Two subcompact crossovers go head-to-head
Toyota was really late to the game with a subcompact crossover and jealous that its arch nemesis Honda has its HR-V, it recently came out with the sharp-looking C-HR, which was supposed to be a Scion.
And everyone knows the ToyotaHonda rivalry is as natural as pie versus cake, so, of course, we had to compare them to see which one is the better subcompact crossover. Style Right away, the Toyota wins in the style department. I appreciate the way it looks — it’s funky and different without being too weird. (I also love the Nissan Juke, though, so maybe my tastes are questionable.) The HR-V, on the other hand, can easily be mistaken for any other subcompact crossover. It’s very generic, so I give Toyota mad points for standing out and doing something different. Practicality The Toyota looks much better, but practicality takes a huge hit because of that style and the Honda ends up having way more cargo capacity and better sightlines, and that practicality is something a lot of people want.
While the HR-V has 657 litres of space in the trunk that balloons to 1,583 L with the seats folded flat, the Toyota comes nowhere close with just 538 L in the trunk and 1,030 L with the seats down. If you need more space to haul things, the HR-V is undoubtedly the smarter pick, especially because it has the Magic Seats in the rear, which allow the seat cushion to flip upwards, making it easier to carry taller items. These seats are the best and I wish every car had them.
Although the sightlines in the Honda aren’t great, by comparison, you’re basically blind to anything behind your shoulders in the Toyota. The C-HR’s sloped roofline and small windows look pretty cool, but they really make it difficult to see out of and park, especially because of the backup camera in the rearview mirror. It’s jarring to use, is too small and isn’t as useful as drivers need it to be, especially because of the huge blind spots. But both cars are so small, it shouldn’t be a huge problem when trying to park. The drive The Toyota C-HR is powered by a 2.0-litre, four-cylinder engine with 144 horsepower and 139 pound-feet of torque. I was very surprised by how the Toyota drives: It feels zippy and legitimately fun. The steering also doesn’t suffer from being overly light and vague like most other cars in this segment. Most impressive is the suspension, which isn’t at all sloppy in the corners and also isn’t too uncomfortably stiff. The C-HR also feels like it has a lower centre of gravity and a wide stance, resulting in a nimble car that feels good in corners and stable at higher speeds.
The only downside is that the Toyota is front-wheel drive only, meaning all-wheel drive isn’t even an option, which might take it out of the running for some folks, but I don’t think it’s a deal breaker.
If there’s one word that can de- scribe the Honda’s drive, though, it’s basic. It gets you where you need to go, but there’s nothing fun about it and, at times, it’s trying so hard under full acceleration it sounds like it’s screaming at you, but it’s not actually going anywhere.
There’s nothing special about how the HR-V drives. The steering is vague, the suspension is comfortable, but a bit too soft to have any fun and it just doesn’t feel as nimble as the Toyota, although it is easy to drive and park, which is what really matters to a lot of people shopping this segment. The HR-V is powered by a smaller 1.8-L engine with 141 hp and 127 lb-ft of torque, both figures that are less than the Toyota by a little bit. One big bonus for a lot of people is that they can pick either front-wheel or all-wheel drive with the Honda. Interestingly, fuel economy for both cars is a draw at about 8.2 L/100 km combined. Interior Inside, both cars are pretty basic yet not oppressively cheap and the layouts for both are clean and userfriendly. Neither car has Apple CarPlay or Android Auto, which is too bad because both of the infotain- ment systems for each vehicle are pretty terrible. Both are slow, look old and aren’t very functional, but at least you can get navigation in the Honda, even if it doesn’t work that well. Nav isn’t even an option in the Toyota, so you’ll have to get a phone mount. Honda’s touchscreen is also easier to use because it has home and menu options, but neither of them is very user-friendly.
The Toyota only has two trims, so it comes really well equipped with standard features such as automatic high beams, lane-departure warning, lane-keep assist, full speed adaptive cruise control that works in traffic and can bring you to a full stop, crash avoidance with pedestrian detection and automatic emergency braking. Rear-cross traffic alert, blind-spot monitoring, heated seats, push-button start and power folding mirrors come with the higher trim package.
This top trim Honda, which is more expensive than the Toyota, is majorly lacking when it comes to active safety features. It basically comes with none of those driver assistance and safety features the Toyota does except for lane-keep assist and collision mitigation, and that’s a huge knock against it. The verdict: 2018 Toyota C-HR vs. 2017 Honda HR-V comparison I was surprised by the outcome of this comparison. I thought for sure the Honda HR-V’s practicality would steal the show, but the Toyota brings a much more impressive list of features, far better driving dynamics, and more style to this segment all while being more affordable at the top end. If it were my money on the line, I’d definitely be OK with sacrificing some practicality and going for the Toyota.