well those numbers look a bit slower than UX and Corolla Hatch, due to testing conditions maybe? But in any case, there is no magic with CVT. Turbo engines get torque from bottom of rpm and they are much easier to drive due to that, especially when cars get heavier.
I wasn't referring to the 8NR vs 1.5 argument. I stand by my point that CVTs do not care peak torque value.
The rant was on the fact that Toyota messed up calibrations for the M20B/CVT (Chinese Domestic Market Dynamic Force engines have 'B' designation). The Honda XR-V is faster with a smaller engine and lower power-to-weight ratio while using a CVT without a launch gear.
It is only driveability that matters. M20A should be easy to drive drive it has D4S that increases torque in lower portion of rpm range.
Having an oversized and overpowered engine for a vehicle while not harnessing its capabilities is
bad engineering, period. It's even more problematic when it is the most expensive one in the segment, outrun by competitors that are 30% cheaper. There's just no way to defend it. Of course acceleration figure matters when you are paying more money for that extra horsepower. If drivability is the only concern why not just buy a cheaper 1.5L?
There's definitely something wrong with that CH-R test.
The 10.8s results is the slowest out of all reviews done. But even fastest results are in the 10.5s range. Due to differences in testing methods, we usually cannot directly compare tests conducted by different organizations. But when we look at relative results conducted by the same organization, the C-HR 2.0 is slower than the XR-V 1.5L (130hp CVT) and Skoda Karoq 1.4T (140hp DSG) and only marginally faster than the Juke 1.5L (110hp CVT). All these vehicles are on average 30% cheaper. In fact at C-HR's price you can get 2.5L mid-size SUVs that are much more practical and slightly faster.
