Toyota C-HR 2016 vs Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 2013
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.2 Petrol | 2.2 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 and belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 116 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 185 NM | 400 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.1 seconds | 9.6 seconds | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque is a more dynamic driving. Toyota C-HR engine produces 34 HP less power than Land Rover Range Rover Evoque, whereas torque is 215 NM less than Land Rover Range Rover Evoque. Due to the lower power, Toyota C-HR reaches 100 km/h speed 1.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.9 | 6.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.3 l/100km | 8.1 l/100km | |
|
The Toyota C-HR is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Toyota C-HR consumes 0.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque, which means that by driving the Toyota C-HR over 15,000 km in a year you can save 90 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Toyota C-HR consumes 0.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 840 km in combined cycle | 920 km in combined cycle | |
| 980 km on highway | 1050 km on highway | ||
| 680 km with real consumption | 740 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 | 560'000 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 | 10 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Land Rover Freelander, Jaguar XF, Land Rover Discovery Sport | |
| 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 2013 2.2 engine: This engine is recognized for its reliability, power, and relatively low fuel consumption, as well as its durability in demanding conditions without frequent failures. However, it is sensitible to oil quality ... More about Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 2013 2.2 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.36 m | 4.36 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.90 m | |
| Height: | 1.56 m | 1.61 m | |
| Toyota C-HR and Land Rover Range Rover Evoque are practically the same length. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 377 litres | 550 litres | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque has more luggage space. Toyota C-HR has 173 litres less trunk space than the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 11.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Toyota C-HR is 0.3 metres less than that of the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`865 | 2`350 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 17 000 | 13 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Toyota C-HR has
|
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque has
| |