Toyota C-HR vs Toyota LandCruiser 300

Price and cost per week

Safety Rundown

ANCAP lists the Toyota C-HR at 5 stars (2024) and the Toyota LandCruiser 300 at 5 stars (2022). ANCAP tested these in different years (2024 vs 2022). Its criteria get stricter about every three years, so the stars are not like for like. Adult occupant protection scored 85% for the Toyota C-HR and 89% for the Toyota LandCruiser 300, under different test years.

Where the two diverge is in active safety technology. We can confirm 6 of 10 key ADAS systems on the Toyota LandCruiser 300, against 5 on the Toyota C-HR.

Both include the essentials: lane keep assist, adaptive cruise control, a reversing camera. Airbag count is 10 in the Toyota C-HR and 10 in the Toyota LandCruiser 300.

Recalls on our record

A recall covers the builds its notice lists, not every car of a model. Check your VIN at vehiclerecalls.gov.au.

Feature Showdown

The Toyota C-HR features a 12.3-inch touchscreen paired with a 7-inch digital dash, while the Toyota LandCruiser 300 gets a 8-inch display and 7-inch instruments. Apple CarPlay and Android Auto are standard across both.

Drivetrain

The Toyota C-HR uses a Petrol producing 103kW and 142Nm of torque, sent through a automatic to a FWD layout. It covers the 0-100km/h sprint in 10.2 seconds.

The Toyota LandCruiser 300 responds with a Diesel Twin-Turbo V6 making 227kW and 700Nm, paired to a automatic driving all four wheels. It gets to 100km/h in 8.6 seconds.

The Toyota LandCruiser 300 has the clear power advantage at 227kW vs 103kW. In the 0-100 sprint (manufacturer-claimed), the Toyota LandCruiser 300 is 1.6s quicker. For most buyers, the way each car feels day-to-day matters more than outright acceleration.

Space & Comfort

The Toyota C-HR measures 4,362mm long on a 2,640mm wheelbase, 618mm shorter than the Toyota LandCruiser 300 at 4,980mm (2,850mm wheelbase). The longer wheelbase on the Toyota LandCruiser 300 generally means more rear legroom.

Boot space is 388L in the Toyota C-HR and 700L in the Toyota LandCruiser 300, giving the Toyota LandCruiser 300 a 312L advantage.

For towing, the Toyota LandCruiser 300 leads with a 3,500kg braked capacity vs 725kg. That 2,775kg difference matters if you regularly hitch up.

Neither U-turns in one sweep on a 7 m local street (both need a three-point turn); the Toyota C-HR's turning circle is 1.4 m tighter, 10.4 m against 11.8 m kerb to kerb. The street estimate is indicative, worked from the published turning circles.

Cost to own

At 15,000 km a year, fuel for the Toyota C-HR costs about $1,140 a year (4 L/100km) and fuel for the Toyota LandCruiser 300 about $2,537 a year (8.9 L/100km), at $1.90 a litre and 32c a kWh. That is $1,397 a year less for the Toyota C-HR.

Warranty: 5 years / Unlimited (Toyota C-HR) and 5 years / Unlimited (Toyota LandCruiser 300).

Where each one leads

The Toyota C-HR: the lower starting price ($46,940 against $97,990) and lower fuel or energy costs on our assumptions ($1,140 a year against $2,537).

The Toyota LandCruiser 300: more power (227kW against 103kW), the bigger boot with the seats up (700L against 388L) and the higher braked towing limit (3,500kg against 725kg).

The Verdict

Toyota C-HR scores higher, 80 vs 76

The Toyota C-HR scores 80 to the Toyota LandCruiser 300's 76 on the CarSorted Score, and leads 2 of the 6 spec rows that separate them, at the lower price. The biggest gaps: fuel economy (Toyota C-HR ahead by 45 points), practicality (Toyota LandCruiser 300 ahead by 42 points), performance (Toyota LandCruiser 300 ahead by 38 points). At 15,000 km a year, fuel for the Toyota C-HR costs about $1,397 less (4 L/100km against 8.9 L/100km, at $1.90 a litre). Boot space with the seats up: 388L in the Toyota C-HR, 700L in the Toyota LandCruiser 300.

Common questions