Just prolonging the 15000 word dissertation a bit longer here really...
Been driving a brand new Polo for the last couple of days, and thought I'd compare it to my 1996 one (thanks for the work avoiding suggestion in Technical!)
Mine's a 96 1.4SE 3dr, the new one's a 2003 1.2 5dr Twist
Three words that describe my polo: nippy, fun, young.
Three words that describe the new one: stodgy, square, granny.
Complete opposites these two! The new polo is just too big and feels absolutely huge to drive, yet inside it feels cramped. It sounds like a diesel when you start it up and driving it is like driving an armchair. I've read HJ's roadtest for this car and he seems to think the opposite, so it's possible I have a dud one, or that it hasn't got going yet as it only had 5 miles on the clock when I picked it up. There's loads more 'play' in the accelorator, in that you have to press it a long way before the car actually realises you want to go faster.
Apart from the drive, it's just niggly things I don't like about this car - like the fact that to turn the lights and vents off you have to turn them towards the open circle symbol, whereas common sense tells you it would be the closed symbol. It only has a cassette player - even the cacky new Micras I had last year had a CD player as standard! This polo also mists up at the drop of a hat and has really confusing wiper controls. And only the passenger gets a cup holder - what's that about?! It's far too dark inside, with black knobs and switches on a blackdash. Also many parts of the inside are made of that textured rubber which just attracts dirt and dust.
Don't know if it's just because I'm not used to a 5dr car, but this one has appalling visibility around the car and many more 'blind spots' than on my polo.
I hate the shape of this car, it's just so brick-like. My polo has a smily face (no really!) and looks smart and little, whereas this one just looks like a Golf.
Things I do like: The blue dials, the central locking and the little shelf under the glove compartment.
Trouble is, I will be looking at a new car in about six months time - don't think I'll be a Pologirl again unless I get the shape that ended on the 51 reg (with the smart grilles)...the ones that followed that just get stodgier and stodgier.
So there's my opinion - sorry it's a bit look/feel based, but I don't know much about technical under the bonnet things!
|
I have owned a 1996 1.6 GL and a 2002 1.4 TDi PD SE.
I really liked the 1.6 Polo - well-built, peppy and a good size. The newer diesel one was a mistake on my part. For a start, it cost nearly £13,000! Mind you, it was very spacious and I always liked the idea of an economical but luxurious small car as opposed to a poverty-spec big car. I remember the old Polo having very soft paintwork though - I got rid of it when VW refused to admit the paintwork was substandard.
I would sum up the new Polo as being a good car, but not as good as VW would like us to believe. I was irritated daily by the injection moulding 'lines' being felt on the indicator stalks and handbrake. The 3-cylinder PD engine had a lumpiness about it that wasn't endearing. It just felt stodgy. The old Polo felt quick and easily hustled, but relaxing on the motorway.
I would recommend you seek out a drive in the previous-generation Polo (pre 2002) - it'll give you the best of both with a worthwhile saving.
Let us know how you get on!
|
|
The new Polo engine 1.2 always feels and sounds dreadfull until its been run in for 3k. I have the equivalent Ibiza and was so disappointed when it arrived. My wife drove the car for a couple of months and then I got it back. Its completely transformed and now at 7k its quick and spins round the rev range, great fun to drive. I cant believe any other small car is as much fun to drive in town.
|
|
If I was after a small car, and already had one that was OK, I'd wait for used BMW MINIs to become cheaper.
|
|
Hi, pologirl, I have recently test driven a new Polo and an older Polo 1.4 TDi 75 hp PD "Twist" The new one is a very "grown up" car in that it feels like a much bigger car to drive, I must say the engine was okay and there was very little turbo lag, but that undercurrent of 3 cylinder lumpiness was always present. and for 10k I felt it was an expensive proposition. Same day i test drove a Fiat Stilo 1.9 JTD 115 hp Dynamic 3 door and not wishing to affront VW owners it was a far superior car with a damn sight better diesel, it flew! as opposed to merely "drove" Indeed I am now now biased because I did an internet search and found I could get a £3650 discount on the Stilo off Jamjar so I ordered it!! I know it may not retain value like a Polo, but Jamjar negotiated whilst the VW dealer wouldnt so i got a very good 1.9 common rail diesel in a much more stylish car for £500- less than a Polo 1.4 Pd. The VW dealer was so arrogant as well.
|
|
|
|
"And only the passenger gets a cup holder - what's that about?!"
Are His & Her's cup holders a must have accessory?
Who uses them?
