Qashqai Vs Toyota CHR

cojobt

Hi,

The auld boy is looking to buy a new car. Being enticed to go for new diesel Qashqai with generous trade in on 16 Qashqai.

I'm encouraging him to look at hybrid. Best local dealer is Toyota CHR hybrid 1.8.

Which would be more cost efficient over time? He lives in rural Donegal, travels about 15000 miles per year. Makes 2 or 3 30mile return journeys, 2 or 30 50 mile returns and maybe 1 or more 100 m return in a week. Slow moving traffic is not a factor here.

Any idea if there would be any fuel efficiency advantage to the CHR hybrid? Would it be likely he'd be able to make the shorter journeys just on electric drive?

unkel

cojobt wrote: »

Any idea if there would be any fuel efficiency advantage to the CHR hybrid? Would it be likely he'd be able to make the shorter journeys just on electric drive?

No and no. Petrol hybrids are ok if you do a lot of stop start city driving, but they are less efficient than diesel on any trip longer than a few miles. The range of a hybrid on just electric is tiny, no more than a mile in most of them

Some "aul boys" have been buying plug in electric cars recently like the Kia Niro PHEV. It can do something like 30 miles on electric only

And some other "aul boys" have gone the whole hog and bough pure electric cars. The Hyundai Kona can do the guts of 300 miles on electric only. Driving on electric costs only a fraction of driving a petrol / diesel. For every say €10 you spend on diesel, you'd only spend say €2 on electric

zilog_jones

unkel wrote: »

No and no. Petrol hybrids are ok if you do a lot of stop start city driving, but they are less efficient than diesel on any trip longer than a few miles.

This isn't really true any more with the current hybrids, they have comparable fuel consumption to diesels - petrol costs more though. But I agree if you want to be able to do any sort of electric-only driving you need at least a PHEV.

unkel

zilog_jones wrote: »

This isn't really true any more with the current hybrids, they have comparable fuel consumption to diesels

Maybe in some specific circumstances like city driving, twisty or mountainous roads, etc.

But for 120km/h motorway driving, diesels are simply more efficient, there is no doubt about that.

scooby77

Coincidentally I've driven 191 hybrid chr sol ( mother in laws) and 191 qashqai sv premium new 1.3 160 BHP petrol auto (friends) in past fortnight. Both around €35 k. Drove chr few times, qashqai for 40 mins, town and n roads, yesterday. Didnt want push either too hard, engines being very new.
The chr is lovely inside, feels more upmarket. A very composed, easy relaxing drive. Windy bumpy country roads no problem. I did find acceleration a bit sluggish, but again I didn't want to push it and I'm used 2.0 diesel. Rear visibility a little restricted too. But a lovely car for relaxed driving. Showing lifetime 5.5 l/100 kmh so far- should improve.
Qashqai is nice inside too, but not quite as classy. Bit more rear space I'd say though. The handling and ride not quite as good as chr, but performance seems far better. Was very surprised by acceleration, smooth and powerful. Auto box seemed very nice. Didnt check consumption but would say 5.8-6 achievable.
Overall chr more dignified, more economical. Probably better residual. But the engine and gearbox in qashqai are lovely...defo more fun!

cojobt

scooby77 wrote: »

Coincidentally I've driven 191 hybrid chr sol ( mother in laws) and 191 qashqai sv premium new 1.3 160 BHP petrol auto (friends) in past fortnight. Both around €35 k. Drove chr few times, qashqai for 40 mins, town and n roads, yesterday. Didnt want push either too hard, engines being very new.
The chr is lovely inside, feels more upmarket. A very composed, easy relaxing drive. Windy bumpy country roads no problem. I did find acceleration a bit sluggish, but again I didn't want to push it and I'm used 2.0 diesel. Rear visibility a little restricted too. But a lovely car for relaxed driving. Showing lifetime 5.5 l/100 kmh so far- should improve.
Qashqai is nice inside too, but not quite as classy. Bit more rear space I'd say though. The handling and ride not quite as good as chr, but performance seems far better. Was very surprised by acceleration, smooth and powerful. Auto box seemed very nice. Didnt check consumption but would say 5.8-6 achievable.
Overall chr more dignified, more economical. Probably better residual. But the engine and gearbox in qashqai are lovely...defo more fun!

Thanks. It's good to get a side-by-side comparison.

By the sound of things, I think he'd be more comfortable with the Qashqai as he's used to its and won't gain anything particularly with th CHR. Not sure rural Donegal drivers are ready for electric vehicles yet, although 400km+ on the Kona sounds promising. I wonder how it manages in real world use.

scooby77

Incidentally my drive in qashqai was in South Donegal! Well suited to roads there. I'd driven his previous diesel qashqai few times. Much preferred that new petrol to the diesel. As does he. I drive a diesel myself.

unkel

scooby77 wrote: »

Coincidentally I've driven 191 hybrid chr sol ( mother in laws) and 191 qashqai sv premium new 1.3 160 BHP petrol auto (friends) in past fortnight. Both around €35 k.

That's mad money! For a tiny bit more you could have a Kona EV, will save a few grand every year in running costs and will most likely depreciate far less.

