Remember the Toyota C-HR, the unusual Nike Huarache-shaped subcompact crossover that was only sold in America with front-wheel-drive? From the interesting interior textures to the funky rear door handles, it was an uncharacteristic moment of glorious weirdness from a manufacturer largely known for staying the course. Although it’s been a few years since the C-HR was last sold here, we’re about to get a new one, and while it’s far less weird than before, it’s now powered by electricity.
First, a little note on naming, because of course, this isn’t perfectly straightforward. This thing first debuted for Europe as the C-HR+, but since there’s no regular C-HR in North America anymore, Toyota’s dropping the “+” for us. Think of it a bit like how the bZ4X is now the bZ in North America, just a bit of simplification in a complicated world.
Like the old C-HR, the new one is a bit of a compromise in practicality for style. With steeply raked rear glass, this one falls firmly into the coupe crossover genre, much like the Buick Envista. However, at 180 inches long, the new C-HR still falls within the subcompact crossover class while being massively larger than the old one. The result is a cromulent 25.4 cubic-feet of cargo space behind the rear seats, a more-than-50-percent improvement over the old C-HR. As for styling, it’s certainly a bit mellower than what we’re used to from the nameplate. While much of the surfacing is less interesting than on the old C-HR, you still get rear door handles in the C-pillars, a funky beltline, and bulging taillights. It’s all just a bit more grown-up, a theme that tames the styling but certainly spices up the powertrain.
Unlike the old C-HR, which was never sold here with all-wheel-drive, the new electric C-HR will only be all-wheel-drive in North America, and it’s pumping out a reasonably spicy 338 horsepower. Toyota claims a zero-to-60 mph time of around five seconds, more than quick enough for a mainstream crossover. That’s GR Corolla territory, and should outrun a GR86.
Of course, if acceleration doesn’t tickle your fancy, a properly equipped C-HR should offer a 290-mile range, thanks to a 74.7 kWh battery pack. That’s 24 fewer miles than the longest-range bZ can manage, but two miles more than the longest-range all-wheel-drive bZ. As expected, you do get a NACS port as standard, and the C-HR also comes with a dual-voltage AC charging cable for connecting to 120-volt and 240-volt plug sockets. As for DC fast charging, it’s capped at 150 kW, not ultra-fast but competitive with models like the Ford Mustang Mach-E and Chevrolet Equinox EV.
Inside the C-HR, if you’ve seen the cabin of the bZ, you’ll know exactly what to expect here. We’re talking the same console, the same 14-inch touchscreen, the same steering wheel, and a dashboard that genuinely looks to be carried over. This isn’t a bad thing as the bZ interior looks to be a big upgrade over the weird amalgamation of shiny black plastic and glued mouse fur textiles in the old bZ4X, but it’s also not crazy like the cabin textures in the old C-HR. You do get a lot of stuff as standard on the new C-HR though, such as rain-sensing wipers, a power liftgate, heated front seats and a heated steering wheel, and two wireless phone chargers.
So far, the new C-HR seems quite whelming, but its potential for success will all come down to price. On the one hand, if it’s less expensive than the bZ, the C-HR could do reasonably well. There’s a market for electric vehicles between $30,000 and $35,000 that’s underserved, and Toyota would be wise to slide something in that niche to compete with the Prologue. However, the standard 77.4 kWh battery pack, all-wheel-drive, and equipment level suggest that it might actually sit alongside core trims of the bZ. I guess we’ll all learn more closer to this thing’s on-sale date in 2026, won’t we?
Top graphic credit: Toyota
Support our mission of championing car culture by becoming an Official Autopian Member.
If this was gas powered I might be interested. Corolla Cross is ugly. RAV4 is ugly.
Yup, it’s a Toyota.
There is a certain demo that love a forgettable boring car and they mainly buy Toyota’s and Lexus. I remember the c-hr only because when it came out they seemed to be driving events for it everywhere I was. Im kind of surprised they don’t call it a cc-e or something. Because people seem to know Corolla cross better.
