RE: Volkswagen Polo GTI: Driven
Discussion
Tomatogti said:
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
DaveCo - one key difference - MkV had independent rear suspension.
I have to echo the weight comments though - how the royal **** have VW managed to get this to weigh 200kg more than the competition?!? That's within 50kg of the (much bigger) Civic Type R. Major own-goal there...
ZX10R NIN said:
The proof will be in the group test when it goes up against it's rivals until then we won't know if it's good or not I'm guessing from the review it won't be as good a steer as the Renault/Peugeot/Ford but will counter with the interior & of course the badge.
By the way where's Polo Joe he must be having a wet dream over this.
Was he not banned for constantly linking his youtube videos? You just know he'll have had one tested by now.By the way where's Polo Joe he must be having a wet dream over this.
Chestrockwell said:
A friend just bought a MK7.5 GTI with 6k miles for 25 so even if this nudges 22 brand new, still quite a lot cheaper.
Then again the majority will lease them and unless the monthlies are a lot cheaper, some people will just go for the Golf for an extra.....50-80 quid a month?
I'm sure some will go for the golf, personally I'd take the Polo. I spend a lot of time on minor rural roads and I find a Polo sized car is more enjoyable than a Golf sized car in that environment. I suspect city dwellers may favour the Polo for similar reasons. Then again the majority will lease them and unless the monthlies are a lot cheaper, some people will just go for the Golf for an extra.....50-80 quid a month?
angelicupstarts said:
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)
Comparing to an Impreza...well, they were considered to be pretty decent cross country cars (ie, performance), and again, looking at standing start acceleration isnt a bad metric. Better than rubbish around sticky plastics, anyway.
The Jag D type is not a bad car. In fact, I would hold it up as iconic. That doesnt mean I have to crap all over it because today a modern GTR can outperform it. All I'm saying is, this car at ~ 200bhp and ~ £20k is essentially what was around 20 years ago. Nothing has really changed, barring fuel economy is better (which I care not for), and its slower (which I care a great deal for), than a pretty common car from back then.
But you know what? At the end of the day, if you want to buy a car that is slower, knock yourselves out. Its your money, go as slow as you like.
Sorry, but for me a proper hot hatch really ought to have 3 doors and this (like most of the others these days) isn't going to be offered with that option. So not so much hot hatch as family car with a big engine... 
And as others have already pointed out - its Golfesque dimensions and substantial mass mean that it isn't much like the established concept of a Polo in anything but name anymore either. You really can't call something a small car when it is somewhere between a nightmare and a virtual impossibility to store it in a single garage (not that many people will - just in principle). Why is it that cars just keep growing and smaller ones get inserted at the bottom of the range? Why don't they just keep the small cars small?
And as others have already pointed out - its Golfesque dimensions and substantial mass mean that it isn't much like the established concept of a Polo in anything but name anymore either. You really can't call something a small car when it is somewhere between a nightmare and a virtual impossibility to store it in a single garage (not that many people will - just in principle). Why is it that cars just keep growing and smaller ones get inserted at the bottom of the range? Why don't they just keep the small cars small?
big_rob_sydney said:
Lets start with this... this is pistonheads. Meaning, we are actually interested in PERFORMANCE. You want to look at economy? Maybe you're on the wrong website. In addition, the car was tested at a race track. Since you're on a track, why would you NOT want to think about raw acceleration? Its bizarre to think otherwise...
Comparing to an Impreza...well, they were considered to be pretty decent cross country cars (ie, performance), and again, looking at standing start acceleration isnt a bad metric. Better than rubbish around sticky plastics, anyway.
The Jag D type is not a bad car. In fact, I would hold it up as iconic. That doesnt mean I have to crap all over it because today a modern GTR can outperform it. All I'm saying is, this car at ~ 200bhp and ~ £20k is essentially what was around 20 years ago. Nothing has really changed, barring fuel economy is better (which I care not for), and its slower (which I care a great deal for), than a pretty common car from back then.
But you know what? At the end of the day, if you want to buy a car that is slower, knock yourselves out. Its your money, go as slow as you like.
Yes yes so you like Imprezas. That's fine they are very good at what they do but for me you're fuelling your argument by making an unrealistic comparison. A fairer comparison is to look at an Impreza compared to a Golf R/S3/FRS. Look at those and tell us there hasn't been progress? Comparing to an Impreza...well, they were considered to be pretty decent cross country cars (ie, performance), and again, looking at standing start acceleration isnt a bad metric. Better than rubbish around sticky plastics, anyway.
The Jag D type is not a bad car. In fact, I would hold it up as iconic. That doesnt mean I have to crap all over it because today a modern GTR can outperform it. All I'm saying is, this car at ~ 200bhp and ~ £20k is essentially what was around 20 years ago. Nothing has really changed, barring fuel economy is better (which I care not for), and its slower (which I care a great deal for), than a pretty common car from back then.
But you know what? At the end of the day, if you want to buy a car that is slower, knock yourselves out. Its your money, go as slow as you like.
Oh and PH is a site for car enthusiasst in general. An enthusiasm that is very subjective. Not everyone enjoys cars simply for speed.
Can cars get any less desirable? A 1300kg barge and full of electronics to dull the experience.
