Citroen C3 Aircross v Toyota C-HR 2019 Comparison

It may seem counterintuitive to Aussie buyers, but the Nissan JUKE has been a huge success in Europe. It has spawned numerous competitors – clothed in sheet metal that will likely affront some and beguile others.

The two vehicles we're comparing for this test attempt to neutralise the JUKE's outrageous styling factor from different angles... literally.

In the case of the Toyota C-HR, it's all sharp creases and pointy angles, whereas the Citroen C3 Aircross is a much rounder affair.

Opinion is certain to be sharply divided along the lines of 'love the Aircross/hate the C-HR', or vice versa, or love both, or hate both. Few prospective buyers will place either car in the 'take it or leave it' basket.

Under the skin, both these vehicles are essentially similar – front-wheel drives powered by small-capacity turbocharged engines driving through automatic transmissions. The number of cylinders and the transmission are the only significant departures, in fact; the Toyota C-HR is a four-cylinder fitted with a continuously-variable type, and the Citroen C3 Aircross is a three-cylinder featuring a six-speed Aisin automatic with torque converter.

Both cars are small SUVs and both are priced around the same mark. And with similar warranty provisions, the two are very obviously direct competitors.

Of the two, the Citroen is the underdog, the aspiring giant killer, having sold just 23 units for the year to date – versus an astonishing 5472 units of the C-HR sold by Toyota in Australia since the start of 2019.

Blessed with compact footprints and frugal powertrains, the Toyota C-HR and the Citroen C3 Aircross are ideal for small/young families living in suburbia. Once again, however, styling is a key criterion for prospective buyers.

At a lower purchase price than either of these cars, there are plenty of other small SUVs that can match the Toyota and the Citroen for accommodation, practicality, driveability, running costs, safety and comfort. Even from Citroen's own parent company, there's the Peugeot 2008 – a vehicle with the same powertrain and very similar packaging at a significantly lower price point.

So the novel styling of these two cars sets them apart from the others, and the looks are bound to be important to the target buyers. The young parents, young singles and empty nesters buying a car like either of these want something distinctive – something that won't be mistaken for the Mitsubishi ASX or the Holden Trax.

But, like every other small SUV in the market, the Citroen and the Toyota must also be practical to some extent.

In standard form the Toyota C-HR in higher-spec Koba form and the Citroen C3 Aircross Shine – just one variant available – are separated by just $300. But the C-HR Koba came to us with the optional two-tone trim, adding $450 to the purchase price.

Both vehicles are covered by a five-year warranty – and unlimited kilometres. Citroen provides roadside assistance for the duration of the warranty period. With Toyota's capped-price servicing, the C-HR costs $195 per service for the first five years or 75,000km, whichever occurs first. Over the five-year period that equates to under $1000, versus $2623 for the Citroen.

Although the two SUVs sip premium unleaded recommended by the factory, the official fuel economy figures favour the Toyota, with the C-HR consuming 6.4L/100km, versus 6.6 for the Citroen.

In practice, we found the difference was significantly wider than that, with the Citroen posting a figure of 7.8L/100km over a brief drive loop. For the same test the C-HR posted a figure of 7.1L/100km. Around town, the two rivals slurp fuel at a rate above 8.0L/100km, with the Toyota still the more frugal of the two (8.5L/100km to the Citroen's 8.7).

The final word on total cost of ownership pertains to resale value. According to RedBook, the C3 Aircross retains 66.1 per cent of its new purchase price as a used car, based on selling privately a car in good condition. In contrast, the C-HR retains 77.2 per cent of its purchase price.

The Citroen C3 Aircross shapes up as the family-friendly car of these two. It's roomier and more practical as a second car for families. There's more headroom in the rear of the C3 Aircross for adults who are taller than average, and as colleague Nadine Armstrong pointed out, little kids will be happier looking out at the scenery through the larger windows and over the lower waistline.

The Citroen's infotainment system is somewhat easier to use than the Toyota's, and the USB port is mounted low in the centre fascia, just ahead of the gear lever. It's easily accessible for recharging a phone or streaming music from a memory stick. Citroen offers the C3 Aircross with Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, as well as an inductive charging plate for the smartphone.

Despite its form-over-function packaging, the Toyota C-HR does offer slightly better use of space in the front seats to suit the young-single buyers wanting a place for their 'big gulp' cups (and note the plural suffix there).

The C-HR also came up trumps for its seats, which feature adjustable lumbar support for the driver and wrap around the occupant more than the Citroen's seats do. All in all, the C-HR offers the better driving position. Both reviewers immediately felt more at home behind the wheel of the Toyota than in the Citroen.

