[chr8nrfts]

I am curious about the 0-62 time and the top speed of the C-HR with the 2.0 engine.
I wonder if there is a lot of difference with the 1.2T.

Does anyone have this information here?
Can not find them on the internet (Maybe I did not look good enough)

 

[iRRegular]

Via Car and Driver

Zero to 60 mph: 10.5 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 55.0 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 18.1 sec
Top speed: 105 mph

Toyota C-HR Reviews - Toyota C-HR Price, Photos, and Specs - Car and Driver

 

[chr8nrfts]

Woh, the top speed of the 1.2T is 115 mph with CVT en with manual gearbox 118 mph and the 1.2T has less power

 

[CityWok]

The C-Hr's estimated top speed of 105 mph is more than enough for freeway driving unless you plan to floor it at the autobahn.

 

[Shorty]

Most of what I've been reading indicates the acceleration/performance of the C-HR is its biggest issue. Do you guys find this to be true? Hopefully there are a wider array of trim levels to come. Seems to me its performance doesn't quite match up with its sporty styling.

 

[SiR]

I hear it could be due to the CVT not allowing the engine to work its magic. Its why some people have been skeptical about getting CVT's but if you don't too much about the most refined and sporty characteristic then the CH-R could be for you.

 

[Adamturbo]

Performance is fine. But depends what drive mode you are in. With sport selected and using the manual shift mode , the acceleration is quite good. If your in eco its slow. And this type of vehicle isnt about top speed or track days.

 

[PatrickBE]

The C-HR CVT Hybride I drive feels more "sporty" then it's on paper.
I enjoy the drivers experience it gives me.
Coming from a 911 Turbo driver that's compliment.

 

[Cubanitoal100]

well about the top speed i tested and it was 125 mph and it was going up but i was afraid of a police and reduced the speed. and my chr its a 2.0 CVT, and the test was in sport mode and manual gear.

 

[Shorty]

well id say 125mph should get you around town just fine. seems the CH-R's power and performance is a common question on this forum. Glad to hear everyone seems to be satisfied with how it drives. I'm pretty curious to see just how far this little crossover can be pushed with some tuning.

 

[pdrumans]

The sport mode is actually pretty good for getting decent power out of the 2.0. I have seen different ranges for the 0 to 60 for this vehicle. From 9.5 to 10.5 for the 2.0 in different magazines and reviews. With the sport mode, it feels 9.5 seconds to me.

 

[PatrickBE]

LOL just looked up my Audi C5 2004 Avant 1.9 tdi and on paper it's even faster then the CHR
If you want something fast don't buy a CHR buy a proper sports car.>
The CHR just feel fun to ride for the price you pay...

 

[pdrumans]

LOL just looked up my Audi C5 2004 Avant 1.9 tdi and on paper it's even faster then the CHR
If you want something fast don't buy a CHR buy a proper sports car.>
The CHR just feel fun to ride for the price you pay...

I just came from a 2016 Camaro and before that had a 2013 Infiniti G37. I bought the C-HR for the practicality, utility and the styling of the vehicle. Definitely not the acceleration. I really never used the power of those other vehicles anyway except on rare occasions. I agree, it's a fun little vehicle for the price.

 

[Shorty]

Rumor has it that a TRD variant is soon to hit Japan, so there's a chance we may see it here if it has a successful release in Asia. If that's true perhaps people wont have to choose between practicality and performance, the CH-R could provide both. I think at this point, nothing is confirmed.

 

[SiR]

I guess we shouldn't be entirely surprised by that fact given they had TRD parts out for a while. already they have a full page up on it if you look here: C-HR | TRD
I especially like the extreme styling package, it makes the CH-R look a bit upsegment.