RE: Volkswagen Polo GTI: Driven
Discussion
daemon said:
RumbleOfThunder said:
Looks good and keenly priced too which I wasn't expecting!
Am i missing something here??£19,995 for the basic car, then say £500 for metallic paint, add a few choice extras and you'll be knocking the door of £23,000.
Cant see them being too givey with discounts initially either.....
Ruskins said:
Golf R is the better car. 
big_rob_sydney said:
Underwhelmed.
If you look at the performance specs, cars have been posting performance metrics better than this ~20 years ago.
Look to the Impreza from way back when. It was capable of a full second better to 60mph. In fact, in Australia, we had them running close to low 5 seconds, rather than high 6's.
About the only thing in "performance terms" that ~20 years of development have given us, is slower times, and better fuel economy.
If that's what you call progress, then I suggest VW go back to the drawing board.
Dear Pistonheads, please make these two head of group comparison tests immediately.If you look at the performance specs, cars have been posting performance metrics better than this ~20 years ago.
Look to the Impreza from way back when. It was capable of a full second better to 60mph. In fact, in Australia, we had them running close to low 5 seconds, rather than high 6's.
About the only thing in "performance terms" that ~20 years of development have given us, is slower times, and better fuel economy.
If that's what you call progress, then I suggest VW go back to the drawing board.
On your recent group test you shouldn't have compared that Hyundai I30N with a Leon Cupra, you should have compared it to a £300,000 500 run Group B Rally car from 1985.
Edited by talksthetorque on Thursday 7th December 11:48
TheTyreAbuser said:
RumbleOfThunder said:
big_rob_sydney said:
Underwhelmed.
If you look at the performance specs, cars have been posting performance metrics better than this ~20 years ago.
Look to the Impreza from way back when. It was capable of a full second better to 60mph. In fact, in Australia, we had them running close to low 5 seconds, rather than high 6's.
About the only thing in "performance terms" that ~20 years of development have given us, is slower times, and better fuel economy.
If that's what you call progress, then I suggest VW go back to the drawing board.
This car's primary concern is not 0-60, or even a lap time. Impreza's are frankly sIf you look at the performance specs, cars have been posting performance metrics better than this ~20 years ago.
Look to the Impreza from way back when. It was capable of a full second better to 60mph. In fact, in Australia, we had them running close to low 5 seconds, rather than high 6's.
About the only thing in "performance terms" that ~20 years of development have given us, is slower times, and better fuel economy.
If that's what you call progress, then I suggest VW go back to the drawing board.
t are doing the A-B commute in comparison, which a modern hatch excels at, yet can still provide 90% of the thrills when needed. Progress has been fantastic. Seriously though, 20 years ago would you compare a Polo with an Impreza? But you are now, surely that's progress in itself right? (Daft still)
>>>>Even like this the Polo GTI is a great hot hatch on the road; less lairy than something like a Fiesta ST and not as focused as a Peugeot Sport 208 yet willing, eager and agile enough to entertain. <<<<<
Are you serious PH??? Take a look at that interior, the wheels and the front bumper and grill, looks far more lairer than a Fiesta ST. The st you guys spout out at times is unbelievable.
Are you serious PH??? Take a look at that interior, the wheels and the front bumper and grill, looks far more lairer than a Fiesta ST. The s
t you guys spout out at times is unbelievable.RumbleOfThunder said:
big_rob_sydney said:
Underwhelmed.
If you look at the performance specs, cars have been posting performance metrics better than this ~20 years ago.
Look to the Impreza from way back when. It was capable of a full second better to 60mph. In fact, in Australia, we had them running close to low 5 seconds, rather than high 6's.
About the only thing in "performance terms" that ~20 years of development have given us, is slower times, and better fuel economy.
If that's what you call progress, then I suggest VW go back to the drawing board.
This car's primary concern is not 0-60, or even a lap time. Impreza's are frankly sIf you look at the performance specs, cars have been posting performance metrics better than this ~20 years ago.
Look to the Impreza from way back when. It was capable of a full second better to 60mph. In fact, in Australia, we had them running close to low 5 seconds, rather than high 6's.
About the only thing in "performance terms" that ~20 years of development have given us, is slower times, and better fuel economy.