Both are considerably larger cars than Kona. As a family car latter might be a non-starter but not otherwise. The planned usage sounded like perfect match for an EV like L40 for example.

unkel

samih wrote: »

Both are considerably larger cars than Kona. As a family car latter might be a non-starter but not otherwise. The planned usage sounded like perfect match for an EV like L40 for example.

Good point, but Kia eNiro is out in a few months and the same size as both of those cars and priced similarly to Kona EV. Madness spending €35k on a small or medium size ICE crossover. Even too much for a PHEV imho. Those people are going to lose massive money in depreciation over the next few years.

scooby77

unkel wrote: »

That's mad money! For a tiny bit more you could have a Kona EV, will save a few grand every year in running costs and will most likely depreciate far less.

Oh I don't disagree. Ive never spent that on any car. That not even top spec qashqai...one could spend €38k.
But money and cars are irrelevant to my MIL and that friend! Every few years they rock up to same Toyota/Nissan garages in current Toyota/Nissan and sign on dotted line. They far from unique in that around here. MIL bought hybrid because its quiet and smooth. Only advice my friend would take from me was to consider auto, as he has back problems.
I'm 100% sure neither will by any car needs plugging in unless absolutely no other choice. MIL cant even keep phone charged.

Alun

I didn't think the 1.3 160hp petrol version of the Qashqai was available here? I was looking on the price lists recently and could only find the lower powered version (140hp) on there.

unkel

scooby77 wrote: »

But money and cars are irrelevant to my MIL and that friend! Every few years they rock up to same Toyota/Nissan garages in current Toyota/Nissan and sign on dotted line. They far from unique in that around here.

I see lots of that too. Usually people who are enjoying very generous old type pensions based on final wage, fair play to them for spending their money

Unfortunately anybody younger than that and not working in the public sector will never see pensions like those again...

zilog_jones

scooby77 wrote: »

I did find acceleration a bit sluggish, but again I didn't want to push it and I'm used 2.0 diesel.

Turn off "Eco" mode, or just press the pedal harder. You're going to need higher revs in any petrol to get more power out of it compared to a diesel, so don't be afraid

unkel wrote: »

Maybe in some specific circumstances like city driving, twisty or mountainous roads, etc.

But for 120km/h motorway driving, diesels are simply more efficient, there is no doubt about that.

Prove it so That gap has been closed so much with the 4th generation Toyota/Lexus hybrids that I'm not sure there is a gap any more. I'd like to see some substantial data on this - things like a single test drive or some journalist's review are too statistically insignificant. I know mine won't match a diesel at motorway speeds, but it's 10 year old tech now.

unkel

zilog_jones wrote: »

Prove it so

Two identical cars (one non plug in hybrid petrol the other diesel), let's say of identical weight (usually diesel car is heavier than petrol car, but in this case there are the extra hybrid components and the battery) driving at the same constant speed over a long distance. But even if there was any weight difference, it would matter very little at a constant motorway speed

At the start of the trip, even with a full battery in the hybrid, it will be empty soon. From then on, the battery is empty, the car is driving at a constant speed so there is no regeneration. In other words the benefits of the hybrid system are gone. So at that stage it is just petrol vs diesel and diesel is more efficient

As I said before, this outcome could be different if you do get some regen as in hilly roads, busy motorways with constant speeding up and slowing down, etc.

But far long distance travel at a constant speed, diesel is more efficient. QED.

uncle_sam_ie

unkel wrote: »

At the start of the trip, even with a full battery in the hybrid, it will be empty soon. From then on, the battery is empty, the car is driving at a constant speed so there is no regeneration. In other words the benefits of the hybrid system are gone. So at that stage it is just petrol vs diesel and diesel is more efficient

That's not how the newer Toyota hybrids work. The battery is continuously being recharged and used as you drive.

unkel

uncle_sam_ie wrote: »

That's not how the newer Toyota hybrids work. The battery is continuously being recharged and used as you drive.

That's even worse in the case of long distance constant speed driving. There are losses between charging and discharging the battery. Losses that you do not have in a normal petrol / diesel setup

uncle_sam_ie

unkel wrote: »

That's even worse in the case of long distance constant speed driving. There are losses between charging and discharging the battery. Losses that you do not have in a normal petrol / diesel setup

I don't understand what you mean by losses.

unkel

To convert energy from the petrol engine to charge the battery incurs losses (it's not 100% efficient). Then to convert energy from the battery to drive the car incurs losses again (also not 100% efficient)

To convert energy directly from the petrol engine to drive the car, incurs less losses, so is more efficient

Hence my argument that is even worse that the battery is continuously being recharged...

zilog_jones

MG1 (which is used to either start the ICE or charge the battery) is an integral part of the transmission so it's always spinning, at anything from like 10,000 to -6,000 RPM - and in certain ICE load conditions, it is efficient to use MG1 to charge the battery. It's not doing it all the time, only when certain conditions are met, but during high speed driving the SOC never goes low - and electric power is always there when needed for assistance.

And this is nothing new - this is how Toyota hybrids always worked.

I think you're making a lot assumptions about how these hybrids work, some of which are definitely not true