Space-saver spare wheels were specified for each of the two cars tested, but the Citroen's boot uses the compactness of the temporary spare more efficiently. Ultimately, the Citroen provides more boot space (410 litres), and it's a usable volume if your load is an aggregate of goods, rather than one large item.

While the C-HR's smaller boot (377 litres) is shallower, it extends further forward – the Toyota is longer overall and the extra length in the wheelbase means it can accept longer items with the seats folded flat. And the seats do fold down for a flush floor all the way through from the tailgate to the rear of the front seats. If you plan to move a clothes dryer or something similarly bulky, the C-HR just might be the better option.

Refinement is a major factor in the C-HR's appeal. It's much quieter than the C3 Aircross, and there's far less labouring and vibration from the powertrain.

Addressing those who rail against CVTs, the Toyota's transmission barely puts a foot wrong. It always maintains the right ratio for seamless power delivery. The C-HR doesn't roll back on hills, and there are no missteps and clumsy shifting. As a unit, the powertrain in the C-HR is not only more economical than the Citroen's offering, it also delivers slightly better performance.

For ride comfort the C-HR is demonstrably more composed at lower speeds than the C3 Aircross, but as fun as the Toyota can be to drive, the Citroen's body control is slightly better, with less roll in corners. Nadine felt the Toyota's steering was more direct, but also heavier than the Citroen's. Overall, both cars provide similar levels of grip.

In contrast with the Citroen C3 Aircross, the Toyota C-HR is a car designed for the needs of young singles. There's less headroom in the rear and, with the radically rising waistline near the C pillars, kids will find it closed in, particularly if they're claustrophobic at all.

The infotainment screen in the Toyota is small and operating it requires dainty little fingers. The USB port is located in the infotainment head unit, which is not ideal. It dictates a power cable to a smartphone must be draped from this port down to wherever the smartphone has to reside (one of the large cupholders?). We didn't feel it was an elegant solution.

In front, the seats fitted to the C3 Aircross were not as comfortable as the Toyota's. Cushioning was flat and unyielding, and these seats would certainly benefit from adjustable lumbar support. There's only one cupholder in front, and it's located well aft in the centre console, to cater for rear-seat passengers as well. One cupholder for four or five passengers seems quite abstemious to us.

Neither car provides adjustable vents for the rear-seat passengers, and the Citroen's rear seats leave a step down to the boot floor when folded down for extra luggage space. That basically reduces the functionality of the Citroen's boot when it comes time to cart around larger items.

Much as we preferred the Citroen's infotainment screen, the reversing camera display was a lower resolution at night. Quite grainy, the display made it difficult to pick out objects behind the vehicle while backing, or lining the Citroen up to dodge obstacles, despite the larger screen format.

The Citroen's powertrain is rough and ready in terms of suppressing noise and vibration. That three-cylinder engine has a bit of a growl to it when it's revving in the mid-range, but at lower speeds it exudes all the charm of a chaff cutter. The C3 Aircross is demonstrably louder than the C-HR, and the engine labours at about 1500rpm, which is where the engine revs when the transmission short-shifts for lower fuel consumption.

As for the transmission itself, it was occasionally clunky and would allow the car to roll back on a hill – presumably because it shifts into neutral at idle and takes a while to reselect Drive when the driver lifts the foot off the brake.

But for all our misgivings about the Citroen's powertrain, it was the headlights of the C3 Aircross that stood out as the car's worst feature. They pointed way too low and the beams were weak and yellow driving along country roads at night.

There's no denying the Citroen C3 Aircross is a better fit for the young and restless – those ranging in age from 18 months to older teenage years. It's a regular cubby house on wheels.

But as practical as the Citroen is for families, the Toyota C-HR has the measure of the C3 Aircross for general comfort and touring ability (for the two front passengers at least). Taking into account overall cost of ownership as well, the Toyota has to be considered the winner.

How much does the 2019 Citroen C3 Aircross Shine cost?
Price: $32,990 (as tested, plus on-road costs)
Engine: 1.2-litre three-cylinder turbo-petrol
Output: 81kW/205Nm
Transmission: Six-speed automatic
Fuel: 6.6L/100km (ADR Combined)
CO2: 149g/km (ADR Combined)
Safety Rating: Five-star EuroNCAP (2017)

How much does the 2019 Toyota C-HR Koba cost?
Price: $33,290 (plus on-road costs); $34,290 (as tested, plus on-road costs)
Engine: 1.2-litre four-cylinder turbo-petrol
Output: 85kW/185Nm
Transmission: Continuously variable
Fuel: 6.4L/100km (ADR Combined)
CO2: 144g/km (ADR Combined)
Safety Rating: Five-star ANCAP (2017)