Should you buy one?

That entirely depends on what you’re using the Toyota C-HR for. If you’re after a distinctive but efficient SUV with a raised driving position and an easy drive, it’s well worth a look.

Just don’t expect its driving experience to be as interesting as its looks and, for the love of whatever deity you worship, spec it in a loud colour. Toyota does a range of wild two-tone paint finishes, including a pleasingly lairy orange and black ensemble. It’s worth the extra cash – the standard white paint finish is just depressing.

Ultimately a Cupra Formentor is more practical svelte SUV, while the more powerful petrol versions are better to drive. If you really do need space, then a Skoda Karoq has a bit more room for people and a lot more for their luggage.

What we like

Even without trying the self-charging C-HR returns great fuel economy, and the 1.8-litre hybrid system is refined, if not quite Honda smooth.

The C-HR’s PHEV powertrain is even quieter than the car’s self-charging hybrid systems – and because the electric motor can do more of the work, the CVT doesn’t feel the need to spike the engine revs to the moon when you’re accelerating. That 41-mile electric range is useful for folk living in emissions-controlled areas, too.

What we don’t like

The self-charging version’s 2.0-litre engine is a bit coarse, and no version of the C-HR feels particularly agile or fun. It’s also far less pleasant in the back than the front, with cheap materials and less space than rivals.

The PHEV is a lot heavier than the standard C-HR. It’s also quite expensive when you compare it to the Niro – especially when you consider you can get a Niro that’s better equipped for less money. It also isn’t the most practical car in its class, and you lose a whopping 78 litres of boot space by opting for the extra electrical assistance.