BMW Z4 2018 vs Volkswagen Polo 2009
Body: | Cabrio | Hatchback | |
---|---|---|---|
Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 1.6 Diesel | |
Petrol engines (BMW Z4) are generally quieter, smoother, and better suited for short trips due to quicker warm-up times. Diesel (Volkswagen Polo) engines, on the other hand, offer superior fuel efficiency and torque, making them ideal for long-distance driving and heavy loads. Read more: Petrol vs. Diesel: Fuel Economy and Key Differences. | |||
Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
Power: | 197 HP | 75 HP | |
Torque: | 320 NM | 195 NM | |
Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 6.8 seconds | 14 seconds | |
BMW Z4 is more dynamic to drive. BMW Z4 engine produces 122 HP more power than Volkswagen Polo, whereas torque is 125 NM more than Volkswagen Polo. Thanks to more power BMW Z4 reaches 100 km/h speed 7.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
Fuel consumption (l/100km): | no data | 4.2 | |
Fuel tank capacity: | 52 litres | 45 litres | |
690 km with real consumption | 950 km with real consumption | ||
Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
Front-wheel drive cars (Volkswagen Polo) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (BMW Z4) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
Average engine lifespan: | 320'000 km | 350'000 km | |
Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
Engine production duration: | 11 years | 6 years | |
Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including BMW 3 sērija, BMW X3, BMW 4 sērija, BMW X4 | Used also on Skoda Fabia | |
In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. BMW Z4 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
BMW Z4 2018 2.0 engine: Compared to their predecessors, B48 engines are more robust and less prone to major failures. They are well-suited for chip tuning, which can noticeably enhance performance and responsiveness without ... More about BMW Z4 2018 2.0 engine Volkswagen Polo 2009 1.6 engine: The 1.6 TDI turbo diesel engine is generally reliable, which is especially reassuring given its frequent use in commercial vehicles. Even under heavy use, it can exceed 500,000 km, provided that maintenance is performed regularly and ... More about Volkswagen Polo 2009 1.6 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
Length: | 4.32 m | 3.97 m | |
Width: | 1.86 m | 1.68 m | |
Height: | 1.30 m | 1.49 m | |
BMW Z4 is larger, but lower. BMW Z4 is 35 cm longer than the Volkswagen Polo, 18 cm wider, while the height of BMW Z4 is 18 cm lower. | |||
Trunk capacity: | 281 litres | 280 litres | |
Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 952 litres | |
BMW Z4 has 1 litres more trunk space than the Volkswagen Polo. | |||
Turning diameter: | 11 meters | no data | |
Gross weight (kg): | 1`725 | 1`650 | |
Safety: | |||
BMW Z4 scores higher in safety tests. The BMW Z4 scores higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
Quality: | no data | average | |
Average price (€): | 37 000 | 3600 | |
Pros and Cons: |
BMW Z4 has
|
Volkswagen Polo has
| |