Does the driver pull over for every sip or risk prosecution?
|
|
|
pologirl not comparing like with like.
1.2 engine heavier new polo.
1.4 engine lighter old polo.
qed
|
|
According to the AA road test report 352 lbs. heavier than the old Polo, or put it another way two twelve and a half stone passengers. it is also heavier than any of its rivals
|
|
|
|
|
Got a 1.4 FSi as a courtesy car while the Golf PD is in dock having its myriad faults fixed again. Absolutely hideous thing. Wouldn't buy one for £2.50. Impossible to drive smoothly because of the clutch uptake and it rattles like something that's done a million miles - it's only done 1500 miles!! Take my advice and give any VW dealer a wide berth - the cars are rubbish and the dealers even worse.
|
|
Had an interesting talk with a VW dealer who told me their new car engines were now "loose built" an no longer required running in for "loose built" read reduced quality control and wider tolerences because they are easier and cheaper to build.
|
|
Yes, how ironic that VW aquiring Skoda seems to have worked in reverse! Skoda are becoming OK, but VW have lost it. My father had a Passat that was junk, and when I had a ride in a collegue\'s Golf, I said, \"Oh my Dad\'s Passat (trade wind) has exactlt the same knocking behind the dashboard!\" and he claimed to have never noticed....they can fool some of the people some of the time....
|
|
I suppose Skoda strip down the VW 'loose built' VW engines engines and re-assemble them as 'tight built'. Or perhaps VW only send Skoda the best engines and put the lower quality ones in VW products.
|
|
Pologirl, I think you may have to change to MiniCoopergirl! If you believe the hype then they've got to be one of the best new car purchases at the moment. Is it my imagination or does everyone seem completeley happy and content with their Mini?!
|
Pologirl,
I apologise if I am the final straw in you getting a 2.1 not a 1 because of a hurried and substandard dissertation.
However I am great believer that you probably have learnt more useful life and work skills by spending time on this web site than honing your project in a library.
Best of luck and keep on contributing!
pmh (was peter)
|
|
Cardew, i wasnt joking about what the dealer said he was trying to "sell" me the idea that loose built engines were better ! because no running in was needed. its the same philosophy Ford employed with the "York" doesel in their Mk 2 Transit........LOL
|
John,
It was the post after you that I was referring to. It was the tired old cry of "VWs are absolutely rubbish and Skodas are absolutely wonderful." This cry usually coming from those who have a vested interest.
"Look how clever I am I have saved £x,000 by buying something far cheaper and far better than a VW"
This has been debated many times. Whether Skodas are better value than the equivalent VW is simply a matter of opinion, although bargains are not always bargains when depreciation is taken into account. However it is simply silly to state that the same basic VW parts fitted to a Skoda become magically transformed.
The public perception, with some justification, is that a Skoda is a down-market VW.
C
|
|
Cardew. I knew you were referring to the other post . my reply was entirely "tounge in cheek" although I have to say having worked at a VW van dealer that VW@s "legendary" build quality is a bit of a myth well it is on their Transporter and old LT series vans, they are fairly good but are damn expensive for what they offer although the "T" is a much nicer drive than a Tranny Most "T's" are Polish built and we continually found incomplete jobs done on them including bits missing and oddly enough LOTS came through with no underbody underseal / wax on we understand this is manually applied at the Polish factory and it seems in lots of cases they didnt bother.The German built ones were far better prepped.
|
|
|
|
|
You do realise a salesman said that.I have never heard of that apart from a badly worn unit.Being a new engine/car should not really need any (running in)due to tight tolerances on new components.I cannot see why people make an issue of it.Running in only really means to clear any swarf left in the engine.Time to clear this will vary according to driving conditions.
|
Driven old 1.4 Polo a few times as a courtesy car and didn't think much of it, actually - rather stodgy handling I thought. If the new one you were driving was the 1.2 2-valve engine, though, I'm not suprised you thought it a bit slow - heavier car, low power output ! I would try the 4-valve version for a start - although I must admit I don't like 3-cylinder engines much - weird noise / slow acceleration.
As for Skoda, I test drove the Fabia with the 1.4 16 valve 100bhp engine - and it was an absolute hoot ! Loads of revs, really chuckable, great ride/handling. These are likely to be cheaper now with the new Polo and Seat on the market I would go have a look - btw, the fuel consumption on this is better than your 60bhp 1.4 !
If not, I would recommend the Toyota Yaris - or even the new Corolla - the online brokers have the base T2 1.4 at £9K - Polo money !
|
|
|
|
|
|
