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 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....agreed, although even with subjectivity, a lot of people find the Juke's styling disagreeable (or questionable). Yet it still manages to sell.
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.
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.
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.......
"Weak competition" is talking about mediocre driving attributes of many of the vehicles mentioned in OP's post and my first post.
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.