It’s been a long while since a new car has debuted that I have 0 feelings or comments on. I will likely forget that this exists.
The article starts with “Remember the Toyota C-HR…?” and I said, “uh, no” and had to look it up. Forgettable indeed.
Is this a FB marketplace ad? Why are all the pictures at night?
Toyota After Dark… so sexy
Nah, despite the dim lighting I can see the license plate, there’s no thumbs in the way.
That’s what they had in their stock photo drawer, as those pics of L.A. seem dated. I cannot pick out the new (and tallest, though starting a little lower in elevation than the “Library Tower” that is the tallest seen) skyscraper.
GR CH-R LOL
AKIO PLS
This is, as the writers here like to say, perfectly cromulent. It continues in the Toyota tradition of making an unassuming crossover faster than it has any right to be. Looking at you two, RAV4 V6 and RAV4 Prime.
If this can somehow come in at $40k out the door, it’ll find buyers. If dealers think they “know what I’ve got” and slap a $10k markup on it, those buyers will happily go down the road to Hyundai or Kia. Or hop online to order a R2.
Why do both the C-HR and bZ exist together then? I read that the C-HR is positioned to just be a bit sportier than a bZ? If that’s true, ok fine, but why is Toyota splitting hairs in sub-compact EVs before even offering a 3 row EV?
Seems odd to put out two cars that basically compete with each other before filling out some other market segments.
BZ is compact. This is subcompact despite having practically the same drivetrain.
In fact, a higher end drivetrain due to it’s slightly larger battery
Don’t forget RAV-4 Prime, a car I have been told actually exists, and has a plug-in range of 40+ miles.
Not to be confused with Venza or Corolla Cross or any of the other near-identical market positioned options that all basically do the same thing
Don’t forget the Crown Signia!
I actually appreciate those because of how unapologetically weird they are and the fact that Toyota is finding a sneaky way to sell Americans wagons
Oh same. I’d rather have a Crown Signia than any of Toyota’s other crossovers, just pointing out they have a LOT of them.
This isn’t a crossover-specific phenomenon. Avalon and now Crown overlapped with Camry for years. A hybrid Corolla, Camry, and Prius do that too.
The Avalon and crown are full size, the Camry is mid size.
Actually all midsize by the EPA, but that’s not the end-all. But really the Camry has more passenger volume inside than the Crown:
Camry: 99.9 cu ft
Crown: 98 cu ft
The Avalon and Camry were close in interior volume in most generations. The prior Camry + final Avalon they actually put more space between them (literally): 104.3 Avalon vs. 100.4 Camry. But the gens prior to that were virtually the same:
2013-18 Avalon: 103.6
2012-17 Camry: 102.7
Point is – sizing isn’t the key differentiating factor as much as price and target buyer, but even so it’s no different now than it was for their sedans.
Venza: 98.3 (discontinued)
RAV4: 98.9
Cross: 94.9
I don’t disagree. Another example: Ford was selling the Five Hundred and the Crown Victoria at the same time in the late 00s but with very different target markets.
The C-HR has lived on in other markets like Europe, so there’s probably more equity in the name to have an EV version there, and we just happen to get it too.
But since this is ‘new’ while the bZ is a facelifted (even if it’s more like a repackaged bZ) I imagine a fully redesigned bZ/replacement could/would grow in size eventually to put more room between them. In the meantime bZ has a higher rated max range too so that likely serves more as a flagship. I think between the two, most people would be served better by the C-HR assuming it does end up cheaper. Over at Subaru the Solterra has the range advantage over the Trailseeker but I have a hard time imagining most buyers wouldn’t prefer the latter for its packaging.
The C-HR is the EV equivalent to the Corolla Cross and the Bz is the EV equivalent to the RAV4.
I was gonna ask this… I know nothing about the bZ and after reading this I assumed it was 3 row and this one is 2 row. Knowing both are 2 row makes me wonder why they have both.
This might be due to Toyota having multiple sub brands in Japan tied to their different dealer networks. These cars are probably not all Toyota brand there, but if you are going to spend to engineer and tool them up, you might as well sell them here too.
