Chery C5 vs Kia Stonic

What's the difference?

Can a new name, fresh face and suspension update save Chery’s sleek SUV coupe from the ignominy of being one of the least pleasant options in its ultra-competitive class?

Sadly, not enough has been done for us to recommend the new C5.

As an affordable, stylish, roomy and zoomy SUV, the Chery definitely provides showroom appeal, especially given the decent warranty.

But, with lots of little niggles still present to distract and frustrate, the C5 is far from A1. Plus, with prices now creeping up, it doesn’t even have the cheap pricing of the old Omoda 5 to get it over the line.

Heading into 2026, Chery still needs to do better than this.

Unlike a lot of rivals in this segment, the Stonic's actually quite a bit of fun to drive, and that alone earns it a tick from me.

Yes, it can feel underpowered in places, especially when you're trying to do high-speed overtakes or if you're on a really engaging road and on and off the accelerator. But just cruising around, the little powertrain gives you plenty to get around the city.

And I guess that is the point. This does feel like a very city-friendly vehicle, even if it is undeniably showing its age in places.

Note: CarsGuide attended this event as a guest of the manufacturer with meals provided.

Note: The author, Andrew Chesterton, is a co-owner of Smart As Media, a content agency and media distribution service with a number automotive brands among its clients. When producing content for CarsGuide, he does so in accordance with the CarsGuide Editorial Guidelines and Code of Ethics (https://www.carsguide.com.au/ethics), and the views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author.

The new and narrower nose treatment is better, banishing the Omoda 5’s insectoid face straight into the bin. As an example of coupe-SUV design, the unaltered silhouette remains contemporary and is a defining signature for the series.

But, as before, the C5’s styling is hobbled by its narrow-gutted track width and highish (at 184mm) ground clearance, that give it a muffin-top and tippy-toed appearance respectively from most angles. Flashbacks to a Holden VN Commodore. Stance be damned.

Let’s look at the newcomer’s dimensions, compared to the Tiggo 4 for perspective: length is 4351mm (plus 44mm), width is 1831mm (+6mm), height is 1662mm (+2mm) and wheelbase is identical at 2610mm.

Still, there’s a positively Pollyanna-esque perspective to be gained here as well, since the C5’s extra size translates to a biggish small SUV inside a cabin that seems stylishly minimalistic. Or fairly basic. It all depends on your point of view.

Let’s take a closer look.

I'm not gonna spend too much time on the exterior design, because from most angles it largely looks a lot like a Kia Stonic, right? The big exterior change occurred up front, where the old Kia 'face' was retired, and replaced with an LED-trimmed front-end more in keeping with modern Kia models.

It is a tale of good and bad in the cabin of the Stonic. The good is the fact that it all feels very familiar and very Kia, which isn't a bad thing.

Th bad is some of the door materials aren't just cheap and hard plastic, but they feel a bit flimsy in places as well. Same with the centre console plastics. There are some elements where you could definitely lift up the ambience in the interior.

Three things struck me the moment I stepped inside the C5.

Firstly, though the silhouette suggests a low-slung car, the tall stance means getting in and out isn’t a drama at all, with the seats being up high enough for this to deserve its SUV/crossover status.

Secondly, the Chery emits a somewhat repellent plastic off-gas odour, a bit like a cheap toy. The smell never goes away. Perhaps it was just our test car? Unlikely though, as it reminds me of pre-2000s Kias and Hyundais.

And in stark contrast, thirdly, there’s an arresting elegance to the dashboard’s minimalist layout and presentation. Nothing’s changed visually and nothing needed to.

Let’s concentrate on the many positive points first.

There’s plenty of space around you for a comparatively small and narrow SUV, including ample legroom and head room for your 178cm tester front and back. It doesn't feel cramped at all.

Finding the ideal driving position is easy, with most of the (available) switches and controls where you’d need them to be without having to stretch to reach. Helping things out here is an adjustable steering wheel for rake as well as reach. Unlike in an MG ZS.

The dash layout looks great, given that this car is of a 2022 vintage, with the large, twin 10.25-inch integrated displays for both the electronic instrumentation and the multimedia system seamlessly presented. Both are fairly clear and easy to work out and operate. And, despite being an older-generation vehicle (it’s now well into year four of production), the instruments still look fresh.

