Škoda Elroq vs Toyota C-HR+
Biggest differences: Power — Škoda Elroq 286 PS, Toyota C-HR+ 224 PS · Consumption — Škoda Elroq 15.2 kWh/100 km, Toyota C-HR+ 13.4 kWh/100 km · Boot — Škoda Elroq 470 l, Toyota C-HR+ 416 l.
Škoda Elroq
The Škoda Elroq is a compact SUV in the C-segment, offering rear-wheel drive or all-wheel drive options, and power outputs ranging from 170 to 340 horsepower.
Toyota C-HR+
The Toyota C-HR+ is a crossover in the C segment that offers three different powertrain options with varying power outputs and ranges, with a top speed of up to 180 km/h.
Profile against the market: Škoda Elroq vs Toyota C-HR+
Škoda Elroq85
Toyota C-HR+77 kWh
Škoda Elroq or Toyota C-HR+ — who wins where
Škoda Elroq leads 5 to 4
Click a slice to see only those metrics. Each bar shows where the car stands against the whole catalogue.
- WLTP range kmToyota C-HR+ +33 km
- Battery kWhŠkoda Elroq +5 kWh
- Consumption ↓ kWh/100 kmToyota C-HR+ −1.8 kWh/100 km
- Power PSŠkoda Elroq +62 PS
- 0–100 km/h ↓ sŠkoda Elroq −0.8 s
- Top speed km/hŠkoda Elroq +20 km/h
- DC charging kWToyota C-HR+ +15 kW
- AC charging kWNo difference
- Charging ↓ minNo difference
- Weight ↓ kgToyota C-HR+ −160 kg
- Boot lŠkoda Elroq +54 l
Technical data: Škoda Elroq vs Toyota C-HR+
Bold and underline = better value · ↓ = lower is better · — = no data
| Key parameters | Škoda Elroq 85 | Toyota C-HR+ 77 kWh | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Range and energy | |||
| WLTP range | 573 km | 606 km | Toyota +33 km |
| Battery | 77 kWh | 72 kWh | Škoda +5 kWh |
| Consumption ↓ | 15.2 kWh/100 km | 13.4 kWh/100 km | Toyota −1.8 kWh/100 km |
| Charging | |||
| DC charging | 135 kW | 150 kW | Toyota +15 kW |
| AC charging | 11 kW | 11 kW | No difference |
| Charging 10–80% ↓ | 28 min | 28 min | No difference |
| Range per minute of charging | 14.3 km/min | 15.2 km/min | Toyota +0.9 km/min |
| Voltage | 400 V | 400 V | No difference |
| Performance and drivetrain | |||
| Power | 286 PS | 224 PS | Škoda +62 PS |
| 0–100 km/h ↓ | 6.6 s | 7.4 s | Škoda −0.8 s |
| Top speed | 180 km/h | 160 km/h | Škoda +20 km/h |
| Drivetrain | RWD | FWD | different type |
| Practicality | |||
| Weight ↓ | 2050 kg | 1890 kg | Toyota −160 kg |
| Boot | 470 l | 416 l | Škoda +54 l |
| V2L (external power) | No | Yes | only Toyota |
| Length | 4488 mm | 4520 mm | Toyota +32 mm |
| Width | 1884 mm | 1870 mm | Škoda +14 mm |
| Height | 1625 mm | 1595 mm | Škoda +30 mm |
| Wheelbase | 2765 mm | 2750 mm | Škoda +15 mm |
The better value in each row is bold and underlined in the colour of the car. Metrics marked ↓ — lower is better. Dimensions are shown without picking a winner.
Energy cost calculator
Škoda Elroq
Toyota C-HR+
Amounts are in your currency — enter prices in the currency you use.
Video reviews of both models
Škoda Elroq
Toyota C-HR+
Other comparisons in this class: SUV / Crossover, segment C
Frequently asked questions about this comparison
Which has the longer range — Škoda Elroq or Toyota C-HR+?
The Toyota C-HR+ goes further: 606 km WLTP against the 573 km of the Škoda Elroq. That is a difference of 33 km.
Why does the Škoda Elroq have a bigger battery but a shorter range than the Toyota C-HR+?
The Škoda Elroq carries 77 kWh and covers 573 km, while the Toyota C-HR+ with its 72 kWh battery does 606 km. Energy use decides it: 15.2 against 13.4 kWh/100 km.
How do the drivetrains of the Škoda Elroq and the Toyota C-HR+ differ?
The Škoda Elroq has RWD and 286 PS. The Toyota C-HR+ has FWD and 224 PS.
Which one can power appliances from a socket (V2L)?
Only the Toyota C-HR+ — its 72 kWh battery then works as a power source. The Škoda Elroq, with 77 kWh, does not offer it.
Technical data comes from official manufacturer materials and we do our best to verify it, but a manufacturer can change a specification without notice and mistakes do happen. Confirm the figures with a dealer before you buy — we accept no liability for decisions made on the basis of this data. Full disclaimer
Range, consumption and weight are given for the base configuration: manufacturers homologate them as a band of values that depends on wheels and equipment (e.g. 533–592 km), and we take the lightest variant, on the smallest wheels — i.e. the most favourable. The same model on larger wheels will travel a shorter distance.