Toyota C-HR 2016 vs Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 2018
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.2 Petrol | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Petrol engines (Toyota C-HR) are generally quieter, smoother, and better suited for short trips due to quicker warm-up times. Diesel (Land Rover Range Rover Evoque) engines, on the other hand, offer superior fuel efficiency and torque, making them ideal for long-distance driving and heavy loads. Read more: Petrol vs. Diesel: Fuel Economy and Key Differences. | |||
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 116 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 185 NM | 380 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.1 seconds | 11.2 seconds | |
| Toyota C-HR engine produces 34 HP less power than Land Rover Range Rover Evoque, whereas torque is 195 NM less than Land Rover Range Rover Evoque. Despite less power, Toyota C-HR reaches 100 km/h speed 0.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.9 | 5.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.3 l/100km | 7.8 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 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Toyota C-HR could require 45 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Toyota C-HR consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 840 km in combined cycle | 1160 km in combined cycle | |
| 980 km on highway | 1270 km on highway | ||
| 680 km with real consumption | 830 km with real consumption | ||
| Land Rover Range Rover Evoque gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 280'000 km | 350'000 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 Land Rover Range Rover Evoque engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 10 years | 10 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including Jaguar XF, Land Rover Discovery Sport, Jaguar XE | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Land Rover Range Rover Evoque might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 2018 2.0 engine: This engine is known for its relatively limited lifespan. In early production models, balance shaft bearings wore out quickly and started making noise. The chain-driven timing system, located on the flywheel ... More about Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 2018 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.36 m | 4.37 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.90 m | |
| Height: | 1.56 m | 1.65 m | |
|
Toyota C-HR is smaller. Toyota C-HR is 1 cm shorter than the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque, 11 cm narrower, while the height of Toyota C-HR is 9 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 377 litres | 591 litres | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque has more luggage space. Toyota C-HR has 214 litres less trunk space than the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 11.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Toyota C-HR is 0.6 metres less than that of the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque, which means Toyota C-HR can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`865 | 2`490 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 21 000 | 29 000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Toyota C-HR has
|
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque has
| |