I think performance cars are pretty much done. Every generation is heavier with more grip and less handling than the previous. All manufacturers can seem to do is add more safety features, a bigger turbo and then the dynamics guys have to deal with the ever growing bloat which is obviously fighting physics.
I think performance cars are pretty much done. Every generation is heavier with more grip and less handling than the previous. All manufacturers can seem to do is add more safety features, a bigger turbo and then the dynamics guys have to deal with the ever growing bloat which is obviously fighting physics.
big_rob_sydney said:
angelicupstarts said:
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)
Comparing to an Impreza...well, they were considered to be pretty decent cross country cars (ie, performance), and again, looking at standing start acceleration isnt a bad metric. Better than rubbish around sticky plastics, anyway.
The Jag D type is not a bad car. In fact, I would hold it up as iconic. That doesnt mean I have to crap all over it because today a modern GTR can outperform it. All I'm saying is, this car at ~ 200bhp and ~ £20k is essentially what was around 20 years ago. Nothing has really changed, barring fuel economy is better (which I care not for), and its slower (which I care a great deal for), than a pretty common car from back then.
But you know what? At the end of the day, if you want to buy a car that is slower, knock yourselves out. Its your money, go as slow as you like.
big_rob_sydney said:
Lets start with this... this is pistonheads. Meaning, we are actually interested in PERFORMANCE. You want to look at economy? Maybe you're on the wrong website. In addition, the car was tested at a race track. Since you're on a track, why would you NOT want to think about raw acceleration? Its bizarre to think otherwise...
Comparing to an Impreza...well, they were considered to be pretty decent cross country cars (ie, performance), and again, looking at standing start acceleration isnt a bad metric. Better than rubbish around sticky plastics, anyway.
The Jag D type is not a bad car. In fact, I would hold it up as iconic. That doesnt mean I have to crap all over it because today a modern GTR can outperform it. All I'm saying is, this car at ~ 200bhp and ~ £20k is essentially what was around 20 years ago. Nothing has really changed, barring fuel economy is better (which I care not for), and its slower (which I care a great deal for), than a pretty common car from back then.
But you know what? At the end of the day, if you want to buy a car that is slower, knock yourselves out. Its your money, go as slow as you like.
£19,995 20 years ago equates to £33,395 now according to the Bank of Englands inflation calculator.Comparing to an Impreza...well, they were considered to be pretty decent cross country cars (ie, performance), and again, looking at standing start acceleration isnt a bad metric. Better than rubbish around sticky plastics, anyway.
The Jag D type is not a bad car. In fact, I would hold it up as iconic. That doesnt mean I have to crap all over it because today a modern GTR can outperform it. All I'm saying is, this car at ~ 200bhp and ~ £20k is essentially what was around 20 years ago. Nothing has really changed, barring fuel economy is better (which I care not for), and its slower (which I care a great deal for), than a pretty common car from back then.
But you know what? At the end of the day, if you want to buy a car that is slower, knock yourselves out. Its your money, go as slow as you like.
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/in...
£33,395 now buys you well in excess of 300BHP, but yet will be an awful lot more driveable than what the Impreza was then.
FWIW, £19,995 in todays money roughly equates to £11,995 20 years ago, so the "mighty Impreza" would have cost you approx 80% more.
Fun does not always have to equal outright performance by the way. Some of the most fun cars i've had have been quite low powered.
Likewise this little hatch - and the likes of the Fiesta ST - are much more viable, mainstream cars than the Subaru was then (or that Subaru is now, for that matter)
givablondabone said:
Yes yes so you like Imprezas. That's fine they are very good at what they do but for me you're fuelling your argument by making an unrealistic comparison. A fairer comparison is to look at an Impreza compared to a Golf R/S3/FRS. Look at those and tell us there hasn't been progress?
Oh and PH is a site for car enthusiasst in general. An enthusiasm that is very subjective. Not everyone enjoys cars simply for speed.
Oh and PH is a site for car enthusiasst in general. An enthusiasm that is very subjective. Not everyone enjoys cars simply for speed.
£19,995 20 years ago equates to £33,395 now. Bang on Golf R, S3 and FRS money. THATS the comparison, not on the Polo GTI
wab172uk said:
Think the Polo GTI is aimed at younger drivers, or maybe drivers who can't afford a Golf R. Or maybe, those who don't `Want` a Golf R?
Or people for whom the current Golf is just so much longer and wider than it needs to be, to no practical benefit, and a current Polo is the size of car we actually want, much the same spatial package as a Golf GTI from a few generations back.big_rob_sydney said:
Lets start with this... this is pistonheads. Meaning, we are actually interested in PERFORMANCE. You want to look at economy? Maybe you're on the wrong website. In addition, the car was tested at a race track. Since you're on a track, why would you NOT want to think about raw acceleration? Its bizarre to think otherwise...
But you know what? At the end of the day, if you want to buy a car that is slower, knock yourselves out. Its your money, go as slow as you like.
I like my performance across the board: go, brake, corner.But you know what? At the end of the day, if you want to buy a car that is slower, knock yourselves out. Its your money, go as slow as you like.
straight-line speed is way too one-dimensional for me. Takes all sorts I know.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff