Toyota C-HR 2016 vs Audi Q3 2014
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.2 Petrol | 1.4 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 116 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 185 NM | 250 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.1 seconds | 8.9 seconds | |
|
Audi Q3 is a more dynamic driving. Toyota C-HR engine produces 34 HP less power than Audi Q3, whereas torque is 65 NM less than Audi Q3. Due to the lower power, Toyota C-HR reaches 100 km/h speed 2.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.9 | 5.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.3 l/100km | 7.7 l/100km | |
|
The Toyota C-HR is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Toyota C-HR consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Audi Q3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Toyota C-HR could require 15 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Toyota C-HR consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Audi Q3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 840 km in combined cycle | 1100 km in combined cycle | |
| 980 km on highway | 1250 km on highway | ||
| 680 km with real consumption | 830 km with real consumption | ||
| Audi Q3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 280'000 km | 360'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Audi Q3 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 11 years | 12 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including Volkswagen Passat, Audi A3, Skoda Superb, Seat Leon, Seat Ateca | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Audi Q3 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Audi Q3 2014 1.4 engine: The 1.4 TSI engine from the EA211 family (code CZEA, 150 hp) is a modern turbocharged unit designed to balance performance and efficiency. It features direct fuel injection, a timing belt drive, and the ACT cylinder deactivation system, which shuts down two cylinders under light load to reduce fuel consumption. In everyday use the engine offers good ... More about Audi Q3 2014 1.4 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.36 m | 4.39 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.83 m | |
| Height: | 1.56 m | 1.61 m | |
|
Toyota C-HR is smaller. Toyota C-HR is 3 cm shorter than the Audi Q3, 4 cm narrower, while the height of Toyota C-HR is 5 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 377 litres | 460 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1365 litres | |
|
Audi Q3 has more luggage space. Toyota C-HR has 83 litres less trunk space than the Audi Q3. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 11.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Toyota C-HR is 0.8 metres less than that of the Audi Q3, which means Toyota C-HR can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`865 | 2`005 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | high | |
| Average price (€): | 17 000 | 16 200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Toyota C-HR has
|
Audi Q3 has
| |