2017 Toyota C-HR Photos Leaked » AutoGuide.com News

Hope it's not too wrong to post in this thread but we've finally got real pics of the once Scion C-HR now to be sold as Toyota C-HR.

My first impression is it looks too Juke-ish. The back door handle is worse than the Honda's HR-V, which I despise. The body style just has too much going on.

I'll be looking to replace my aging xB in a year or two and right now the upcoming Civic hatchback is in the lead.

 

What do you mean leaked? It as on display at the NAIAS in Detroit.
It looks like the bastard love child of a juke and a tC and is possibly the ugliest thing scion has ever thought of. The wheels are kind of cool looking, but way oversized.

I really wish they would have rolled the tC into Toyota as a "corolla coupe" like KIA did with the "Forte coupe" and Hyundai did with the "genesis coupe" (different car sharing a name with a sedan). An upgraded interior would make it an easy sell to young adults that don't quite want the bland look of the 'rolla.
But instead, we get this ugly garbage to compete with Nissan's ugly garbage.

-Edit-
I now see that these are photos of the production version, not the concept that was on display. I still stand by what I said except for the thing about the wheels being oversized. Looks like they shrunk those down to a reasonable diameter.

 

A little edgier than most recent now same-old-same-old offerings. But nothing special: no avant-garde urban warrior or 4x4/"Renegade" strides. If I/others have cash, I'll buy a lower-maintenance-cost Ford or Dodge as-stylish offering because Toyota doesn't offer something-different enticements that prosperous buyers seek.
Yes, I know Scions are Toyota's entry-level baitings but THEY'RE NOW BORING. FRS/Boxer is only exception
Anybody for Toyota monitoring this forum ?!?! PM me but I won't lose sleep waiting on your response.

Yet, no where near as fugly as Juke.
But no where near as stylishly distinct AND FUNCTIONAL/convenient as XB2. Sorry, no sale Toyota.

 

I think looks-wise, it looks cool but agree that it *looks* like it has far less capacity than the xb1/xb2... The design looks like it's trying to fit in too much with the Mercedes GLAs / new nissan murano and vehicles like that - in terms of looks.

As for entry level and boring - i actually prefer that. I prefer a discrete/cheap car that's super reliable, like an appliance. At the economy car price point, I am not expecting something dazzling - just great utility, reliability and low cost of ownership. This is what i value most nowadays

 

Here's the new Civic Hatch coming out soon. Although a little boring it's better looking than the C-HR imo.

 

It looks like a damn crossover. Ick

 

boring soccer mom car....ugh....I wish Toyota had grew a set and came out with the Abat...now THAT was a sweet car!

 

1.5 Turbo + 6 speed manual + 40 mpg = This might be my next daily.

 

My 91 crx is a 1.5 n/a with a 5-speed manual that gets 40mpg. It's a little slower, but a lot cheaper than going out and buying (or more likely, financing) a new car. You could probably find a 1.6 crx si in good condition for $2-3000, have a classic car, a reliable car, a unique car, and not be in debt...
Just my two cents though.

 

Why not buy a 05/06 xB instead?

 

Because the crx meets the "classic, reliable, unique" criteria that I don't quite feel like the xB satisfies. I could be wrong, but I've never known of an xB that got 40mpg regularly. The rex isn't good for much more than a commuter car, but if that's all you're doing 95% of the time, it doesn't make much sense to sacrifice fuel efficiency for features you will almost never use.

but this isn't about crx vs xB, it was about old Honda vs new Honda and me giving my unsolicited opinion on why buying a new Honda is a silly thought to entertain.

 

Hell yes!, I'd consider an A-Bat vs C-HR or new Civic. Style+ Functionality/capacity. F the mileage which would still be nearly 10 mpg beyond domestic pickup.

 

I know what you mean about the CRX. I couldn't believe they stopped making them in 91, Honda started going downhill around then. I had 2 1988 Accords, a 1990 prelude si, 2 Acura TL's(96/03) and 1 00 Civic. Of those the 00 Civic and 03 TL were the worst, everything else was excellent. The 96 TL was the best car I ever had.

As far as my xB1 I get around 29 in the city and 38 on the highway if it's longer than 50 miles. Very few negatives and tons of positives. Even though it's over 10 years old it still looks good and has only 60K on it.

I think Honda is finally getting the message, at least they were smart enough to vastly improve the civic. I definitely want to test drive the new hatch if/when it's released in the U.S. If I ever get that absolute certain feeling I got when I first drove my friends xB back in 2005 then I might take the plunge. That's a very tall order though.

 

There's no denying that the subcompact suv category is booming and Toyota did a good job on the styling on this one. It's more attractive than the Mazda and Honda in this category. This looks more tapered in the rear end than the CX-5, which is going to cost cargo space. Looks like about 40-45 cubic feet (if your lucky) for total cargo space with the rear seats folded flat.

This will probably start at around 24K. For that money, I'd rather have a RAV4, but this is all about the styling.