Ford KA 1997 vs Volkswagen Polo 1999
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.3 Petrol | 1.4 Petrol | |
| 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: | 60 HP | 60 HP | |
| Torque: | 105 NM | 116 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 15.4 seconds | 14.5 seconds | |
|
Volkswagen Polo is a more dynamic driving. Ford KA and Volkswagen Polo have the same engine power, but Ford KA torque is 11 NM less than Volkswagen Polo. Ford KA reaches 100 km/h speed 0.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.7 | 6.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.8 l/100km | 6.8 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Polo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford KA consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Polo, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Ford KA could require 90 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 42 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 620 km in combined cycle | 730 km in combined cycle | |
| 760 km on highway | 910 km on highway | ||
| 610 km with real consumption | 660 km with real consumption | ||
| Volkswagen Polo gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 320'000 km | 380'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Volkswagen Polo engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 4 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Ford Fiesta | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Volkswagen Vento | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volkswagen Polo might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Volkswagen Polo engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.62 m | 3.74 m | |
| Width: | 1.63 m | 1.63 m | |
| Height: | 1.37 m | 1.42 m | |
| Ford KA is 12 cm shorter than the Volkswagen Polo, width is practically the same , while the height of Ford KA is 5 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 186 litres | 245 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
724 litres | 975 litres | |
|
Volkswagen Polo has more luggage space. Ford KA has 59 litres less trunk space than the Volkswagen Polo. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volkswagen Polo (by 251 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.8 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford KA is 0.6 metres less than that of the Volkswagen Polo, which means Ford KA can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`265 | 1`400 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | low | above average | |
| Volkswagen Polo has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford KA has serious deffects in 50 percent more cases than Volkswagen Polo, so Volkswagen Polo quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford KA has
|
Volkswagen Polo has
| |