RE: Volkswagen Polo GTI: Driven
Discussion
Wife has the current (old?) version and loves it. Wonder if she wants to upgrade her iPhone, I mean car, to this new one.
They made the previous model look very close to the Golf GTI too, certainly a mini Golf GTI, lots of people have mistaken my wife's car for the Golf. That's probably a side effect of ever growing cars too.
New one looks so similar to the old that it really wouldn't be worth swapping just yet, but sure it's inevitable when the 64Gb storage runs out.
They made the previous model look very close to the Golf GTI too, certainly a mini Golf GTI, lots of people have mistaken my wife's car for the Golf. That's probably a side effect of ever growing cars too.
New one looks so similar to the old that it really wouldn't be worth swapping just yet, but sure it's inevitable when the 64Gb storage runs out.
struttob said:
No Shocker, just a fact !
The point being its hardly a new phenomenon. Cars have been getting noticably bigger since the 1970s, so this has been going on for 40+ years. Hence hardly a "shocker". Even your Clio 197 is noticably heavier and bigger than a Clio 172.struttob said:
Just think how much quicker it could have been if it had been the same size (weight) as the original Polo ! as somebody quite clever at designing fast and great handling cars once said "add lightness"
Now you're merging two points - cars are bigger and heavier - the second one i never commented on nor objected to, however saying as your persisting with it - cars are heavier for a variety of reasons mainly :-Increased safety features
Increased weight in ancilliaries
Increased creature comforts - air con units, ICE, electric everything, heavier more comfy seats, more electrical components, etc.
Increased emissions control units which are also heavy
Cars also bigger, thus heavier
People (non PH) tend to prefer a heavier car as it gives an enhanced feeling of stability on the road
All of those add weight. You can chose a lighter option car if you like - for example my last car was a 2012 Clio 200 Cup (which didnt even have the optional aircon), however the other alternative is accept the extra weight of creature comforts and compensate for it with sheer brute force - hence our AMG A45.
You pays your money....
Edited by daemon on Friday 8th December 10:35
Edited by daemon on Friday 8th December 10:35
Trophy Husband said:
VeeFource said:
1,355kg?!?!!!
My thoughts exactly. How lardy is that? Good god it was only 14 years ago my 172 cup was 1010kgs. C
Trophy Husband said:
VeeFource said:
1,355kg?!?!!!
My thoughts exactly. How lardy is that? Good god it was only 14 years ago my 172 cup was 1010kgs. C
The Clio you mention is quite a bit smaller in every dimension, including weight.
Everyone mentions how bloat is a problem for modern cars, it very much is. They should be lighter and would benefit from being smaller. Trouble is, packaging safety features, strength, fuel efficiency, technology etc within the regulations set out as well as turning a profit? Yeah, compromise is the name of the game. Some cars do it all better than others (see the Swift). All engineers on cars want to make them lighter to aid efficiency (or speed), but sometimes there are reasons why it isn't possible. We can complain about it all we want but it is how it is and we can't change that by moaning and then buying them anyway.
So yeah. It's bigger and heavier than older cars (or current ones that manage it better), does that make it a bad car? No. Should we be focused on that? Probably not, we should care how it drives, and if it is a decent GTI, none of that other stuff will matter.
nickfrog said:
I know, I am so tempted to get one for road and track. Stick some good fluid, Endless pads and semis, job done.
When are they being released to order? I dismissed them at first but they appear to now be more of a proper hot-hatch, this time around, as apposed to a warm variant. They're starting to really intrigue me now...
king dumb 10 years ago and it's still dumb now.TheTyreAbuser said:
If it helps explain anything at all here, as most people have mentioned, this Polo is roughly the same size as a Mk5 Golf. Though a little shorter overall than it's older big brother, it's within a couple of mm of it's wheelbase.
The Clio you mention is quite a bit smaller in every dimension, including weight.