If that's what you call progress, then I suggest VW go back to the drawing board.
t are doing the A-B commute in comparison, which a modern hatch excels at, yet can still provide 90% of the thrills when needed. Progress has been fantastic. Imprezas are 4 wheel drive remember helping the 0-60 time but were nothing special in standard (204bhp) uk wrx form once on the move. My stage 1 mk 1 octy vrs kept them honest on more than one occasion. And before we talk about cross country ability remember that is the only thing they did well as far as I'm concerned. Dreadful running costs and horrific interiors put me off them. This Polo is an entirely different (better) proposition for day to day use and can bare no comparison to a 20 yr old scooby.
You only have to look at the very latest (last?) Impreza/STI to see how ancient they have actually become compared to the competition. Fun still yes, but a bit of a dinosaur now in all other respects. Buyers are prepared to sacrifice a few % of engagement as a compromise for the extra comfort, safety and reasonable running costs these cars give us these days. It's what people want. Conversely very few buyers are prepared/able to stomach significantly higher running costs for a few % more engagement.
And manufacturers know this. Especially VW.
daveco said:
andrewparker said:
Wonder why they gave it the old 6 speed DSG 'box rather than the 7 speed 'box you get in the current Golf GTI.
Isn't it essentially a re-skinned Golf GTI mark V?-Same power
-Same weight
-Same performance
-Same dimensions
I know my plan was to buy a cheap car next year but, given the potential of very cheap lease deals, that will not doubt be available for these, i could really be tempted. I'm probably more excited for this than the new Fiesta ST but i'll probably test both and see what the new 3-cylinder Ford is like.
Truth be told, i'd love a DSG model, so it could come down to that. I've always wanted a Golf GTI too and this new Polo seems to be edging itself more and more to becoming a cut price Golf. That ain't a bad thing for people that are after something similar. No doubt that the Ford will be a better drive, though.
What i don't get is how these Polo's are being driven before the Fiesta? The new Fiesta has been out a while now and even the ST version's details were released way before the Polo. The new Polo has only just recently come out and been able to be ordered. Just seems odd that the ST hasn't been driven.
Truth be told, i'd love a DSG model, so it could come down to that. I've always wanted a Golf GTI too and this new Polo seems to be edging itself more and more to becoming a cut price Golf. That ain't a bad thing for people that are after something similar. No doubt that the Ford will be a better drive, though.
What i don't get is how these Polo's are being driven before the Fiesta? The new Fiesta has been out a while now and even the ST version's details were released way before the Polo. The new Polo has only just recently come out and been able to be ordered. Just seems odd that the ST hasn't been driven.
RumbleOfThunder said:
daemon said:
RumbleOfThunder said:
Looks good and keenly priced too which I wasn't expecting!
Am i missing something here??£19,995 for the basic car, then say £500 for metallic paint, add a few choice extras and you'll be knocking the door of £23,000.
Cant see them being too givey with discounts initially either.....
Murphy16 said:
Hmm this with its 2 litre 4 cylinder motor or the new Fiesta ST with its 1.5 litre 3 cyclinder motor...
If you only judge a car by it's engine, then why would you consider either of these?Personally I'd go for a three cylinder engine if I had the choice, better sounding and more character than a bland 4 pot.
Edited by Mr2Mike on Thursday 7th December 12:45
Escort Si-130 said:
>>>>Even like this the Polo GTI is a great hot hatch on the road; less lairy than something like a Fiesta ST and not as focused as a Peugeot Sport 208 yet willing, eager and agile enough to entertain. <<<<<
Are you serious PH??? Take a look at that interior, the wheels and the front bumper and grill, looks far more lairer than a Fiesta ST. The st you guys spout out at times is unbelievable.
They're not talking about the interior here, they're talking about the handling etc.Are you serious PH??? Take a look at that interior, the wheels and the front bumper and grill, looks far more lairer than a Fiesta ST. The s
t you guys spout out at times is unbelievable.Murphy16 said:
Hmm this with its 2 litre 4 cylinder motor or the new Fiesta ST with its 1.5 litre 3 cyclinder motor...
But it's not quite as clear cut as just those numbers. The Fiesta's engine will be significantly lighter, sound far more characterful (better to most people's ears) and features cylinder deactivation so will likely be far more economical as well.Yes the Polo may have more tuning potential but without a VAQ diff it will be wheelspin city.
It would be the Fiesta for me!
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff