Toyota Raize: which version to buy — 1.0 CVT FWD vs 1.0 CVT AWD
The Toyota Raize has one generation (from 2019-11-01, still in production) and two versions, both named 1.0 CVT. They share the same 98 hp turbo gasoline engine and Variable gearbox. The choice is not “which engine,” it is FWD versus AWD: the AWD 1.0 CVT adds 70 kg of kerb weight, 0.3 L/100 km on the mixed cycle, and 8 g/km of CO2.
The Toyota Raize has one generation (from 2019-11-01, still in production) and two versions, both named 1.0 CVT. They share the same 98 hp turbo gasoline engine and Variable gearbox. The choice is not “which engine,” it is FWD versus AWD: the AWD 1.0 CVT adds 70 kg of kerb weight, 0.3 L/100 km on the mixed cycle, and 8 g/km of CO2. 0–100 km/h, top speed, gross weight, and wheel sizes are not measured for either version.
Specs: both 1.0 CVT versions side by side
| Version | hp | Nm | Displacement | Fuel | Cylinders | Layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.0 CVT (FWD) | 98 | 140 | 996 | Gasoline | 3 | Inline | Turbo | Variable | FWD |
| 1.0 CVT (AWD) | 98 | 140 | 996 | Gasoline | 3 | Inline | Turbo | Variable | AWD |
Power is 72 kW at 6000 rpm and torque 140 Nm at 4000 rpm on both 1.0 CVT versions. Compression ratio is 9.5, bore × stroke 71 × 83.9, multi-point distributed injection, front transverse engine, 4 valves per cylinder, fuel grade 92. Euro 6 on both. Body for the generation: SUV 5-doors.
What the extra drive actually costs in numbers
The AWD 1.0 CVT kerb weight is 1040 kg versus 970 kg on the FWD 1.0 CVT. That is +70 kg, or about 7.2% heavier.
Power-to-weight from the given figures:
- FWD 1.0 CVT: 970 ÷ 98 = 9.90 kg per hp
- AWD 1.0 CVT: 1040 ÷ 98 = 10.61 kg per hp
The AWD car carries 0.71 kg more per horsepower. Specific output of the shared 996 cm³ turbo engine is 98 ÷ 0.996 ≈ 98.4 hp per litre and 140 ÷ 0.996 ≈ 140.6 Nm per litre — identical on both versions because the engine line is the same.
Fuel use (L/100 km):
| Cycle | 1.0 CVT FWD | 1.0 CVT AWD | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| City | 6.9 | 7.5 | +0.6 |
| Highway | 5.0 | 5.3 | +0.3 |
| Mixed | 5.4 | 5.7 | +0.3 |
AWD mixed use is +5.6% versus FWD (0.3 ÷ 5.4). City is the larger gap: +8.7% (0.6 ÷ 6.9). Highway is +6.0% (0.3 ÷ 5.0).
CO2: 125 g/km (FWD 1.0 CVT) versus 133 g/km (AWD 1.0 CVT) — +8 g/km, +6.4%. Tank volume is 36 L on both, so mixed-cycle range from the given consumption is 36 ÷ 5.4 × 100 ≈ 667 km (FWD) versus 36 ÷ 5.7 × 100 ≈ 632 km (AWD): about 35 km less on AWD per tank. City range: 36 ÷ 6.9 × 100 ≈ 522 km (FWD) versus 36 ÷ 7.5 × 100 ≈ 480 km (AWD). Highway: 36 ÷ 5.0 × 100 = 720 km versus 36 ÷ 5.3 × 100 ≈ 679 km.
Ground clearance is 185 mm on both. Front suspension Independent, spring; rear Semi-independent, torsion; front brakes Ventilated disc; rear Drum — same list on both 1.0 CVT versions. Wheels: not measured. Gross weight: not measured.
Generations: there is only one, so nothing “changed later”
The Raize has 1 generation, key 5733, from 2019-11-01, stop not measured (still listed as current). Body: SUV 5-doors. Modifications in the data: 2, both 1.0 CVT, both starting 2019-11-01, both still open. There is no second generation to wait for in this dataset, and no restyling split. Buying “the later generation” is not a choice here: the comparison is only FWD 1.0 CVT versus AWD 1.0 CVT.
Performance: 0–100 and top speed are not measured
0–100 km/h is not measured for the FWD 1.0 CVT and not measured for the AWD 1.0 CVT. Maximum speed is not measured for both. Do not treat silence as “this SUV has no speed figure in real life”; in this catalogue those fields are empty.
What you can rank without inventing a stopwatch: the FWD 1.0 CVT is the lighter car (970 kg vs 1040 kg) with the same 98 hp and 140 Nm, so its kg-per-hp figure is the better of the two. That is an arithmetic ranking, not a measured 0–100.
Dimensions, weight, tank, mpg-style economy
Kerb weight is the main dimensional difference in the data: 970 kg (FWD 1.0 CVT) vs 1040 kg (AWD 1.0 CVT). Gross weight is not measured on both, so payload cannot be calculated. Ground clearance 185 mm on both. Fuel tank 36 L on both. Wheel sizes not measured on both.
Economy in catalogue units (L/100 km, not US mpg conversion invented outside the data): mixed 5.4 vs 5.7; city 6.9 vs 7.5; highway 5.0 vs 5.3. If most of your kilometres are city, the FWD 1.0 CVT gap is 0.6 L/100 km; on highway it shrinks to 0.3 L/100 km.
Which 1.0 CVT to choose
Choose the FWD 1.0 CVT if you want the lower kerb weight (970 kg), the better kg/hp (9.90 vs 10.61), lower mixed/city/highway use (5.4 / 6.9 / 5.0), lower CO2 (125 vs 133), and ~35 km more mixed range from the same 36 L tank. Engine, gearbox (Variable), clearance (185 mm), Euro 6, turbo 996 cm³ 3-cylinder Inline layout, and the name 1.0 CVT are the same as AWD.
Choose the AWD 1.0 CVT if you need AWD and will accept +70 kg, +0.3 L/100 km mixed, +0.6 city, +8 g/km CO2, and 10.61 kg per hp. You do not get more horsepower, more torque, a larger tank, more clearance, or a different gearbox: those figures match the FWD 1.0 CVT. The extra hardware in the data is drive type and the mass/economy that come with it.
There is no third engine and no second generation in this model’s data. Both versions are 1.0 CVT; tell them apart by FWD versus AWD (and by 970 vs 1040 kg, 5.4 vs 5.7 mixed, 125 vs 133 g/km CO2). Prices are not in the data, so “what the extra money buys” can only be stated as what the extra drive and 70 kg buy: AWD, not more power.