And though the C5 runs a software-based operating system for vehicle functions, climate, audio, multimedia and other settings, the few buttons provided are well integrated and mostly work logically.

Below the touchscreen is a row of haptic switches for the main heating and cooling elements, meaning just one touch is necessary and with no complicated and time-consuming sub-menus to navigate. That's good.

You do need to dive into sub-menus for some drive settings and modes, though, and that's disappointing, but at least the C5’s is not as complicated as some others we’ve experienced of late.

Other plus points include excellent ventilation and loads of storage, including a big old glovebox, a cavernous centre console bin, a vast lower area to hide things on, deep cupholders and a ‘wall’ to lean two phones or a tablet while still being visible for the driver to glance at, with one side providing wireless charging on the Ultimate grade.

Along with pleasant cloth seats that are surprisingly comfortable, all show a reassuring degree of thoughtfulness.

Additionally, the poor side and rear vision is at least aided by large side mirrors and a crisp reverse-camera views.

However, there are some serious downsides too, starting with the C5’s aforementioned phone/tablet wall. The rubber backing in our test car was misshapen and dog-eared, undermining the otherwise exemplary build quality.

Until you learn its weird ways, the gear shifter can be unfathomable. It looks like it would operate as per a regular T-bar, but pressing the side button to engage Drive or Reverse instead locks them out, meaning the uninitiated will inevitably find themselves panicking manoeuvring in traffic with impatient drivers wondering why a Chery is blocking the road during a cheeky three-point turn. Embarrassing and, yes, super frustrating.

In the Ultra at least, the lofty front passenger seat has no height adjustment. The digital radio did not work for the entire week we had the C5. Maybe it was just our car, but even in inner Melbourne, reception proved elusive.

And the touchscreen-based secondary climate settings that aren’t supported by physical buttons are a stretch away, including temperature adjustment, meaning these and other items are arranged for left-hand-drive access.

This means it is fiddly to operate, as concentration is not on the road ahead, resulting in the driver monitor sounding off, leading to more frustration. An unvirtuous circle of distraction ensues, highlighting the folly of software-based vehicle systems that have not been tailored to Australian road conditions. Fail.

But nothing is as aggravating as the Chery’s voice control system. Like we said earlier, when turned on, it mishears or misunderstands words to almost a comical degree… if it wasn’t so constantly intrusive. As with paranoid and/or trigger-happy ADAS warnings, you end up switching off such irritating tech. Which beggars the question: what is their point?

Moving to the back seat, things look up again, with sufficient space for most smaller families to settle into.

The bench is fine, offering adequate comfort for shorter journeys. Legroom is generous, helped out by room for boots to tuck underneath the front cushion. And most amenities are present for a base model car, including a folding armrest with two cupholders (again, unlike in an MG ZS), as well as one-touch electric windows, overhead grab handles, coat hooks, decent size door bins, a USB port and face level ventilation.

All those go towards making the C5 well-packaged, small family transport.

Further back, Chery has managed to liberate an extra 10 litres of cargo capacity compared to the old Omoda 5, so 360 litres is available – which is not bad for a small SUV. That rises to 1075L in two-seater mode.

It’s also a practical and easy boot to use, with a space saver spare wheel.

In the GT-Line trim, you get the twin screen setup, which looks sharp, and I do like Kia's multi-function control bar, which takes care of things like navigation and media on the one digital screen.

It really is feeling a little bit old school in places. There's no wireless phone mirroring, for example, so you need to plug in. And even then you need to plug in with a USB-A rather than a USB-C, despite having both plugs at your disposal.

The other thing is that the GT-Line is almost $36k before on-road costs. And there are places where it just doesn't feel like that much money.

It's a case of what you see is what you get in the back seat of the Stonic. And what you see is... not that much.

There are two USB-C ports in the more expensive trims. There are bottle holders in each of the doors, but no cup holders, and no pull-down seat divider. It is a fairly sparse back seat experience.

What you do get, however, is the luxury of space. Sitting behind my own 175cm driving position, I had absolutely no problem with knee room and no problem with head room. In fact, even as an almost full-size adult, I reckon I could sit back there pretty comfortably, even on longer road trips.

