Comparison Reviews | Overview

Overview

ENDLESS queues of torch-waving peasants demanding an end to exorbitant petrol prices and a reliance on fossil fuels are probably burning up the wrong tree.

The enemy isn’t fuel prices – it’s disposable income as we own more stuff than we ever owned in generations. Consider five-bedroom homes, two cars, air-conditioning, two (or three TVs), a similar number of refrigerators, computers, mobile phones, dishwashers, clothes dryers, air fryers, electric garage doors, annual international holidays and on and on.

These weren’t on a family’s ‘must haves’ list 40 years ago. Fuel was 59 cents a litre back in 1982 when the basic wage was $137.39 and by 2002, fuel was 88.6c/litre and the basic wage was $431.40 then in 2022, to $1.80 a litre and $812.60 respectively.

We are now allocating 5.1 per cent of our basic wage to fuel one car (12,000km a year at 10L/100km) – or almost half the 9.9 per cent of our income consumed by fuel in 1982.

The point is that we’re now tearing our hair out about soaring fuel prices and paying premium prices for EVs and hybrids (yes, also to reduce carbon emissions) when perhaps we could drive less. And if we have to drive less, why not savour the journey?

Here’s two ways to have both – fuel efficiency and fun to drive. Toyota has expanded its hybrid range and compensated for the departing Prius family with the Corolla Cross offered in petrol and hybrid formats plus a choice of front-wheel or all-wheel drive.

Kia hasn’t left the party. It has introduced its second-generation Niro in hybrid and pure electric, both front-drive only.

Both the Toyota and Kia models are claimed to be SUVs but crossovers – blurring the wagon and hatch style – is a more accurate description.

Price and Performance

We’re spoilt for choice here with Toyota launching its new Corolla Cross jammed between the C-HR and RAV4 in its line-up and priced from $33,000 to $49,050 plus on-road costs.

Of the eight variants to choose from, five are hybrids, including the front-drive Atmos hybrid tested here at $46,050, plus on-road costs.

Look closely and the Corolla Cross pushes hard against the RAV4 in pricing, giving away little to the bigger, better tow-rated, more accommodating and similarly fuel-efficient RAV4 that starts only $1400 dearer at $34,400 + ORC. Even the top-spec RAV4 at $52,700 isn’t too far from the $49,050 + ORC Corolla Cross flagship.

Toyota appears to have picked up the Atmos badge after tripping on a Greek dictionary but it’s more likely attributed to the non-turbo engine. Remember the days when testosterone-infused cars had a “turbo” badge? Turbocharging is now so common that Toyota appears to have acknowledged the non-turbo “atmo” fraternity.

Kia puts its electrified Niro alongside the purely petrol Seltos (six variants hybrids) and offers four versions – two hybrid and two full-EV – with prices from $44,380 to $72,100 (plus on-road costs). The test car here is a Niro GT-Line Hybrid at $50,030 + ORC.

The test cars have a price difference of $3980 which, all being equal, puts the sway towards Toyota. But as in life, nothing is equal.

Firstly, the Corolla Cross claims combined consumption of 4.3L/100km and averaged 4.8L/100km during our test. It’s a good result but sucks from a piddly 36-litre fuel tank that equates to an urban-rural range of about 750km. However, road conditions and the weight of the driver’s right foot naturally affect consumption so on some routes, the Cross sipped only 3.9 L/100km.

By comparison, the Niro averaged 4.3L/100km (Kia claims 4.0) for a range of 975km from its 42-litre tank. Again, owners may see high threes given more ideal conditions.

Toyota gets power from a 2.0-litre atmo (sorry couldn’t help it) petrol engine mated Prius style to an electric motor that results in total power output of 146kW. Individually, the engine claims 112kW/190Nm and the motor is a very healthy 83kW/206Nm.

All this goes to the front wheels through an automatic continuously variable transmission (CVT), again, repeating the formula adopted by other Toyota hybrids.

Toyota uses a lithium-ion battery with the 2.0-litre hybrid we get in Australia and, in other markets that have a 1.8-litre engine, a nickel metal-hydride battery.

Kia does it a bit differently and is a better driving vehicle for it, even though it’s down on power compared with the Cross. Kia’s 1.6-litre non-turbo has a modest 77.2kW/144Nm and the motor (fed by a lithium-ion battery) is 32kW/170Nm.

The combination results in peak power of 104kW (torque figures can’t be accurately combined because they peak at completely different revolutions).

Compared to the Corolla Cross on paper, the Niro appears gutless. Actually, it’s sprightly beyond its specifications and feels as quick as the Toyota (even though it’s not) mainly because of less engine intrusion under acceleration. For the record, the Niro runs 0-100km/h in 10.4 seconds and the Cross is a rapid 7.8 seconds.