Everyone mentions how bloat is a problem for modern cars, it very much is. They should be lighter and would benefit from being smaller. Trouble is, packaging safety features, strength, fuel efficiency, technology etc within the regulations set out as well as turning a profit? Yeah, compromise is the name of the game. Some cars do it all better than others (see the Swift). All engineers on cars want to make them lighter to aid efficiency (or speed), but sometimes there are reasons why it isn't possible. We can complain about it all we want but it is how it is and we can't change that by moaning and then buying them anyway.
So yeah. It's bigger and heavier than older cars (or current ones that manage it better), does that make it a bad car? No. Should we be focused on that? Probably not, we should care how it drives, and if it is a decent GTI, none of that other stuff will matter.
Adding lightness is possible but it costs the manufacturer to do so. Granted the Polo is a bigger car than it's class suggests but if Suzuki can afford to add lightness to the Swift despite keeping costs low, ticking all the equipment boxes and maintaining excellent reliability then it leaves a lot of us wanting to know what excuse VW has for it to fall so short, especially given it's certainly not a budget car.The Clio you mention is quite a bit smaller in every dimension, including weight.
Everyone mentions how bloat is a problem for modern cars, it very much is. They should be lighter and would benefit from being smaller. Trouble is, packaging safety features, strength, fuel efficiency, technology etc within the regulations set out as well as turning a profit? Yeah, compromise is the name of the game. Some cars do it all better than others (see the Swift). All engineers on cars want to make them lighter to aid efficiency (or speed), but sometimes there are reasons why it isn't possible. We can complain about it all we want but it is how it is and we can't change that by moaning and then buying them anyway.
So yeah. It's bigger and heavier than older cars (or current ones that manage it better), does that make it a bad car? No. Should we be focused on that? Probably not, we should care how it drives, and if it is a decent GTI, none of that other stuff will matter.
VeeFource said:
Adding lightness is possible but it costs the manufacturer to do so. Granted the Polo is a bigger car than it's class suggests but if Suzuki can afford to add lightness to the Swift despite keeping costs low, ticking all the equipment boxes and maintaining excellent reliability then it leaves a lot of us wanting to know what excuse VW has for it to fall so short, especially given it's certainly not a budget car.
Don't get me wrong, I am not excusing them for this at all, just playing a little bit of devils advocate to make sure some people realise that it's not going to be as light as an older car unless they compromise something else.I think it's VW using it's MQB architecture on a smaller vehicle that might be causing the weight issues. It's a pretty effective/versatile platform that is well used on other cars and can be seen as weight efficient in some of them. In something this size it could well be over-engineered. I think Suzuki may well have a better prospect in this simply because they're not (as far as I'm aware) using an architecture inherited from larger cars, and can actually focus on the weight element more effectively.
Again, I guess it's down to priorities too. VW probably know this car will sell, and it's efficient/small/light "enough" for them to sell and make a profit on without doing much more work than they have to. Where Suzuki are probably punching for a different set of values from their Swift. They're in roughly the same segment but coming from different ideals/areas of thinking.
That's the thing I guess, it's all down to choice anyway. Nobody is being forced to have the Polo over the Suzuki. Or the Polo over a 20yr old Subaru
culpz said:
When are they being released to order? I dismissed them at first but they appear to now be more of a proper hot-hatch, this time around, as apposed to a warm variant.
They're starting to really intrigue me now...
Not sure, sometime in spring. I have a contact at Suzuki who said they have been delayed here as the engine was too powerful vs it's spec sheet 140 ponnies and presumably not compliant. They're starting to really intrigue me now...
nickfrog said:
culpz said:
When are they being released to order? I dismissed them at first but they appear to now be more of a proper hot-hatch, this time around, as apposed to a warm variant.
They're starting to really intrigue me now...
Not sure, sometime in spring. I have a contact at Suzuki who said they have been delayed here as the engine was too powerful vs it's spec sheet 140 ponnies and presumably not compliant. They're starting to really intrigue me now...
Carl_Manchester 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.
wet clutch was decided to be better vs dry clutch in this car apparently (54minute video review posted in the PH VW forum).Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff