RE: Driven: Volkswagen Polo Blue GT

[HeatonNorris]

kambites said:

Because VW's customers want half a tone of sound deadening and caressable dashboard plastics; eleventy air-bags; and a nine star N-cap rating.

If you want a light car in this sector, buy a Fiesta.

The Fiesta is within 50-100kgs of the Polo's weight, depending on which model you're looking at.

[va1o]

HBFS said:

I have a bit of an issue with mpg claims

I have the Fabia vRS 1.4 TSI 180 DSG. (Manufacturers combined 45mpg, extra urban 55mpg)

Real world economy for me is 32mpg.
I got ~51 mpg this week on long motorway runs but had to drive like a saint, very rarley going above 60mph (Mostly 52-56)

It's not just me either, I post and browse Brisk Skoda a fair bit and a lot of people have their mpg in sig. Not sure I've ever seen anyone getting 36mpg + with a mk2 Fabia vRS

So I predict real world econmy for this will be 42-47mpg combined.

Thing is though the reviews for this got really good MPG. Autocar managed 76.4mpg on a 60 mile motorway run out of Amsterdam, and even Evo still got above 50mpg.

Its only using 2-cylinders cruising at 70. Amazing engine by the sounds of things can't wait to try one.

[TameRacingDriver]

HBFS said:

I have a bit of an issue with mpg claims

I have the Fabia vRS 1.4 TSI 180 DSG. (Manufacturers combined 45mpg, extra urban 55mpg)

Real world economy for me is 32mpg.
I got ~51 mpg this week on long motorway runs but had to drive like a saint, very rarley going above 60mph (Mostly 52-56)

It's not just me either, I post and browse Brisk Skoda a fair bit and a lot of people have their mpg in sig. Not sure I've ever seen anyone getting 36mpg + with a mk2 Fabia vRS

So I predict real world econmy for this will be 42-47mpg combined.

So do I.

I had a mk1 Fabia vRS, and the only way it would achieve 52 MPG (which was the combined MPG figure) was by sitting at 70 mph on the motorway. My actual average in fact was 38 MPG. I did drive it "properly" but a lot of the magazines got 45 MPG tops.

A lot of clio 172 / 182 owners claim 40 MPG even when driving fast. I get about 30 doing the same.

Most people seem to exaggeration what MPG they get. The recent "20 MPG or less" thread on here was probably the most honest one I've read lately!

[va1o]

I think it depends on the car, some will happily return the EC official figures and others won't. By the sounds of things this does.

Driving style comes into it too obviously

[the-photographer]

HBFS said:

I have a bit of an issue with mpg claims

I have the Fabia vRS 1.4 TSI 180 DSG. (Manufacturers combined 45mpg, extra urban 55mpg)

Real world economy for me is 32mpg.
I got ~51 mpg this week on long motorway runs but had to drive like a saint, very rarley going above 60mph (Mostly 52-56)

It's not just me either, I post and browse Brisk Skoda a fair bit and a lot of people have their mpg in sig. Not sure I've ever seen anyone getting 36mpg + with a mk2 Fabia vRS

So I predict real world econmy for this will be 42-47mpg combined.

I think it's a very individual thing (location, usage, time, many factors) my car has a combined of 35mpg which I regularly beat, however I never come close to the extra urban (46) even with 100& motorway journeys.

[kambites]

HeatonNorris said:

The Fiesta is within 50-100kgs of the Polo's weight, depending on which model you're looking at.

The 132bhp Fiesta is under a tonne, this is more than 1.2 tonnes... that's a bit more than "50-100kg".

Edited by kambites on Saturday 14th July 19:51

[HBFS]

va1o said:

Thing is though the reviews for this got really good MPG. Autocar managed 76.4mpg on a 60 mile motorway run out of Amsterdam, and even Evo still got above 50mpg.

Its only using 2-cylinders cruising at 70. Amazing engine by the sounds of things can't wait to try one.

Interesting, I'll have a read.
In honesty, I'm a bit disapointed by PH's "Driven" article on this Polo. It doesn't feel as if they actualy have driven it!
Could be a good car for me in 3 years, I wonder how refined it is...

[HeatonNorris]

kambites said:

HeatonNorris said:

The Fiesta is within 50-100kgs of the Polo's weight, depending on which model you're looking at.

The 134bhp Fiesta is under a tonne, this is more than 1.2 tonnes...

Edited by kambites on Saturday 14th July 19:49

Did you get that figure from Parkers? - because it appears to be wrong - not even the most basic petrol model comes in at under a tonne. (The 1.25 Studio shows as 1041kg).

[va1o]

Both the Polo 6R (this generation) and the current Fiesta are lighter than their predecessors from 2002. This was covered when they got launched so I don't really see why people are trolling about the weight.

