Peugeot 106 1996 vs Volkswagen Polo 1999
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.5 Diesel | 1.9 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 58 HP | 64 HP | |
| Torque: | 95 NM | 124 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 18.5 seconds | 15.8 seconds | |
|
Volkswagen Polo is a more dynamic driving. Peugeot 106 engine produces 6 HP less power than Volkswagen Polo, whereas torque is 29 NM less than Volkswagen Polo. Due to the lower power, Peugeot 106 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.3 | 4.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.2 l/100km | 4.8 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Polo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Peugeot 106 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 Peugeot 106 could require 90 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Peugeot 106 consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Polo. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 45 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 840 km in combined cycle | 950 km in combined cycle | |
| 1040 km on highway | 1180 km on highway | ||
| 860 km with real consumption | 930 km with real consumption | ||
| Volkswagen Polo gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 280'000 km | 700'000 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: | 9 years | 14 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Audi 80, Seat Toledo, Skoda Felicia | |
| 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: | 3.68 m | 3.74 m | |
| Width: | 1.59 m | 1.63 m | |
| Height: | 1.38 m | 1.42 m | |
|
Peugeot 106 is smaller. Peugeot 106 is 6 cm shorter than the Volkswagen Polo, 4 cm narrower, while the height of Peugeot 106 is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 215 litres | 245 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
953 litres | 975 litres | |
|
Volkswagen Polo has more luggage space. Peugeot 106 has 30 litres less trunk space than the Volkswagen Polo. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volkswagen Polo (by 22 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Peugeot 106 is 0.2 metres more than that of the Volkswagen Polo. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`375 | 1`400 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | above average | |
| Volkswagen Polo has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Peugeot 106 has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Volkswagen Polo, so Volkswagen Polo quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1400 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
|
Volkswagen Polo has
| |