The big news is the addition of a 48-volt mild hybrid system, and that 48-volt battery is under the boot floor. But because it's hidden under a flat partition, it actually doesn't impact boot space.

Kia is still claiming 352 litres with the rear seats in place and 1155 litres with the rear seats folded flat. You do, however, miss out on some under-boot storage. And there's no spare wheel to speak of, just a tyre repair kit.

You can have your Stonic in three flavours, the S, Sport and GT-Line, with retail pricing stepping from $28,180, to $32,290, to the range-topping $35,740 respectively.

The S is pretty basic in terms of kit, riding on 16-inch alloys, nabbing LED lights and daytime running lights, cloth seats, manual air-con and a six-speaker stereo. Tech comes via an 8.0-inch central screen with wired Apple CarPlay and Android Auto (but make sure you pack a USB-A cable to make it work, which feels very old school), as well as a 4.2-inch driver display and a smart key with push-button start.

The Sport packs in plenty more. Your alloys are now 17 inches, you get LED front fog lights, and your cloth seats now have synthetic leather trim. You also get centre console storage, single-zone climate control, a better feeling steering wheel and shifter, and rain-sensing wipers. You also get a bigger 12.0-inch central screen, extra USB-C ports and access to the Kia Connect app and over-the-air updates.

Finally, the GT-Line rides on a unique 17-inch alloy wheel design, and nabs a sunroof, heated front seats, a heated steering wheel and ambient interior lighting. It gets the full Kia twin-screen treatment, with two 12.3-inch displays handling infotainment and driving data, and you get a wireless charger.

The C5 is powered by a 1.5-litre four-cylinder turbo petrol engine, delivering 108kW of power at 5500rpm and 210Nm of torque from 1750-4000rpm.

As part of the MY25 facelift, the Chery swaps out the old Omoda 5’s CVT for a six-speed dual-clutch transmission, complete with a handy manual mode. It drives the front wheels only.

Tipping the scales at 1462kg (kerb), the C5 Ultra offers a power-to-weight ratio of 73.9kW/tonne – which is slightly less than, say, a Haval Jolion, but quite a bit behind a Mazda CX-3.

With a slight helping hand from a strong northerly wind, we managed to record a 0-100km/h sprint time of 9.9 seconds. This figure suggests the Chery feels faster than it is.

All Stonics get the same powertrain. A clever three-cylinder, 1.0-litre turbocharged petrol engine with 48-volt mild hybrid assistance. That means 88kW and 172Nm (up from 74kW). It has a seven-speed dual-clutch transmission.

We don’t have an official zero-to-100km/h time, but I’m estimating in excess of 10 seconds.

The C5’s combined average fuel consumption figure is 6.9L/100km, for a carbon dioxide emissions rating of 160 grams/km. And that’s on regular 91 RON standard unleaded. Topping the 51-litre petrol tank should result in nearly 740km of range between refills.

During our week with the Chery, we managed 9.0L/100km, which is very disappointing, though that did include highway and performance driving.

The 48-volt system helps drop both fuel use and C02 emissions, with the Stonic pegged at 5.0L/100kms on the combined cycle and 116g/km for emissions, both of which are lower numbers than the last model.

The Stonic’s 45-litre tank could theoretically deliver a circa-900km driving range.

Chery has made some pretty fundamental changes underneath, so we had higher hopes of the C5 compared to the preceding Omoda 5. However, expectations ought to be tempered here.

Let’s begin with the Chinese SUV’s performance.

After a moment’s hesitation, the C5 feels punchy from the get-go, with a decent amount of muscle as the revs rise. Throttle response is brisk, even at higher speeds. And the brakes do a great job. This is quite the rapid little runabout.

Some of that initial lag is down to the dual-clutch transmission, since it needs time for the turbo to spool up. Once sorted, it shifts swiftly and smoothly, and without delay. Only the aforementioned gear selector complication will catch out new drivers, as the operation is needlessly complicated.

But the engine is never really quiet, and can even feel coarse when extended under hard acceleration, betraying this Chery’s station as a cheap SUV. And the stop/start tech is especially jerky.

The steering, meanwhile, is a mix of disgruntle and delight.

