The Toyota Urban Cruiser is back, and things are slightly different this time around.
Now fully electric, the small hatchback looks similar to the Suzuki eVitara, and there’s good reason for that. Both are essentially the same car and are mechanically identical beyond their bespoke styling.
Suzuki and Toyota have some history with sharing technology. The Suzuki Swace estate is basically a Toyota Corolla, while the Across SUV is a rebadged Toyota RAV4.
The Urban Cruiser aims to give Toyota a much-needed boost in the small electric car segment, which is arguably the most oversaturated market at present.
Rivals include the Citroen ë-C3 Aircross, the Renault 4 and the Ford Puma Gen-E, while rivals from China, such as Jaecoo and BYD, are also closing in.
So, does the Urban Cruiser stand out in a crowded class, or does it get lost among a host of talented rivals? Let’s find out.
The majority of the development for the Urban Cruiser was done by Suzuki, with some input from Toyota when it came to the car’s platform. There isn’t any real mechanical difference between this car and Suzuki’s eVitara.
Inside, the Urban Cruiser is also very similar to the Suzuki. That means material quality is mostly good, with a solid feel.
That said, there is a little bit too much shiny, scratchy black plastic for our tastes.
There’s a decent level of storage, with the cocooning floating centre console hiding a useful tray underneath.
The infotainment system is notably frustrating, feeling incomplete and slow to respond.
Essential functions are often hidden deep within sub-menus, and even simple adjustments, like turning off the speed limit warning or adjusting the heated seats, are preceded by a brief animation.
However, the system is partially redeemed by the small panel of physical controls for key features like temperature, and the appealing, user-friendly digital driver's display.
The 40/20/40-split folding rear bench seat can be slid forward or back, offering a choice between competitive rear legroom and decent boot space, but not both simultaneously.
With the seats in the rearmost position, the boot capacity is a small 238 litres. While rear knee room is adequate, head and foot room are compromised.
Moving the seats to their foremost position only increases boot capacity to 310 litres, at which point the rear seats are practically unusable for anyone larger than a toddler.
On the positive side, there is some underfloor storage, and the middle rear seat is practical. There is no front trunk to speak of.
Exterior design is slightly different, though. The Urban Cruiser uses Toyota’s ‘hammerhead’ design ethos at the front, which certainly looks sleeker than the Suzuki.
The Urban Cruiser is offered with the choice of two batteries. The smaller, entry-level car measures 49kWh and offers 344km of range (214 miles). A bigger 61kWh battery has a more usable 426km (265 miles) of range.
All versions of the Urban Cruiser are front-wheel drive. The smaller battery model has 142bhp, while the 61kWh car produces 172bhp.
We spent most of our time in the more powerful car, which travels from 0-100kph in 8.7 seconds. Power delivery is smooth if lacking entirely in excitement, but the Urban Cruiser shouldn’t be described as slow.
Our car, a mid-range Design specification, used 18-inch alloy wheels.
Visibility is good because of the Urban Cruiser’s high stance, but we were left disappointed by the ride quality. It crashed into potholes and felt unbalanced across most surfaces.
The car frequently feels oversprung and underdamped; it fidgets constantly over road imperfections and fails to settle before encountering the next one. Other cars, such as the Renault 5, are far more comfortable.
The Urban Cruiser performs significantly better on the motorway. The cabin is quiet for this class of car, and the seats remain comfortable over long journeys. While the suspension settles down, it still isn't great.
The grip on offer is good, and the steering is actually quite nice, feeling direct and making the car easy to place on the road, so it’s a shame the overworked suspension can’t keep the car as flat as you would like in corners, considering the low levels of comfort on offer.
The ADAS are quite well integrated into the driving experience, not being overly loud or aggressive. That said, if you want to turn them off, you will have to use the confusing, frustratingly slow touchscreen.
Now we get to the Urban Cruiser’s biggest problem: efficiency.
On paper, its stats aren’t particularly impressive, and could be compared to an electric car from five years ago. Toyota claims 15.1kWh/100km (4.1mpkWh), which is quite unremarkable.
Out on the road, we found efficiency to be disappointing. We averaged a thirsty 27kWh/100km (2.4mpkWh), which is really poor for a car of the Urban Cruiser’s size.
Motorway performance was especially poor, while town driving offered little improvement. What’s even more disappointing is that these scores are actually improved thanks to a heat pump.
The charging speeds are also disappointing, with a maximum of 80kW for the 49kWh model and 125kW for the 61kWh version. Toyota's estimated 10-80% charging time of 45 minutes further lags behind competitors.
Like its 15-year-old namesake, the new Urban Cruiser looks set to be unremarkable in a market where it cannot afford to be.
It faces a difficult battle against more competent rivals, hindered by a cramped interior, an uncomfortable ride, obsolete infotainment technology, and weak efficiency.
Those factors make the Urban Cruiser very difficult to recommend. Most rivals are far cheaper, too.
In one of the most crowded segments of the market, the Urban Cruiser doesn’t live up to the standard we expect from Toyota. It’s not going to cut it, and if we were Toyota, we would be sending it straight back to Suzuki.
