Car Of The Year - 2010 vs 2004

[percymon]

There's not much in this forum about the new Polo, so maybe this won't see much viewing but here goes..


Car Of The Year - 2004 vs 2010

Haviing spent 3 days with a Polo 1.2 S A/C courtesy car (COTY 2010) and having a Fiat Panda 1.2 Dynamic (COTY 2004) as a third car I thought it might make an interesting comparison..


Performance
there's not much in it - both ca 60bhp, 1.2 litre engines, so don't expect much . Polo sounds faster due the the engine roar (bit sporty) up to 3k revs, but then its very tiresome and you realise much above 40mph the accleeration rate isn't all that great - i think the official 0-60 time is something like 16seconds !. Polo is quite highly geared, you can get to 65mph in 3rd, no doubt to help keep revs and engine noise down. If you want to make progress joining motorways you have to make the most of third gear. Panda is more buzzy in engine noise, but you use the gears less to attain the same speed, it acclerates better above 40mph,and is smoother at higher revs.

Handling and Ride
The Polo has a wider track and longer wheelbase so this aids general comfort. However the Polo leans quite alarmingly if driven with a bit of pace. The Panda generally leans initially and then holds steady. Polo is more (and very) susceptible to cross winds and turbulence when passing HGVs at motorway speeds, surprising given its less slab sided shape cf Panda. Straight line comfort is better in the Polo, at certain speeds the Panda has a pogo effect due to its short wheelbase and small wheels.

Economy
Polo is appalling - i've used £20 in 123miles, which equates to 34-35mpg, and thats keeping to 70-75mph on the motorway. In contrast the Panda will do 40+ at 80mph and always returns 43-44mpg in normal daily use (including the motorway commute at 75mph)

Equipment
In terms of convenience features they are very similar (both have rear wiper activation when reversing with main wipers on for example), front elec windows and key operated central locking. Both have stability / traction control systems, although Panda has hill hold too. Polo CD radio has front speakers only, Panda front and rear. This Polo S model had the climatic air con fitted , whereas our Panda doesn't have a/s (Panda does have it as std these days). Both use steel wheels with plastic trims (175/70/14 on Polo, 155/80/13 !! on Panda).

Interior Space
Despite the lower and wider cabin the Polo isn't that much more comodious for front passengers, the extra width is evident only at the outside edges of the seats. Rear seat can take 3 kids at a push, whereas the Panda is 2 only really. However the rear seat is very low in the Polo so even my relatively tall 8yr old feels claustrophic as the window line is high and the seat low. Boot space, not much in it - Polo is shallow due to high boot floor, so both take about 8 carrier bags at floor level, and the Panda has more scope to pile more on top. Panda has higher seats so you can put loose items under the seats (14" x 10" x 5" plastic bowl will fit comfortably under each seat for items like ice scraper, de-icer, cloths, CDs etc.

Cabin Quality
The Panda plastics are not the softest to say the least - dashboard is hard plastic, and the door trims aren't a lot better. Polo dashboard is a nice quishy rubberised plastic, but despite the looks the door trims are just as hard as the ones in the Panda. Seats are wider and lower (and height adjustable) in Polo, but i've had no issues after 4 hours driving in the higher and more upright Panda seats. Overall the look and tactile feel to the controls in the Polo is better than the Panda, but you'd hope so given 6 years between models and VW supposedly being a premium product. Having said that there isn't a rattle anywhere in our Panda despite 50k miles of family abuse.

Safety
Both have ABS and stability control systems. Our Panda makes do with front airbags, whereas this Polo model has side bags too. The headlights on the Polo are as dire as they are on my Golf, the drivers side one barely reaches 40 feet up the centre of the road. Panda headlights are excellent, probably as good as the xenons in my other car


Conclusion
Despite 6 years of automotive development there isn't that much in them as a small family / second/third car - the Polo is probably better built (again our Panda has no rattles, dents, paint issues etc etc), and is no doubt better in an accident, although the improved crash resistance take its toll on kerb weight and economy. You pay a lot of extra money for the supposed premium product from VW, and i wouldn't part with £11,430k of my money to buy this Polo S A/C. Even with a broker discount taking it down to nearer £10k i think its poorly priced for what it delivers.



As a further comparison, I bought a new 1.3L Polo back in 1996 for £6800 via a broker, and in comparison the new one is slower, noisier, no bigger inside, heavier, less fuel efficient but safer. Not exactky a great leap forward then !

[vc-10]

Well, not sure that's a very valid comparison- the Panda is quite a bit smaller so the economy and performance of the Polo are going to suffer in comparison. Space wise the Polo is prettygood IMO- I've not properly lived with one for long but I've had 2 as rentals. The new one is much quieter than the 9n I normally drive (2002, 1.2l 65PS). The Polo is set up to ride well rather than be 'sportier' (despite the soundtrack!) and I thought it did well, dealing with Wiltshire Council's pathetic attempt at a road surface. It's also a lot better to drive than the 9n, and the 'eco' gear ratios are much needed as my 9n doesn't like cruising above 70 very much. You do have to work 3rd though, but it keeps up with traffic well enough.

Re the safety thing, the new car has a 5 star EuroNCAP rating, the 9n a 4 star, and the Panda is a 3 star car. However the new Polo is lighter than it's predecessor.

Perhaps a more valid comparison would be with the 1.4 Polo? I can imagine it's power to weight ratio is more like the Panda's.

[percymon]

Well i posted it based on similar engine size and power. As to size, externally the Polo is bigger but other than a bit of extra width in the rear seat its all pretty wasted internally - i personally think the boot is a joke given the external dimensions.

I didn't push the Polo much, certainly nowhere near the limit of cornering grip and for something with wide track it leans dramatically IMO (more so than my recollection of the lowly 1.3L Polo back in '95). I accept it doesn't claim to be sporty, but it can't be a great car for B road use.

I accept the Panda isn't as safe ina crash as the latest Polo - its 7 years old in design for starters.


But given both were awarded COTY awards early in their life i thought it wothy of 30 minutes of my time to jot down some notes.

Would i buy a new Polo - no way, far too pricey and so compromised in engine performance, economy, refinement. But then i'd say the same about my Golf too - the discount i got makes the price I paid about where it should be, not £5k higher

All the previous generatiosn of polo were criticised int he press for their engines and ploddy/crashy chassis. Seems VW can sell plenty without having to worry too much - pensioners and youngsters obviously don't mind.

[vc-10]

Yeah, I've seen criticism of the 9n for it's, erm, sedate handling, but not so much the engines. As I've said, it's much more refined than many others, and the Polo is as quiet as a Fiesta. It's also fairly well matched to the Fiesta price wise, and that's only after Ford dropped their prices!

I also don't remember that much body lean, certainly no more that any other car I've driven

[reddb990]

where did you buy your Golf with 19% discount?

[percymon]

where did you buy your Golf with 19% discount?

VW dealer



Well today my Golf 6 went for its thrid service, so yet again another new Polo. 1.2 Moda 5dr this time round, 11k miles on the clock and 40 days / 1400 miles overdue its first service !

Can't really say my thought are any better on this used exampel than the one i posted 6 or so months ago..

engine is willing to 3.5k revs, roarty sounding but truth is once beyond 45-50mph its a lot of noise for not much acceleration

boot is still a joke - remionds me of Audis S3, but at least you could explain the stupidly high boot floor with the rear drivetrain

Grip is fine, but leaning in corners not to my or my passengers tastes at all.

Interior plastic cheap, and those that look OK are hard to the touch.


I wish car makers would wake up to the fact that decent quality materials and proper engineering are more important than the gimmicks they think we all need, and charge us handsomely for.