[kambites]

HeatonNorris said:

Did you get that figure from Parkers? - because it appears to be wrong - not even the most basic petrol model comes in at under a tonne. (The 1.25 Studio shows as 1041kg).

OK 1045kg then, according to Autocar (who I think actually weigh the cars when they road test them). Still a LOT lighter than this.

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/ford/fiesta/fi...

[HeatonNorris]

kambites said:

HeatonNorris said:

Did you get that figure from Parkers? - because it appears to be wrong - not even the most basic petrol model comes in at under a tonne. (The 1.25 Studio shows as 1041kg).

OK 1045kg then, according to Autocar (who I think actually weigh the cars when they road test them). Still a LOT lighter than this.

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/ford/fiesta/fi...

Right, that's more like it.

But, as someone else has pointed out, German brands usually quote with fuel and driver, rather than 'dry' kerb weight. So the difference in reality is going to be next to nothing.

[kambites]

I'm not certain, but I think VW quote wet but with no driver - they certainly used to.

The Fiesta certainly feels a lot lighter than the Polo both in terms of the impression of solidity that it gives and the way it drives.

[Mouse1903]

When I drove the current Fiesta it felt like a heavy boat

[Vortrex]

Yay, i live in Holland!

[kambites]

Mouse1903 said:

When I drove the current Fiesta it felt like a heavy boat

Odd, the ones I've driven felt quite light, although I agree about the boat bit.

[the-photographer]

kambites said:

I'm not certain, but I think VW quote wet but with no driver - they certainly used to.

The Fiesta certainly feels a lot lighter than the Polo both in terms of the impression of solidity that it gives and the way it drives.

You have to be a bit careful with the VW group cars, VW now quote with driver;

The individual unladen weight depends on the specification of the vehicle, this then reduces the possible payload accordingly. The unladen weight and payload both include the fuel tank 90% full, driver (68 kg) and luggage (7 kg) in line with EU directive 95/48.

But Audi as far as I can see don't add the driver to their figures;

Vehicle’s unladen weight without driver, calculated in accordance with the current version of Directive 80/1268/EEC.

Check carefully before you start comparing/complaining about weights!

[TheRacingSnake]

it just looks soooooo like a golf! Where is the imagination VAG?

[kambites]

the-photographer said:

Check carefully before you start comparing/complaining about weights!

The annoying thing is, most manufacturers (including VW from what I can see) don't actually tell you how they measure. Plus the fact that some manufacturers' figures seem to be so far off the real weights that I don't see how they can have been obtained by any technique.

Edited by kambites on Monday 16th July 09:15

[Major T]

TameRacingDriver said:

HBFS said:

I have a bit of an issue with mpg claims

I have the Fabia vRS 1.4 TSI 180 DSG. (Manufacturers combined 45mpg, extra urban 55mpg)

Real world economy for me is 32mpg.
I got ~51 mpg this week on long motorway runs but had to drive like a saint, very rarley going above 60mph (Mostly 52-56)

It's not just me either, I post and browse Brisk Skoda a fair bit and a lot of people have their mpg in sig. Not sure I've ever seen anyone getting 36mpg + with a mk2 Fabia vRS

So I predict real world econmy for this will be 42-47mpg combined.

So do I.

I had a mk1 Fabia vRS, and the only way it would achieve 52 MPG (which was the combined MPG figure) was by sitting at 70 mph on the motorway. My actual average in fact was 38 MPG. I did drive it "properly" but a lot of the magazines got 45 MPG tops.

A lot of clio 172 / 182 owners claim 40 MPG even when driving fast. I get about 30 doing the same.

Most people seem to exaggeration what MPG they get. The recent "20 MPG or less" thread on here was probably the most honest one I've read lately!

I too have a problem with MPG claims.

The problem is comparing cars and individual driving styles.
Personally, I've always found it possible to match quoted figures, by driving smoothly.

Official MPG figures are there to allow for a comparison between cars in a controlled environment. It matters not whether joe public can achieve them or not.
So we can see that generally, this Polo has similar fuel consumption to a comparable diesel.

[HeatonNorris]

Major T said:

Official MPG figures are there to allow for a comparison between cars in a controlled environment. It matters not whether joe public can achieve them or not.
So we can see that generally, this Polo has similar fuel consumption to a comparable diesel.

I'll have to disagree.

They are a measure of how good a manufacturer is at passing a known test. BMW are masters at it, even though their real life MPG is often no better than the VW/Audi competition. (ie. 3-series vs A4).

VW are also very good at getting their TSI petrols to deliver amazing MPG on tests, but the reality is very different.

The variance between a test figure and a real life figure is completely random, meaning test figures cannot be relied on for comparison purposes.