Tuesday 13th July 2004

Polo GT

Huge Gobs of torque from the little hatch

---

Volkswagen has launched a new, performance-orientated version of the Polo supermini. The diesel powered Polo GT promises spritely performance with fuel economy of over 50 mpg.

The new model uses the 1.9-litre TDI 130 PS engine, which features Volkswagen’s ‘Pumpe Düse’ (unit injector) technology for greater efficiency. With this advanced system, injection pressures are greater than those produced by common rail diesels, leading to superior power delivery and better thermal efficiency and stuff.

It offers a stonking amount of torque at 1900 rpm - 229 lbs ft (310 Nm). This is helped by a variable geometry turbocharger, which is designed to ‘smooth-out’ power delivery across the rev range. A six-speed gearbox is fitted as standard.

Positioned at the top of the Polo range, the GT is well equipped. Highlights include Climatic semi-automatic climate control; ABS; four airbags; six-disc CD autochanger; leather-rimmed steering wheel, gear knob and gaiter; electrically heated and adjustable door mirrors; front fog lights; multi-function computer; remote central locking with alarm; front sports seats; and front electric windows. Outside, the GT is distinguished subtly by sporty 16" alloy wheels, lowered suspension and chrome ‘GT’ badges.

Available to order from this week, the Polo GT is offered in three- or five-door bodystyles. Prices start at £14,250 RRP on the road, with a £500 premium for the five-door model.

[kingr seven]

Having plonked a diesel engine into the range-topping Fabia VRS, you would have thought they'd spare the polo the same humiliation.

Will we ever see a new polo GTi (with petrol power)? I fear not.

Kingr

[rob.e]

kingr seven said:

Will we ever see a new polo GTi (with petrol power)? I fear not.

So...? If the diesel is faster and more economical what's the problem?

[Mr Whippy]

Who would actually buy a high performance petrol version of a small small car like that?

A frugal diesel that is cheaper to insure and just as fast is likely to sell to a young person who wants a fast new car. A thirsty petrol with equivalent power and no where near as much torque would only be affordable to someone who doesn't want one anymore, since they've got grown up and want something more frugal and bigger or something proper fast.

Just look at the Lupo Gti... not many about, not that fast unless thrashed.

This Polo GT will outrun a 320d in a straight line no doubt, and is probably very affordable. Not sure on the insurance though. Think it'll make more money for VW than a petrol version, and it'll probably be a better car for it full stop.

Seya

Dave

[edc]

What's all the fuss about? The 130 PD has been available on the same and previous chassis in Ibiza and Fabia guise. As for petrol, buy an Ibiza for that too.

[Batster]

My wife has the TDI Sport with 100 bhp and that little fella can't have shift for a hatch, especially mid range, so idea of 130bhp in something as innocent looking as a polo is tempting when I change her car

Never thought I'd use words "fun" and "diesel" in same sentence re a small car but I have been converted...

[kingr seven]

rob.e said:

So...? If the diesel is faster and more economical what's the problem?

Because, given that it's the same unit as is in the Skoda, it's got a completely flat power delivery - there's no excitement, no reward for keeping it "on the boil".

Why would you not want a diesel TVR, Lotus or Caterham? Tedious, agricultural exhaust note and a dull power curve are but two that come instantly to mind. The same applies to any other car in my view.

Kingr

[smele]

No no no, don't torque about the BHP, look at the other figure:

229 lbs ft @ 1900 RPM.

[Ruxpin]

kingr seven said:

Because, given that it's the same unit as is in the Skoda, it's got a completely flat power delivery - there's no excitement, no reward for keeping it "on the boil". Kingr

Flat power delivery, no reward for keeping it "on the boil" and that's a bad thing?

Sure in an elise or seven a high revving peaky power delivery is good, but in the average daily drive its just a pain.

High torque means effortless overtaking power, you can't fault that.

I reckon the Polo GT will be very interesting but ultimatley too expensive

[DustyC]

Sounds fantastic, especially if its light wieght.
I want one already!

Whats all this nonsense about keeping it on the boil?
With the VAG TDi engines keeping it at around 2100/2200RPM and then flooring it for overtakes is when you get your rewards.
Id just like my Golf to be lighter and a bit more nimble. Perhaps thats where the Polo comes in.

[cacatous]

Mmmm, I am very interested!

Black with Audi Competition alloys (Thick 5 spoke polished wheels)

Maybe I need to save a few more pennies!

