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: | 11 years | 11 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 | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
no data | 1383 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: | 1`865 kg | 2`490 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`390 kg | 1`891 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 475 kg | 599 kg | |
| Toyota C-HR load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 26 procentiem less than Land Rover Range Rover Evoque. Therefore, Land Rover Range Rover Evoque is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 18 000 | 26 000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Toyota C-HR has
|
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque has
| |