Personally I looked at the icon trim specs on the corrolla and thought no way, would of had to of been design or excel trim for me, i get it’s £0 ap but, considering the gcb of £600 as well all trims are pretty affordable without the roof or bi tone, tech packs etc, which looks nice but do i really wanna pay extra for it. I’d wanna pay extra for comfort and saftey and assists etc etc.
Thats me, just trying to be objective. give an alternative view also it looks tiny. But good price compared to the corrolla. Hope the test drive goes well.. Deffo worth comparing the trim levels. As the ch-r you looking at is in design spec why not the yaris..I ain’t looked but i imagine they pretty much the same level jumps in trim.
Honda base spec cars are very basic. What i do find intresting is that every car i have got on the scheme the lower trims have cost more ap than higher trims, maybe not the highest trim, but it seems right now basic is cheaper.. after all we gotta drive the car for 3 years so i few hundred quids imo over the 36 months is not alot to get a much better spec’d car.
Another is tyres, Sometimes i’d rather have bigger ones as then there is more rubber in contact with the ground, in bad conditions that helps and i don’t think comfort is that worse, it’s only if they real low profile and then car will have a stiffer set up for them as well, but on a yaris not so much.
Plus i don’t really see it making much difference in mpg in the real world. So many varibles. On a trip to london i got 51mpg using acc over 139 miles, better than the suggested figures and not far off what i’d get from the diesel golf doing the same journey and the same on a trip to preston although was in sport mode cost pennys more than in the golf.
The reason i mention it is small cars do better around town but sometimes at high speeds, rev higher and cost more than one would think they would mpg. so deffo worth looking at reseting the trip / eco and seeing. What you actaully get. driving how you would normally.