Renault Kadjar vs Toyota C-HR

What's the difference?

The Renault Kadjar Intens ticks a lot of the urban boxes. It’s small, which is good for navigating narrow city streets and parking in tight spaces, but it’s also spacious and practical. The Kadjar is fuel efficient for a four-cylinder petrol engine and it has that sophisticated French styling.

The Intens is expensive, though, and unless you absolutely have to have leather seats, a glass roof, and the Bose stereo I’d go for the mid-range Zen grade and save yourself $5K but still have all the same safety tech. That said the Intens has auto parking as standard which is a nice convenience for the city.

Safety could be better. The AEB system doesn’t have pedestrian and cyclist detection, rear cross traffic alert, or reverse emergency braking.

Finally, the dual-clutch automatic and 1.3-litre turbo-petrol engine while a fuel efficient combination, isn’t all that easy to live with and can make driving a less-than-smooth experience. The Nissan Qashqai’s combination of CVT auto and four-cylinder naturally aspirated engine is better suited to the urban jungle - something to think about there. 

Now the scores, the Kadjar Intens gets the same mark for daily driving and its urban talents – it could be smoother to drive, but there’s still lots to like. 

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?