Compare Volvo XC40 vs Toyota C-HR facelift
Variants
T4 Recharge
T5 Recharge
T2 MT
T2
T3 MT
T3 Euro6d MT
T3
D3 MT
D3
D3 AWD MT
D3 AWD
D4 AWD
T4
T4 AWD
T5 AWD
Recharge Pure Electric Single Motor
Recharge Pure Electric AWD Twin Motor
1.2
1.2 AWD CVT
1.2 CVT
1.8 Hybrid
2.0 CVT
2.0 Hybrid
Capacity
Passengers
5
Chassis
Brakes | Front
Ventilated discs, 298 mm
Brakes | Rear
Disc, 281 mm
Offroad | Approach Angle
14.0 deg
Offroad | Departure Angle
26.0 deg
Power Steering
Electric Steering
Suspension | Front
MacPherson strut
MacPherson strut
Suspension | Rear
Double-wishbone
Tire Size
215/60 R17 96H, 225/50 R18 95H
Turning Circle
11.0 m / 36.1 ft
Water Fording
450 mm / 17.7 in
Dimensions
Size | Height
1565 mm / 61.6 in
Size | Length
4390 mm / 172.8 in
Size | Width
1795 mm / 70.7 in
Wheel Size
17 in, 18 in
Wheelbase
2640 mm / 103.9 in
Powertrain
Transmission | Gears
6-speed
Production
Availability
2020
Reviews
Neofiliac score
32%
42%
Pros
- Up to 414km electric range
- Low fuel consumption
- Good engine reliability
- Decent styling
- Low fuel consumption
Cons
- Only available with small engines
- Stuck with MacPherson struts in the front
- Poor performance
- Only available with small engines
- Impractical
Remove
Remove
Related Products
Add up to 4 products to the comparison using the search bar above
Information on this page is provided on an as-is basis. No warranty on accuracy is implied. This page may contain affiliate links to third-party merchants such as Amazon and eBay. If you make a purchase using the supplied link, we may receive a commission. Neofiliac places the utmost respect for your privacy. We use no cookie whatsoever beyond that needed for the proper functioning of the website.