BMW i3 2013 vs Volkswagen Polo 2014
| Comparing electrical vehicle (EV) with combustion engine (ICE) one is a complex task, but we are doing our best. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
| Engine: | 0.6 Hybrid | 1.0 Petrol | |
| Hybrid engines (BMW i3) offer better fuel economy and lower emissions than petrol engines, especially in city driving with frequent stops. Petrol (Volkswagen Polo) engines, however, are typically less expensive to buy and maintain, and offer more consistent performance on highways. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 38 HP | 60 HP | |
| Torque: | 56 NM | 95 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7.9 seconds | 15.5 seconds | |
| BMW i3 engine produces 22 HP less power than Volkswagen Polo, whereas torque is 39 NM less than Volkswagen Polo. Despite less power, BMW i3 reaches 100 km/h speed 7.6 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Consumption: | 0.6 l/100km + 13.5 kWh/100km | 4.7 l/100km | |
| Fuel cost per 100km: | 5.20 € | 8.70 € | |
|
Change fuel prices per unit to adjust the calculation to the fuel prices in your country. Petrol€/lElectricity€/kWh | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 9 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | no data | 950 km in combined cycle | |
| 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 i3) 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. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 140 mm (5.5 inches) | 143 mm (5.6 inches) | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.00 m | 3.97 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.68 m | |
| Height: | 1.58 m | 1.45 m | |
|
BMW i3 is larger. BMW i3 is 3 cm longer than the Volkswagen Polo, 9 cm wider, while the height of BMW i3 is 13 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 260 litres | 280 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1100 litres | 952 litres | |
| Despite its longer length, BMW i3 has 20 litres less trunk space than the Volkswagen Polo. This could mean that the BMW i3 uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in BMW i3 (by 148 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.9 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the BMW i3 is 0.7 metres less than that of the Volkswagen Polo, which means BMW i3 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`730 | 1`570 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 8600 | 6400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW i3 has
|
Volkswagen Polo has
| |