Why Not Vios and Why Not the City; the disadvantage

**workaholic** · August 22nd, 2008 08:22 PM

Hi Guys Ive heard a lot of good stuff about the vios and the city. Im choosing between the Vios 1.3 E and City 1.3 S. Ive read most of the comparison here between the 2 cars but what I want to know now would be the disadvantage of buying vios or the city. So please answer these questions so I can weight out which would have more disadvantages if one or the other is bought.

Why Should you Not buy a Vios?
Why should you not buy a City?

thanks.

**mm15744** · August 23rd, 2008 02:04 AM

workaholic, read this link...answers are here.....

www.waukster.com/honda-city-vs-toyota-vios/

**tidus1203** · August 23rd, 2008 06:44 AM

For the City the disadvantage is there will be a NEW City early next year (crosses fingers)

**rna800** · August 23rd, 2008 08:11 AM

I have friends who own Vios and City. Aesthetically speaking, for me, the Vios wins by a mile. The back part of the City just doesn't grow on me. It doesn't look appealing compared to the slick design of Vios.

As for your question "Why not", I would answer it based on my personal opinion. Though Vios looks way better, I just couldn't accept the fact that it's image is known as a public transportation, not to mention that cops use them too. Try going to NAIA parking and you'll see how many Vios cabs park there. It's like a showroom of Toyota filled with yellow Vios. I couldn't imagine driving a brand new Vios and all of a sudden a Vios cab is just right beside me.

For durability, my other cars are Honda and Toyota and all I could say is that they are both durable. It just depends on how you will treat your car. Easy on the gas pedal and proper maintenance, for sure it will last a long time. Even if you own a durable car but you drive like those PUVs wherein they treat their vehicles like a race car and they run like there is no tomorrow, give it a year or two and for sure it will start giving you headaches. Same goes for the fuel consumption.

I don't have any grudge on Vios. Side by side, I would choose that over the City coz of its looks. But since it's already like a symbol of a cab and a police car, I would consider looking for alternative.

Why not Vios? It's known as cabs and police cars.
Why not City? I don't like how the rear end looks.

**jaguarpw** · August 23rd, 2008 12:24 PM

Why not Vios? Interior space and trunk space are limited. Instrument cluster located in the center.

Why not City? I don't see why not. Although for a few gran more, you can get a Civic already which is awesome

**Jun aka Pekto** · August 23rd, 2008 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by rna800

As for your question "Why not", I would answer it based on my personal opinion. Though Vios looks way better, I just couldn't accept the fact that it's image is known as a public transportation, not to mention that cops use them too.

I have a hard time understanding this logic. It seems peculiar to Pinoys although I've never thought of such a thing.

If it's not a taxi, it's a rental car. I mean geez, I've seen Mazda 6's, CR-V's, Land Cruisers, etc in rental fleets here.

I've also seen Audi's, BMW's, and MB's used as rental cars when I went to Europe last year. There's even MB's used as taxis in Germany. I doubt people regard them any lesser if they were used as "public transportation".

*Sigh* Beats me. Oh well.

**Gerbo** · August 24th, 2008 06:38 PM

Well, both are nice vehicles but the Vios is selling more than the City. So more people own it than any car model---best-selling = popular = common.

Some people don't like being pedestrian. I don't know if this is a disadvantage. Somehow perception lang ito.

There's always 2 sides to things. In this case, being a car model with the most ownership, parts will be easily sourced down the road providing a cheaper maintenance cost. Parang Corolla of the 90s.

Btw, one remedy is to "accessorize" the vehicle--change the rims (the one that brings the most impact on looks) and body kits--so as to project uniqueness.

Between the Vios and City--just a matter of preference. What is odd on these vehicles:
Vios- a centrally-located meter cluster.
City- forward-jutting cabin.

**Jun aka Pekto** · August 25th, 2008 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by Gerbo

Well, both are nice vehicles but the Vios is selling more than the City. So more people own it than any car model---best-selling = popular = common.

Some people don't like being pedestrian. I don't know if this is a disadvantage. Somehow perception lang ito.

Yeah. But to me, it's like pot calling kettle black. They're both common. At least I think both of them are compared to other brands. They're both pedestrian cars. Both certainly aren't what I'd call image cars.

Here, Hondas and Toyotas are both very common. I consider that a very good thing.

I mean there's reasons why the Vios is popular and it's not just because everyone has a "me too" attitude.

**tidus1203** · August 25th, 2008 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by Jun aka Pekto

I have a hard time understanding this logic. It seems peculiar to Pinoys although I've never thought of such a thing.

If it's not a taxi, it's a rental car. I mean geez, I've seen Mazda 6's, CR-V's, Land Cruisers, etc in rental fleets here.

I've also seen Audi's, BMW's, and MB's used as rental cars when I went to Europe last year. There's even MB's used as taxis in Germany. I doubt people regard them any lesser if they were used as "public transportation".

*Sigh* Beats me. Oh well.

Because here taxis and police cars are almost always in beaten condition. Dents here, rust there, and the inside its almost always wrecked so there is a perception that cars used for taxis here are cheap. Also here, unlike there, there are the HAVES (people who can afford a car) and the HAVE NOT's (people who only commute since they can;t afford a car). So the HAVE NOT's can always say they have ride a Vios but they can never say they have ride a City. So it gives this exclusivity feeling. Dunno if you understand what I am trying to get into but basically thats the gist of it why taxis are looked down on here.

**mbeige** · August 25th, 2008 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by Jun aka Pekto

I have a hard time understanding this logic. It seems peculiar to Pinoys although I've never thought of such a thing.

If it's not a taxi, it's a rental car. I mean geez, I've seen Mazda 6's, CR-V's, Land Cruisers, etc in rental fleets here.

I've also seen Audi's, BMW's, and MB's used as rental cars when I went to Europe last year. There's even MB's used as taxis in Germany. I doubt people regard them any lesser if they were used as "public transportation".

*Sigh* Beats me. Oh well.

Well, you grew up in the US where image is not much of a must-have in society. Pinoys, on the other hand, are already exposed to very limited options, so the natural tendency is to rise above that. So as somebody has mentioned, they'd rather get the City because it's more of an "exclusive" car since there's this Honda thing that does not allow them to be used as taxis, public transportation, police cars, etc. Personally I think that is nonsense, and just another way to justify the increased price. Either car is just as reliable, just as pedestrian, and somewhat just as equal too. It's just a matter of preference.

It's all about image and being self conscious I suppose. Not my cup of tea, but whatever floats their boat/s...