Home Article Comparison Tests

Toyota iQ vs. Citroen C3

Small or smaller?
Almost the same price, similar engine output, same target group. But while Toyota iQ, with its miniature image is mainly brings Citroen C3 also modernized with more value.

In a nutshell
[+] Both: good space forward, safe chassis iQ: Very small turning circle, good security concept C3: Fully fledged four-seater, decent trunk space, easy operation

Both [-]: limited rear visibility, high consumption iQ: Moderate braking power at high speed, sensitive plastic, defects in processing, no four of the trunk, high price C3: Spongy Steering

If you believe the statistics, then the Germans are getting fatter - and their cars getting smaller. "Downsizing" calls that the Anglophile marketing strategists in the automotive industry: It prefers to face a car in the garage, the one number is less than the previous one - but peppered with electronic aids, and please does not cheap in the atmosphere. Although it should fit into tight parking spaces of the inner cities - but at least on the front seats offer enough space to breathe. The manufacturers use these trends now with diligence.

Example Toyota iQ and Citroen C3. Both cost roughly the same amount in the basic version (iQ: 12.900 €, C3: 12.700 €). Both supply about the same sized base gasoline under the hood (IQ: 68 hp, C3: 60 hp). And to make both chic and lifestyle. Both charge a premium in their class claim. And both feel good, especially in the cities - as the iQ micro car, the C3 as Compact. Only one question remains: Is not too puny Micro - especially if you get almost the same price more commercial space, yet a similar commercial value?

Toyota's tiny flirts with the fact that it provides maximum space in the smallest sizes. With less than three meters in length, it is almost three feet shorter than the Frenchman. But the real advantages over the C3 result from this little. When turning circle, for example, the short wheelbase makes it possible for the iQ: 7.8 meters reach almost always to turn into side streets in one go. And always, nimble and agile in order to weasel out on the town to be. The Citroen can not keep up with its 10.2 meters not accrue.

It can be divided into two meters between the front and rear of the iQ does not even bother to squeeze in, which Toyota promises in its prospectus. As a 4-seater iQ runs there. Forward although there are in fact amazingly ample space for two. But only with much gentleness can it possibly can go through a three-seater - because Toyota uses a smart trick: The dashboard is on the passenger side as strong pre-steady direction of the windshield, that the seat there to be pushed forward, as it with the driver's seat be possible. Rear right is so freely enough space to transport a third passenger, at least over shorter distances or less unscathed. Behind the driver's seat, however, is not even a first grader without a desolate howl of protest thread.

Moreover, if all rear backrests are folded up, and leave room for 32 liters. That is just enough for a big pack Tempo tissues. Those who use the iQ as a 2-seater and the rear backrest folds down, which can look forward to at least about 238 liters of luggage space - and think about where he puts the two headrests, which he must pull out, so that everything fits halfway. Which is really handy Klapperei but also not: There is now a solid wall to the volume - the brakes can sometimes load between the driver and front passenger seat forward by shooting?

The C3, however, with its significantly longer wheelbase 50cm occupant friendly. Front, it provides a similar amount of space as the iQ - but can actually sit behind two other passengers. Not luxurious, but also no worse than the VW Polo & Co. small car just usual. The access to the rear is done in the C3 comfortably over the two rear doors - the iQ-door you have to squeeze past the front seats. And for 300 liters of luggage space remains in the trunk of the French, too. Toyota provides as many times until roughly the Yaris. Secured against the front brake air to the load is also at C3.

Better parking?
Uses of the missing meters iQ at least still in the fight for scarce parking spaces? Not really. That in some cities tacitly condoned diagonal parking as the Smart is not - it's not that the Japanese short enough. So does the iQ as the C3 a normal parking space. Even then, the lack of meters long times hardly an advantage: Parking is usually marked so that there is enough room for both. Even when parking even both do not take much: Confusing the back are all two. What the iQ well because of the bustling turning circle at the bottom, makes him the C3 takes very smooth with the steering again. But then the nerves during normal driving by their vague fuzziness.

