- Reaction score
I agree with most of your comments, though I have yet to see ANY small subcompact CUV in the American market (including this one) that I thought was NOT ugly (or at least awkward-looking).....from the shoe-box Jeep Renegade to the circus-clown Nissan Juke. This one IMO is no exception......though I'd consider its looks more awkward than really ugly like the Juke. And, at least, with the Renegade, the shoe-box styling gives a lot of room inside for its size.Interesting, and better-looking than half the competitors listed ("growing pack of subcompact crossovers, including the Fiat 500X, Jeep Renegade-ugly, Mazda CX-3, Nissan Juke-ugly, Honda HR-V and Chevrolet Trax-ugly"). Yes, utility is compromised, but it still has more utility compared to a sedan or wagon with similar footprint plus much bolder styling and closer to chair-height seating that Americans like. I'm sure BSM and rear camera will be standard (and needed) too.
This can sell in big numbers in US with Toyota branding, especially if they offer AWD as an option (autonews said AWD will be optional).
I marked the 3 ugliest ones as such, of course that is subjective but also quite obvious to those of us with good taste in contemporary automotive design.I agree with most of your comments, though I have yet to see ANY small subcompact CUV in the American market (including this one) that I thought was NOT ugly (or at least awkward-looking).....from the shoe-box Jeep Renegade to the circus-clown Nissan Juke. This one IMO is no exception......though I'd consider its looks more awkward than really ugly like the Juke. And, at least, with the Renegade, the shoe-box styling gives a lot of room inside for its size.
As for the AWD, I can't imagine any small SUV or CUV not offering it at least as an option, if not standard. All-weather traction is one of the prime issues many, if not most, people buy SUVs to start with.
I marked the 3 ugliest ones as such, of course that is subjective but also quite obvious to those of us with good taste in contemporary automotive design.
Yes, it (Juke) sells at a mediocre level, a sales level that Honda (with its HRV) or Toyota (with its C-HR) would be unacceptably too low.Yes....agreed, although even with subjectivity, a lot of people find the Juke's styling disagreeable (or questionable). Yet it still manages to sell.
Also, there is the not-insignificant factor that Toyota is free to make its own economic and design decisions. Nissan, being owned by Renault, is not.Had the Juke's styling been better, the sales could of easily been higher too. Industry leaders like Toyota don't enter a high growth segment such as the one C-HR is launching into with expectation or hope that it just "manages to sell". Maybe that's a good example of why Toyota is an industry leader and Nissan is not.
Yep, aging, questionable styling (and a pair of new glasses LOL) is part of it, but IMO the biggest factor in 2015 was the addition of Honda's HR-V, Mazda's CX-3, and the jeep Renegade/Fiat 500X platform-twins. The HR-V was a hit from Day One (my own brother came very close to signing for one before deciding on a slightly larger Kia Sportage), and the Renegade gave Jeep-lovers a new traditionally-styled subcompact model...something many had been waiting for. Even the Fiat 500X, though not popular nationally, sells here in the D.C. area. Now, of course, comes another competitor from what is arguably the world's largest automaker....and two more upcoming competitors on the way from Hyundai and Kia. The Juke, if not yet toast, is probably on either life-support or borrowed time.....even with Renault calling the shots.Note: Juke sales declined sharply in 2015 (pathetic given the segment is growing), maybe potential buyers got corrective lens finally.
Looks like either Matrix or Venza replacement.
Have you seen and/or checked out an HR-V yourself yet? While, yes, it's underpowered, and the driver's seat in the EX version was not very comfortable for me, it does seem to be well-built, though, with good materials, and solidly-screwed-together.Gasp the Juke grew on me.....I know I know.....the HR-V reviews have been pretty bad and the car looks very cheap. This looks quite premium in comparison.
Toyota has a good shot at a superior product given the somewhat weak competition so far.
\"Weak competition" may (?) be a relative term. This entire vehicle-segment (sub-compact crossover CUV/SUV) has lately been exploding in popularity, at least for downmarket brands............and will probably continue to expand. On the other hand, though, time might (?) eventually prove me wrong on this, but, unlike the mainstream brands, I'm not convinced that premium/upmarket brands can sell significant numbers of B-Class subcompact CUVs, although the slightly larger C-class compact SUVs (MKC, NX, Q3etc...) are selling quite briskly. Those looking at B-class, subcompact CUVs are generally looking for a low price.....and the upmarket brands would not be able to sell at the the same low price as Honda, Toyota, Mazda, etc.......
OK....Thanks for the clarification. I thought you were talking about sales."Weak competition" is talking about mediocre driving attributes of many of the vehicles mentioned in OP's post and my first post.
It was not an attempt to go off on a tangent. I was simply referring to the odds of the the C-HR and similar low-priced CUVs getting upmarket competition from premium brands marketing vehicles of the same size and class, which IMO aren't very good. I don't think that's going to terribly far off -topic, though I'll respect your view on it.And you are going off on tangents again talking about large C-class segments (NX, MKC, NX), upmarket brands (Lexus, Audi, sub par Lincoln), none of which apply to Toyota C-HR which is the actual topic here.