Much of the driving appeal of the Niro comes from the six-speed dual-clutch transmission that doesn’t ‘flare’ the engine like the Toyota’s CVT.

It’s a good thing having less engine noise under acceleration but the Niro isn’t perfect – its small battery needs refreshing regularly and the petrol engine will occasionally hold its revs high to charge it up.

The Corolla Cross sits on the same TNGA-C platform and shares its 2640mm wheelbase with the Corolla sedan, Toyota C-HR and Lexus UX.

In order to save on space (and cost), the 2WD Corolla Cross has a torsion beam rear suspension and differs from the Corolla sedan, UX, C-HR and AWD Cross variants that have an independent rear end.

The Niro carries over the drivetrain from the short-lived (in Australia, where it was here for only about a year) predecessor but the K3 platform is all new, shared with Hyundai’s sweet-driving i30 sedan.

One benefit of this platform is a lower centre of gravity and it is lighter and more rigid than the outgoing J platform used in the old Niro, among other Kia and Hyundai models including the Rio and Venue respectively. It also has a longer wheelbase than the Corolla Cross at 2720mm (up 80mm) but the body is 40mm shorter.

The result of all this is a very predictable ride and handling pack, improved no doubt by Kia Australia’s bespoke chassis tuning that neatly measures accurate cornering with great bump absorption.

Packaging and Equipment

Both SUVs have a silhouette that defines the genre and, sadly, pushes all the entrants into the same nondescript level of design.

Subjectively, the Cross is an attractive, well-balanced Corolla wagon – well, that compliment goes to the guys who designed everything aft of the windscreen pillar.

The nose follows the lead of Toyota’s US-inspired SUV designers that grew up with heavy-fronted trucks. The resulting design isn’t really pretty but shows the family similarity to the down-mouthed RAV4 and even to the HiLux.

By comparison, the Niro is pretty and contemporary from all angles. Its predecessor was akin to the styling blandness of a domestic appliance but this newbie is fresh and crisp and gets a lot of second glances.

Inside, pretty much everything in the Cross comes from the Corolla parts bin, including the dashboard and hence reinforces its nameplate. Although some dash bits look like they’ve been tacked on, the ergonomics are very good and clarity of the screens and access to the few buttons (most functions are touch control in the screen) are easy to use.

It’s similar in the Kia camp. The Niro replicates many of the flagship Kia EV6 for interior design features and equipment levels, including the impressively high level of perceived quality – a real fudgy word-duo that implies the quality and look of the product looks well above its price.

There’s a comprehensive safety kit list, great entertainment and infotainment gear – including in-built Apple CarPlay and Android Auto – along with a fluid dash design, an efficient cabin space and nice features.

You get a six-speaker audio system with DAB+ digital radio, sat-nav with 10 years of traffic info and free map updates, 10.25-inch driver screen plus a 10.25-inch infotainment touchscreen, and 10-inch head-up display.

Safety equipment is comprehensive, including all the usual suspects plus safe exit assist (stops you opening the door on cars and cyclists), auto child locks on the rear doors, junction-turning autonomous braking, and e-call that contacts the emergency services automatically in case of an accident or manually via an SOS button.

The Cross has similar gear but ups the ante with a nine-speaker JBL audio (also with digital radio), 12-inch info display and 10.5-inch touchscreen, Apple CarPlay (wireless) and Android Auto (wired) are provided, as is a clever ‘see through’ moving view parking monitor. There’s also 12 months complimentary access to Toyota Connected Services for security and safety features.

A longer wheelbase in the Niro means more rear legroom compared with the Cross, which is a bit short. Luggage space in the Niro is 425 litres compared with the Toyota’s 414 litres.

Conclusion

If these were running the Melbourne Cup they’d both be ahead of the pack, neck-and-neck towards the finish. Jump from one to another and spend a week on this exercise and they both impress with their simplicity of function and usable space.

But the Kia is bigger inside – acutely noticed when the baby seat for the two-year-old grandson allowed him to kick the back of the Cross’ passenger seat (Kids! Sheesh. Don’t they ever stop doing this?) but was a bit short of connecting with the seat of the Niro – and was wider, improving elbow room for the front passengers.

If you want a bigger Cross, buy the RAV4. If you want a city runabout with excellent economy, buy either the Cross or the Niro.

Our favourite? The Niro.

Pricing and specifications (as tested):

Dimensions and data (as tested):

Aftersales support (as tested):

Keyword: Comparison Reviews | Overview