball
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • google-news-icon.png



  • google-news-icon.png

  • Subscribe to Cheers & Gears

    Cheers and Gears Logo

    Since 2001 we've brought you real content and honest opinions, not AI-generated stuff with no feeling or opinions influenced by the manufacturers.

    Please consider subscribing. Subscriptions can be as little as $1.75 a month, and a paid subscription drops most ads.*
     

    You can view subscription options here.

    *a very limited number of ads contain special coupon deals for our members and will show

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • Good morning ... ... good times ...
    • The Airbus vs. Boeing debate goes on and on.  Here, it's about the newer Airbus 350 versus the Boeing 787 Dreamliner.  Realistically, the A-350 could only compare to a B-787-10, the longest version of the Dreamliner.  That said, they often pit the A-350, which could carry a lot of passengers in 2 class configuration, against the B-777. I have flown on 3 Boeing 787s in the last 5 years.  Two were medium-haul and one was transatlantic - Rome to Philadelphia's AA hub. I just flew on the Airbus 350 for the first time about a week ago.  It was by Finnair, picked up at Helsinki after transferring there for the flight to the U.S. I was truly expecting more from the Airbus 350.  It does what it's supposed to do.  It seems to be getting more sales than the Boeing. I prefer the Boeing 787 Dreamliner by a slight margin.  The most important thing is that the humidification felt better in the 787.  They say the A-350 is quieter, but it's negligible to the untrained ear.  Even though some complain that the crew can lock and control the window dimming on the 787, they did not do this on my flights and I loved it, complete with the big taller windows.   The A-350 metrics seem to benefit the operator.  The A-350 can seat more people, it burns slightly less fuel, and can fly slightly more nautical miles, but it seemed crammed and I didn't like the feel of the cabin, right down to shades on the windows.  In waiting on the delayed plane A-350 for an hour, the heat gain against my window - with the shade down - was too much.  I got up and walked around the rear galley where the air conditioning better cooled me down.  Both have 3-3-3 seating and they say that the A-350 cabin width puts a few more inches on the seat.  That doesn't come into play for me.  Not only that, Airbus puts in more thin Recaro-looking seats that seem hard whereas the Boeing puts in seats with a more conventional sculpted silhouette.  It's subjective.  I didn't find the A350 all that much quieter and like the "open sky" architecture of the 787 cabin, the seats, the dimming, and the humidification.   The A-350 has a straighter looking wing angle with curled wingtips that look cool when they are maneuvering.  However, the fully upward curved wing of the B-787 is stunning.  The B-787 is a slightly better looking plane. I wish more carriers of 9 abreast aircraft would follow Japan Air Lines' move (in their B-787) to 2-4-2, which would make the Dreamliner more of a dream. If 9 across (3-3-3), I would go with the Boeing 787.  However, I could skip this debate and step down in size to Airbus's latest A330-900 neo.  It's got some up the upgrades, and keeps skinny harder seats; however, the 2-4-2 seating is the way to go for more comfort.
    • I don't know what to say ... typical Midwest political demographics where big cities with large minority populations, state capitals, and college towns are blue while everywhere else is red. After the 2016 election, I was driving across I-70 in the Buckeye state.  To my right was a Sonic or Spark with the bumper sticker "Get Lost, Hillary."  As I got alongside it, it was a smaller older white woman whose hair had a blue hue befitting a "bluehair," it also looked like she had stuck her finger in a light socket, and she had a slight underbite like a bulldog.  The funny thing is that this is the demographic of the very people Agent Orange hates because they 'make him look cheap.' I really wanted to get her attention and give her the finger Viggo Mortensen style as in "Green Book."  I might have occasionally done that in the past - in my SoCal days, which wasn't too smart - but I don't really do that anymore.
    • Ran some errands this morning and saw a mint condition CT6 Blackwing in glossy black burbling along the road, sounded really good compared to the crack high pitch noise of the mustangs and other luxury brands. Cadillac nailed the defined muscle sound of the exhaust. Noticeable, but not annoying.
    • I think it's mostly automated, their BS algorithms are doing keyword searches... people also can report things, I do all the time, don't know if they result in time outs. 
  • Who's Online (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search