When driving on the motorway, it can feel lumpy, with the driver-assist system tugging away endlessly at the wheel. The sudden jolts make it feel like a pinball as the vehicle feels like it is ricocheting off the white lines. Such constant correction is both tiring and irritating, leading to fatigue and, if your fuse is really short, aggravation.

For steering smoothness or linearity, you need to dive into a sub menu and opt out of several ADAS modes. Or otherwise pull over and wonder why Chinese car companies especially seem to have such disdain for Australian drivers. If this sounds like a nightmare, the C5 is not for you.

Furthermore, there’s no point choosing a steering setting. Comfort is light enough for easy driving and weighty enough for the driver to feel in control, but feedback and feel are absent. And selecting Sport just adds needless heft and makes it all feel way too heavy.

Now, that said, the C5 offers some dynamic compensation, and likely courtesy of its multi-link suspension upgrade.

At higher speeds, the steering, for instance, is pleasingly direct and precise, meaning it turns exactly where you choose it to. The handling feels controlled and the tyres grip well, for some unintentional scrappy fun through really tight corners, to a certain extent anyway. It’s a side to the Chery the Omoda 5 never seemed capable of delivering.

But, inevitably, this comes at a price, and that is a busy and at times agitated ride, with the suspension failing to soak up bumps and irregularities on anything other than smooth roads, despite its new-found independence, adding to further fatigue. For the record, our test car rode on 215/60R17 Giti tyres.

Would higher-quality rubber help fix this? If you’re buying a sub-$30K Chery SUV, would you even care? Basically, unless you enjoy the occasional hoon, the C5 lacks dynamic sophistication as well as sufficient Australian road tuning. Much like its predecessor. Such a letdown.

It is a really interesting drive proposition, this Stonic.

First and foremost, it does feel really well sorted in places. The steering has a nice weight to it. It's nice and direct. The ride is comfortable. It can get a little bit crashy over the harsher bumps, which actually isn't all that common in Kia products – like if you hit a cat's eye at speed, for example, you can definitely feel it in the cabin – but generally it's an engaged and comfortable drive.

Similarly, going around corners, even at speed, there's not a huge amount of body roll. The tires grip up pretty well, and it's really not a bad thing to throw around corners.

Where it gets interesting, though, is in its power delivery. At city speeds, so 50 or 60km/h, it's nice and easy and quiet. If you're gentle with the accelerator, and patient, it accrues speed in quite a calm, considered manner, without feeling overly sluggish.

Where it does start to fall apart a little bit, which is when you're at speed, say on a freeway for example, and you pull out to overtake and really plant your foot, and find there's really not a lot there. It can mean overtaking takes a lot longer than you might think. 

If you're on a really challenging road and you're kind of on the gas, on the brakes, on the gas and on the brakes, it can feel a little bit wheezy and uncertain, too, which is no doubt a byproduct of that relatively tiny powertrain.

We're definitely not talking rocket ship acceleration, and nor is it all that quiet in the cabin when you really start to wring its neck, which you will do occasionally.

But I think I've really stepped away from what this vehicle is supposed to be and what it's supposed to do. If you are easy with the accelerator, it can be a really calm, quiet cabin experience. And if you do find yourself on a twisting road, it actually sits and grips better than you might be thinking as well.

But there is no doubt the Stonic shines brightest in the city.

There’s no immediate plan to crash test the new Stonic, meaning its five-star rating has now expired.

All models get things like lane keeping assist with lane follow assist, and blind spot collision avoidance and front and rear parking sensors. The S also gets auto emergency braking (AEB) with car, pedestrian and cyclist avoidance, but the Sport and GT-Line both add junction turning to the system.

Very competitive if not quite as class leading as the conditional Nissan, Mitsubishi and MG 10-year warranty, the C5 comes with a seven-year/unlimited kilometre warranty.

Chery also offers seven years/105,000km of capped-price servicing and a year’s free roadside assistance, though up to seven years is available should owners choose to have their vehicle maintained at an authorised dealer during that period.

Service intervals are at every 12 months or 10,000km, and cost $280 per visit for the first five, extending to nearly $370 and $290 for the final two.

The Stonic is covered by Kia’s seven-year unlimited-kilometre warranty, with capped-price servicing covering the warranty term.

Servicing is required every 12 months or 10,000kms, and all seven services will set you back $3780 combined.