Maybe they should have called this one Toyopet?
I echo the sentiment here of neutrality, I have no strong feelings one way or the other on this, even if they sold it for $20k or $80k it’s just meh, so very very meh.
This makes more sense as an EV than the original did as an ICE. Where the fastback coupe shape was merely for style on the original, it has practical use with an EV to improve range through better aerodynamics. Not a fan of the interior blandness but the exterior looks neat.
I really hope it doesn’t end up being around the same price as the Bz, though with only 2 cubic feet less cargo room this may be the better choice.
The only benefit to a fastback on an EV is that you cant put as much stuff in it so they range wont dip as much due to a full load.
they’re just sedans sitting on a thick battery.
EVs need every bit of aerodynamics they can get, and a fastback helps with that.
so you sacrifice the ability to use the car to move things so that you can drive the car an extra 3 miles per charge
brilliant
The Corolla Cross is of similar size but with more upright cargo area and it has only 26.5 cubic-feet vs the C-HR’s 25.4 cubic-feet. A 1.1 cubic foot difference for cargo space you will rarely use at capacity is well worth the extra range.
It looks better and has standard all wheel drive with minimal practicality compromises. It also has a very slight range advantage over the top end BZs. I’m curious if this is more or less going to replace the BZ because on paper it seems more appealing in pretty much every way.
Toyota may not plan for it to replace the Bz but it may effectively do so for consumers. There’s a lot to be said about what’s wrong with the Bz, but its very premise was to make an EV in the best-selling compact crossover segment. What they may realize is that what works for ICE segments may not work as well with EVs and that a subcompact like the C-HR could be the better way to go within the limitations of current EV tech.
In this case, they’re both pretty sloped in the back, but were it compared against a CUV with a more upright rear window, that extra 2 cu ft would be a lot more useful than the number might suggest. If a large chunk of space is under a sloped window, the likelihood of fitting cargo to match is a lot lower and, since cargo will often be in boxes, will always lose space where the top corner of the box hits the slope of the window. What I find with modern cars is that the volume numbers only work to compare to contemporaries (which is fair as that’s the likely option being explored by the customer) since the sloped windows, often increased tumblehome, and more intrusive interior trims and pieces vs older cars, interrupt the space, making what’s there odd-shaped, which is far less useable than the more box-like volumes of the past. For example, the Subaru Ascent (which doesn’t even have that sloped of a rear window) has more than double the interior volume of my mk1 Legacy wagon on paper yet, in practice, while it certainly can hold more, it’s nowhere near double the amount of real world stuff and is more difficult to load due to the odd shape of the volume. This is less a response to you specifically than a more general comment about new car volumes being somewhat misleading, though I don’t really have a suggestion for how anyone reporting on it would measure that, particularly when that’s how almost all cars are now.
Very much agree on cargo volumes being misleading. It’s a shorthand metric for easy marketing.
Trying to find accurate cargo floor dimensions is like pulling teeth. Most of the time I have to find forum posts where owners have posted the dimensions they’ve measured themselves and were generous enough to share.
Pickup truck cargo volumes are the most annoying to me since manufacturers keep increasing bedside height, thereby increasing advertisable cargo volume without actually increasing the usable area of the cargo floor. By that metric, a 5.5′ bed has more cargo volume than an 8′ flatbed.
By the way, I did mention in another post that the C-HR has only 1.1 cub-feet less than the similarly-sized Corolla Cross despite the latter having a more upright rear area. Of course, we don’t have full dimensions on the new C-HR as of yet, but I’d say that’s small enough to make the C-HR still worth it.
A little surprised they’re bringing this, but the specs seem to check out and tracks for the direction the next Leaf is headed. Mid-30s pricing would put it around loaded Corolla Cross, Kona, Crosstrek, HR-V, etc. pricing, and a progression up from the Prius. Design, positioning, and the trim/equipment it’s like a bZpriusigniaCrossX.
