The one and only 2016 VW Polo Gti 6C
Discussion
MrBarry123 said:
It's a nice car however I see the ongoing self-justification hasn't ceased since the last thread...
I'm sorry mate but i could't agree more with the above statement.I know you're just making comparisons but you make yourself sound daft. Next time, do yourself and everyone else a favour and just get the car you actually wanted originally and just spend the extra few grand (Golf GTI).
I also love the comparison in torque compared to a Golf R32, which is still quicker than a standard Polo GTI. Regardless if it was or not, i know which one i'd rather have.
dci said:
Why should it matter if other people call it the poor mans Golf?
Stop caring what other people think about it and for god sake stop justifying it by saying how much better you think it is than the Fiesta ST or 208 GTi!
Because he's a narcissist who couldn't afford a Golf GTI.Stop caring what other people think about it and for god sake stop justifying it by saying how much better you think it is than the Fiesta ST or 208 GTi!
After noticing you chucking your Polo into conversation on many unrelated threads, I thought I'd drop in and have a look at your Readers' Cars thread. Tidy enough car, but self-justification is as expected.
Also, I thought these were 177bhp/180ps?
It's a tidy enough car, but with <140bhp/tonne it's not going to be troubling an R32. ~15secs seems to be the norm for the 1/4 mile, which is nippy (on par with Fiesta ST et al) but hardly life-changing.
Edited by C70R on Tuesday 4th October 10:42
Officially they are 189 bhp or 193ps with 236ib/ft (320nm) as standard.This has the EA888 1.8 turbo engine as opposed to the pre facelift that had 180bhp and a 1.4tfsi engine.
On the rollers they are coming out around 205-210bhp and maybe a smidge less torque.
Weight is 1272kg for the manual although I believe that's with fuel and driver.
Oh and I could have afforded a lot more than a Golf Gti or R if we are going to mock my finances
However I can't justify that sort of expenditure on a car to be honest.
On the rollers they are coming out around 205-210bhp and maybe a smidge less torque.
Weight is 1272kg for the manual although I believe that's with fuel and driver.
Oh and I could have afforded a lot more than a Golf Gti or R if we are going to mock my finances
However I can't justify that sort of expenditure on a car to be honest.
t tonne more!This is true although I prefer 40+ mpg rather than 20+ ; )
It doesn't sound too bad with sports mode on. .
https://youtu.be/xPX41fmdP2c
It doesn't sound too bad with sports mode on. .
https://youtu.be/xPX41fmdP2c
JoeMarano said:
Officially they are 189 bhp or 193ps with 236ib/ft (320nm) as standard.This has the EA888 1.8 turbo engine as opposed to the pre facelift that had 180bhp and a 1.4tfsi engine.
On the rollers they are coming out around 205-210bhp and maybe a smidge less torque.
Weight is 1272kg for the manual although I believe that's with fuel and driver.
Oh and I could have afforded a lot more than a Golf Gti or R if we are going to mock my finances
However I can't justify that sort of expenditure on a car to be honest.
Fair enough - looks like Carfolio let me down a bit on that one.On the rollers they are coming out around 205-210bhp and maybe a smidge less torque.
Weight is 1272kg for the manual although I believe that's with fuel and driver.
Oh and I could have afforded a lot more than a Golf Gti or R if we are going to mock my finances
However I can't justify that sort of expenditure on a car to be honest.
I'm a bit of a cynic when it comes to "over-delivering" cars, because it just seems far too convenient that a bunch of enthusiastic owners have had some bloke in a shed tell them their car is performing better than VW suggest/admit.
It's nice that you're so excited about it, and all. But perhaps tone down the unsolicited "I've got a Polo GTi and it's as good as XXX because YYY" stuff, because it makes you sound a bit desperate for attention.
JoeMarano said:
I'm not sure an R32 would be quicker apart from the actual launch obviously due to the 4wd. Need to find me one to test that out!
I compare it a lot to other cars as I looked at a heck of a lot of them before coming to this decision.
I'm not arguing with you Joe, an R32 IS quicker. I compare it a lot to other cars as I looked at a heck of a lot of them before coming to this decision.
