2020 Toyota C-HR MPG is between 27 MPG and 74 MPG depending on engine:
The 2020 Toyota C-HR MPG to weight ratio is shown in the graph:
We calculated that 2020 Toyota C-HR MPG is up to 93% better than the world average consumption.
Vehicle | Consumption (city / highway) | Consumption to weight ratio | Difference from world average consumption | Driving range (full tank) | Consumption per passenger |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1.2 |
29
/
40 MPG
(8 / 5.9 L per 100 km) |
2.1 L per 100 km to 100 kg | 9% better |
373—497 miles
(600—800 km) |
1.3 L per 100 km / person |
1.8 |
74
/
56 MPG
(3.2 / 4.2 L per 100 km) |
3.7 L per 100 km to 100 kg | 93% better |
808—621 miles
(1300—1000 km) |
0.8 L per 100 km / person |
2.0 |
27
/
41 MPG
(8.8 / 5.8 L per 100 km) |
2.1 L per 100 km to 100 kg | 6% better |
373—559 miles
(600—900 km) |
1.4 L per 100 km / person |
Vehicle | 1.2 |
---|---|
Consumption (city / highway) |
29
/
40 MPG
(8 / 5.9 L per 100 km) |
Consumption to weight ratio | 2.1 L per 100 km to 100 kg |
Difference from world average consumption | 9% better |
Driving range (full tank) | 373—497 miles (600—800 km) |
Consumption per passenger | 1.3 L per 100 km / person |
Vehicle | 1.8 |
Consumption (city / highway) |
74
/
56 MPG
(3.2 / 4.2 L per 100 km) |
Consumption to weight ratio | 3.7 L per 100 km to 100 kg |
Difference from world average consumption | 93% better |
Driving range (full tank) | 808—621 miles (1300—1000 km) |
Consumption per passenger | 0.8 L per 100 km / person |
Vehicle | 2.0 |
Consumption (city / highway) |
27
/
41 MPG
(8.8 / 5.8 L per 100 km) |
Consumption to weight ratio | 2.1 L per 100 km to 100 kg |
Difference from world average consumption | 6% better |
Driving range (full tank) | 373—559 miles (600—900 km) |
Consumption per passenger | 1.4 L per 100 km / person |
2017 Toyota C-HR MPG is between 27 MPG and 69 MPG depending on engine:
The 2017 Toyota C-HR MPG to weight ratio is shown in the graph:
We calculated that 2017 Toyota C-HR MPG is up to 93% better than the world average consumption.
Vehicle | Consumption (city / highway) | Consumption to weight ratio | Difference from world average consumption | Driving range (full tank) | Consumption per passenger |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1.2 |
31
/
42 MPG
(7.6 / 5.6 L per 100 km) |
2.3 L per 100 km to 100 kg | 16% better |
435—559 miles
(700—900 km) |
1.3 L per 100 km / person |
1.8 |
69
/
57 MPG
(3.4 / 4.1 L per 100 km) |
3.6 L per 100 km to 100 kg | 93% better |
808—621 miles
(1300—1000 km) |
0.8 L per 100 km / person |
2.0 |
27
/
31 MPG
(8.7 / 7.5 L per 100 km) |
1.8 L per 100 km to 100 kg | 9% worse |
373—435 miles
(600—700 km) |
1.6 L per 100 km / person |
Vehicle | 1.2 |
---|---|
Consumption (city / highway) |
31
/
42 MPG
(7.6 / 5.6 L per 100 km) |
Consumption to weight ratio | 2.3 L per 100 km to 100 kg |
Difference from world average consumption | 16% better |
Driving range (full tank) | 435—559 miles (700—900 km) |
Consumption per passenger | 1.3 L per 100 km / person |
Vehicle | 1.8 |
Consumption (city / highway) |
69
/
57 MPG
(3.4 / 4.1 L per 100 km) |
Consumption to weight ratio | 3.6 L per 100 km to 100 kg |
Difference from world average consumption | 93% better |
Driving range (full tank) | 808—621 miles (1300—1000 km) |
Consumption per passenger | 0.8 L per 100 km / person |
Vehicle | 2.0 |
Consumption (city / highway) |
27
/
31 MPG
(8.7 / 7.5 L per 100 km) |
Consumption to weight ratio | 1.8 L per 100 km to 100 kg |
Difference from world average consumption | 9% worse |
Driving range (full tank) | 373—435 miles (600—700 km) |
Consumption per passenger | 1.6 L per 100 km / person |