The point of the compact CUV category is to be whelming. It is a form factor that is based directly on the middle of every potential market. If Toyota can do that while generally being a Toyota in all the other ways, it will do fine. That is the point of a Toyota.
Any issues it will have will be issues that apply to the EV market as a whole.
Stable and whelming has been a successful marketing strategy for Toyota for decades.
Not quite as dull as VW and largely driven by people who don’t care about cars
Wait a second….hold up….I think I really like it?
I actually appreciate Toyota’s current design language/hammerhead front end and I think this wears it well. I’m generally a dyed in the wool “CoupeUV” hater, but like the Envista, I think this wears it well. 25 cubic feet of storage space isn’t half bad either, and due to the packaging advantages of a ground up EV I imagine this will have plenty of interior space too.
This also offers hot hatch level performance! Nearly 300 horsepower and 0-60 around 5 seconds is more than enough to have a good time with. In fact it’s comparable performance to my car, Toyota’s own GRC, etc. Add in nearly 300 miles of range and a standard NACS port to give you supercharger access and I’m struggling to see too many downsides unless it’s going to cost $60,000 or something.
I like it. I’ll add it to the Dad Car shopping list that I’ve been painstakingly compiling.
If you cover the lights this could literally be mistaken for any other crossover coupe in a parking lot full of them
My play with potentially getting a dull/electrified/cheap/practical dad car is that it’ll open up the possibility of a manual, rear wheel drive, convertible weekend car a few years later. Rather than spending $60,000+ on something that can do fun and practical together I could get a sensible hybrid or EV commuter and the best Miata or Boxster I could afford with what’s left over.
I see that as feature not a bug. While I generally don’t prefer CUVs, I would like to remain as unnoticed and anonymous as possible.
Yup. It’s something I really appreciate about my Kona N. No one has any idea what it is.
dude, they just don’t care.
Its really weird that you spend your time on this site bragging about your stupid car
Hey now, Nsane has been very open about the issues he’s had with Hyundai. I may not agree with his views on VAG products, but I appreciate his comments. Do we need an exorcism here?
no, but a mute function would be nice on this site
you could mute me, I could mute you and both of our blood pressures would benefit
This is not Jalopnik. The next time you feel the need to personally attack someone because of the car they drive, just close the tab without posting. Thanks.
you also dont need to take a higher than thoustance in a comment chain that doesn’t include you about a stupid comment made to kill time on a Wednesday
You need to go outside, take a deep breath, touch some grass, and realize that life is pretty good and there’s no use in wasting it trying to start internet arguments
wow, I struck a nerve if youre resorting to telling me to touch grass
Im pretty open about the fact that Im only on these shitty sites to kill time at my shitty job.
but thanks for replying so I can keep appearing busy
Right here folks is the reason why American roads and used car options are so damn dull.
you pride yourself on being boring and just another brick in the wall
I for one am personally glad that we’re starting to finally move away from making EVs both look and perform like some sort of experimental quantum entanglement transportation apparatus.
Most people just want normal-ass cars at the end of the day.
I wouldn’t mind EVs that look interesting in some way. The real issue is that many companies have opted to make them look like absolute shit.
This thing is… fine. And that’s a big improvement over something like the BEES, which even with the refresh, still looks like shit.
I used to joke about the Gen2-3 Prius that it looked weird JUST SO people would know it was different. Plenty of other, normal cars could achieve similar aerodynamics without the oddities.
The only thing I really don’t like is that EVs are started to infect “normal cars” in a lot of other design cues, mainly the excessive screen usage.
“EVs both look and perform like some sort of experimental quantum entanglement transportation apparatus.”
Ah, Such is beyond this lowly plane of existence. The eccentricities of which inhabit brain bubbles that blorp, blerk, and blip in a blink, to anywhere in the universe.
There was a review of the B4xZ or whatever the heck it was called and the reviewer really liked it over the other EV SUVs he drove, because it was such a normal vehicle. You got in at and it drove and it didn’t make a big deal about being different.
I suspect the BZ will basically be like driving an RAV4e, if they still made one. Which given how many Rav4s sell isn’t a bad thing at all.