The driving is. As you are traveling with the two, if you do not just in park? Rather tedious. Both the iQ and the C3 are respectively the smallest engine offered is not really pleasurable to drive from A to B. The C3 has to settle for the 1.1-liter gasoline engine with 44 kW/60 hp, the iQ comes with a 1.0-liter engine and rolled 50 kW/68 hp. That the Toyota is a bit faster in the slippers is not only to the 8 hp more - the mini-motor also has a good 200 pounds less car in which he must toil. Even the official factory specifications prior warning: The iQ takes to accelerate from 0 to 100 km / h 14.7 seconds, the C3 strives for eternal felt from 18.3 seconds.

The paper confirms the everyday. While the Toyota reasonably smoothly in the traffic with floats, the C3 is sometimes a problem. Even slight inclines you need in the 5th or sometimes in the 4th Gang try to do not occur. On the highway you have to already use the whole length, to be faster than the oncoming truck from behind and overtaking on the highway? Only identify the horizon if no oncoming traffic. The official top speed is at C3 rather theoretical: The alleged 155 km / h can be achieved only with a lot of start-up and downhill times. Puck: The speedometer scale goes up to 210 km / h. The iQ comes to the promised 150 km / h approach better.

Small cars, big thirst
As consumption is up for the Citroen C3, on average 5.9 liters per 100 km, Toyota iQ promises to significantly lower with 4.3 liters. Both values are not creating - not least because both provoke high-revving driving. According to the Toyota 5.6 liter swallowed in the test well, the Citroen was to keep only with goodwill under 7.5 liters. This is not just a little of both.

Still missing and the subject of interior quality. Who in this modern-style on the outside very Citroen C3 takes place, the feeling in another car: stale boredom, where you look? Not so with the iQ. The triangular panel on the center console of a boldly curved hood covered round instruments - not exactly revolutionary, but clearly more pleasing. And much less practical than the C3. Because the boredom ensures that everything can be easily found and operated on bumpy roads. IQ is already in the operation of the radio while driving is an unreasonable demand, the adjustment knob on the steering wheel one fumble.

The Japanese are not very carefully handled in the iQ with the quality: The built around plastic forgives no rudeness - even slight wiper perpetuate about themselves with the watch promptly. And the inner mirror is not glued to the inside of the windshield, but only put on a metal rail. Who wants to adjust the angle of reflection has, every now and then the full mirror in her hand. Toyota at least one would not expect that. Since the Citroen C3 but appears clearly superior.

Conclusion: If more emphasis on style and image and places it understands primarily as agile two-seater for the city, which is well served with the Toyota iQ. But he also paid a fairly rich price. For the same money supply, the Citroen C3 significantly more value, however, comes in spite of improvements in optical design can not match the individuality of the iQ and its attention value. Those who opt for the C3, however, should at least enter one number higher than the annoyingly lame entry-level engine.


Tags : Toyota iQ, Citroen C3, car test, cars
Category : Comparison Tests

You Can Leave With Comment

Latest Comment

Related Article:

Comparison: Jeep Wrangler vs. Land Rover Defender Both are stalwarts, both have great tradition and they both belong in the area for good to take what you can. Even the toughest terrain acrobatics does not constitute Defender jeep still major problem...
Comparison: Ford Mustang vs. Nissan 350 Z There are cars that excite at first glance. Other dragging one only after a certain time in their spell. Nissan 350 Z and Mercedes CLK, 500 such cars. The first offers avant-garde design and pure driv...
Comparison: Jeep Cherokee vs. Opel Frontera In contrast to the exclusively available with four doors of the Cherokee Frontera with three and five doors is getting. A good choice is the special edition Opel Frontera Olympus. Even better equipped...
Citroen C5 Tourer vs. Skoda Superb Combi Traveling companion Sedans have hardly a chance against the suits. Family, profession and hobby can also be used in Citroen C5 Tourer and Skoda Superb Combi brings all under one roof. Where better? ...
BMW 7 Series vs. Mercedes-Benz S-Class Big in America The German manufacturers have missed the hybrid trend thoroughly. BMW 7 Series and now must roll up Mercedes-Benz S-Class rear of the field - especially in the United States. ...
Focus RS vs. Abt Golf GTI Frontal attack Who wants to take on the compact sports what must beat the Golf GTI. Since that is somewhat underpowered with 210 hp, will be the Ford Focus RS is equal to the Abt version with 300 ho...