[rob.e]

If you want something thats fun to drive, you're not going to buy a polo or fabia or any front engined frontwheel drive car. You buy a sports car, not a hatch.

For the target market, or for me as a daily car, i DON'T want something i have to "keep on the boil". I WANT a flat torque curve - especially one that has 229 lbs !!

Agree the price is a bit steep though.

My current daily car is a mk3 golf gti which is a bit long in the tooth - the mk4 is lardy and mk5 worse, so polo is a logical choice.

[DustyC]

Agree with all that rob.e
I like the Polo for its economical commuting power and B road nimbleness.
If I wanted all the otehr stuff I'd fdrive my other car

I have a lardy Golf mk3 (or mk4?) Its a '97. Im confused with which Golf is which.

Just been looking at the Seat TDi's. They seem a good price. Are they better than the Golfs?
When I say better I mean lighter and more nimble.

[edc]

DustyC said:

Agree with all that rob.e I like the Polo for its economical commuting power and B road nimbleness. If I wanted all the otehr stuff I'd fdrive my other car I have a lardy Golf mk3 (or mk4?) Its a '97. Im confused with which Golf is which. Just been looking at the Seat TDi's. They seem a good price. Are they better than the Golfs? When I say better I mean lighter and more nimble.

The Leon uses the same chassis, dampers, engines (apart fromm 225) etc as the Golf4 so any difference is marginal. So you get the dash from the older A3 but the price you pay is substatially less. The same goes for the Polo/Ibiza/Fabia practically everything is interchangeable, even the exhausts swap over from Fabia to Ibiza etc

[DustyC]

So the only difference is the badge and the residuals?

(VW's seem to cost more)

[rob.e]

Yep, vw's cost more, but then you'll probably get more for it when you sell, so overall actual cost isn't that different.

If you golf is a 97 is a mk3. Mk4 came out in late 98 (S was earliest mk4 reg).

[DustyC]

aha, thought so but could be sure. Thanks.

(its still too lardy though).

[DustyC]

aha, thought so but could be sure. Thanks.

(its still too lardy though).

[DustyC]

aha, thought so but could be sure. Thanks.

(its still too lardy though).

[kingr seven]

rob.e said:

If you want something thats fun to drive, you're not going to buy a polo or fabia or any front engined frontwheel drive car. You buy a sports car, not a hatch.

Why were the Pug 205 GTi, Renault Clio Williams, 172, cup, Mini Cooper S and so on ever created then?

I think you're pigeonholing things rather too much. There's a significant body of (largely young people) who can't afford to insure or run a genuine sports car, less still the luxury of having a commuting car and a fun car, but still want something that they can drive to work in and still have a bit of fun taking the long way home. Why should VW not cater for this group?

I suppose my prinicple objection to the car is not the fact that it has a diesel engine, or even the it's the top of the range, more that the GT tag is plainly trying to impart a sporty image to the car that it simply doesn't have. Clearly this car does have merits - I have no doubt that it would prove reliable, it would seem fuel economical (if not economical in terms of purchase price, I'm confident depreciation will be very favourable though) and if your sporting aspirations are little more than an automotive equivalent of tiddley-winks, it will prove very suitable.

Perhaps this is merely fallout from the VAG prestige/sport split and I should simply disregard VW and Skoda until such time as I want a dull but reliable car.

Kingr

[iguana]

DustyC said:

I have a lardy Golf mk3 (or mk4?) Its a '97. Im confused with which Golf is which. When I say better I mean lighter and more nimble.

Dusty you have a Mk3, Mk4 is the one thats similar looking to Mk3, but main easy to spot diference is the lights (although to confuse matters you can fit Mk4 lights in a Mk3!)& bumpers, Mk5 is the new one.

mk3-



mk4-



Mk5-



If you are happy with your chugga as a commuter but as ive heard you say it before are unhappy with its lack of nimbleness you really need to sort the suspension, you will not belive the difference to the whole driving experience, its chalk & cheeze.

Mk3s have posibly the worst standard suspension of any car I can think of (Vectra LS excepted!!) its wallowy old horrible sh*te on all inc Gti, 16v's & VR6's, I've had them all, but bung a decent suspension kit on there & its an entirely different car.

My recomentation is for a budget kit that works v well-is from Eibach, retail is naff all, £300 ish I think, bigger ARBs if you wanted them another £250 (perhaps over kill on a commuter tdi) but it will feel like a totally diferent car to drive.

>> Edited by iguana on Wednesday 14th July 12:56