No-one mocking your finances btw. You specifically said you didn't want to spend the extra on the Golf GTI as it wasn't worth it in your eyes. That's all fine and dandy. It's the way you've started comparing it to all other fast VAG cars and saying that "it's basically the same as..." or "it's nearly as fast as...". This is where you sound like you've just sucked on a massive lemon.
A Golf GTI is still faster for the record.
JoeMarano said:
BlueHave said:
Polo GTI is £18k thats a good £10k under a Golf GTI, the build quality might be a step up but it's not £10k worth of improvement.
In the power stakes the regular Golf Gti only has around 20bhp and 22ib/ft more but obviously weighs at least a heavy passenger or so more.Shame the Polo can't be ordered with a proper performance pack like the Golf (all you get is a sports pack which just adds engine noise, increased throttle response, adjustable dampers and increased steering weight)
BlueHave said:
JoeMarano said:
I think it's the "poor mans Golf" comments that seem to bug me. It's a good car in its own right!
Anyway bit of non VW related content but I went down to see my brother at the weekend to see his first ever car!
https://youtu.be/119H0FfaEAI
Might be biased but the 2016 Polo looks a lot better than the current Golf which has been peddling the same styling for 6 years now.Anyway bit of non VW related content but I went down to see my brother at the weekend to see his first ever car!
https://youtu.be/119H0FfaEAI
culpz said:
I'm not arguing with you Joe, an R32 IS quicker.
No-one mocking your finances btw. You specifically said you didn't want to spend the extra on the Golf GTI as it wasn't worth it in your eyes. That's all fine and dandy. It's the way you've started comparing it to all other fast VAG cars and saying that "it's basically the same as..." or "it's nearly as fast as...". This is where you sound like you've just sucked on a massive lemon.
A Golf GTI is still faster for the record.
According to the top gear "top ten hot hatchbacks" article the Polo Gti was actually faster to 60 than the Golf!No-one mocking your finances btw. You specifically said you didn't want to spend the extra on the Golf GTI as it wasn't worth it in your eyes. That's all fine and dandy. It's the way you've started comparing it to all other fast VAG cars and saying that "it's basically the same as..." or "it's nearly as fast as...". This is where you sound like you've just sucked on a massive lemon.
A Golf GTI is still faster for the record.
It posted a 6.3s to 60 rather than the book figure of 6.7
Reference them over reading on the rollers....superchips development Polo Gti was 207 bhp standard
There are plenty of videos on my youtube channel for anyone interested.
http://www.youtube.com/sax0joe
I'm not going to get into an argument about the car. I like it so i'll continue the thread as I see fit.
http://www.youtube.com/sax0joe
I'm not going to get into an argument about the car. I like it so i'll continue the thread as I see fit.
JoeMarano said:
According to the top gear "top ten hot hatchbacks" article the Polo Gti was actually faster to 60 than the Golf!
It posted a 6.3s to 60 rather than the book figure of 6.7
Reference them over reading on the rollers....superchips development Polo Gti was 207 bhp standard
Pretty much most of the VAG engines, especially the ones put in the performance models, come out with more BHP than quoted by VW themselves. This has then, subsequently, meant the 0-60 times have also been better than the book figures.It posted a 6.3s to 60 rather than the book figure of 6.7
Reference them over reading on the rollers....superchips development Polo Gti was 207 bhp standard
So, a Mk7 Golf GTI goes 0-60 in 6.5 seconds, it's actually doing it in about 6.0 seconds as tested, maybe even less. So no, you're wrong, the Golf has been and has always been faster than the Polo.
culpz said:
Pretty much most of the VAG engines, especially the ones put in the performance models, come out with more BHP than quoted by VW themselves. This has then, subsequently, meant the 0-60 times have also been better than the book figures.
So, a Mk7 Golf GTI goes 0-60 in 6.5 seconds, it's actually doing it in about 6.0 seconds as tested, maybe even less. So no, you're wrong, the Golf has been and has always been faster than the Polo.
May I refer you to this page which says otherwise:So, a Mk7 Golf GTI goes 0-60 in 6.5 seconds, it's actually doing it in about 6.0 seconds as tested, maybe even less. So no, you're wrong, the Golf has been and has always been faster than the Polo.
http://www.topgear.com/car-news/hot-hatch/hot-hatc...
Oh and the Golf's top speed is higher yes but only by 5mph. I know all this as I did the research before buying the car!
Gassing Station | Readers' Cars | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff