What's the difference?
Isuzu’s 3.0-litre MU-X has attracted plenty of fans over the years – and for good reason: it’s a seven-seat 4WD wagon packed with features, driver-assist tech and it has a decent 4WD set-up including a recalibrated rough terrain mode.
But the Japanese brand's 1.9-litre experiment has now officially ended – it’s a Gary-goner. So, for this test I’m driving its replacement: the 2.2L MU-X. This 4WD wagon has a, you guessed it, 2.2-litre engine – offering better claimed fuel consumption than the 3.0L, as well as an eight-speed automatic transmission and idle stop-start technology. And this MU-X has the same 3.5 tonne towing capacity as the 3.0-litre version, that’s 500kg more than the outgoing 1.9L MU-X.
So, how does this new 2.2L MU-X perform off-road? And does it make more sense as an adventure wagon than its 3.0L stablemate?
Read on.
According to the chief engineer for the Toyota C-HR, a second generation was never guaranteed for this uncharacteristically (for Toyota) design-led small SUV.
After the Corolla Cross came into existence, the top brass didn’t think the brand needed two similarly sized models in the line-up. So, why is it here, and is it any good?
The first question is easy to answer - the team drew the new C-HR up as a European model, built in hybrid-only and with enough key differences from the Corolla Cross to avoid the models competing.
The second question? Let’s find out.
The MU-X has plenty of appeal as a daily driver – dependable and it’s a proven 4WD wagon.
Does the 2.2-litre engine add anything substantial to the mix?
Well, it's better than the 1.9-litre, that's for sure, and there's a lot to like about this MU-X in terms of its off-road capability, driver-assist tech, standard features and all-round driveability. And, while the LS-T lacks the top-shelf polish of the X-Terrain, it’s still an appealing potential purchase.
But the 3.0-litre option is better because while the 2.2L is very effective off-road and general day-to-day driving, it lacks grunt and has to work that much harder and is that much noisier under load than the 3.0-litre in most driving scenarios, including 4WDing.
There’s not much in terms of practicalities that are going to convince you the C-HR is a better option than Toyota’s other small SUV, the Corolla Cross.
Even other ‘stylish’ small SUVs like the Mazda CX-30, fuel savers like the electric MG ZS EV, or performance small SUVs like the Hyundai Kona N are more affordable than the GR Sport version of the C-HR.
In the case of this car, unlike most of its Toyota stablemates, buyers will likely be making a decision from the heart based on exterior styling and its interior rather than value or practicality.
And who would anyone be to tell you not to buy a car you like for its styling?