Seat Arosa 1997 vs Volkswagen Polo 1995
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.0 Petrol | 1.4 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 50 HP | 60 HP | |
| Torque: | 86 NM | 116 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 17.4 seconds | 14.9 seconds | |
|
Volkswagen Polo is a more dynamic driving. Seat Arosa engine produces 10 HP less power than Volkswagen Polo, whereas torque is 30 NM less than Volkswagen Polo. Due to the lower power, Seat Arosa reaches 100 km/h speed 2.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.8 | 6.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.4 l/100km | 6.9 l/100km | |
|
The Seat Arosa is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Seat Arosa consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Polo, which means that by driving the Seat Arosa over 15,000 km in a year you can save 105 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Seat Arosa consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Polo. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 35 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 600 km in combined cycle | 690 km in combined cycle | |
| 740 km on highway | 880 km on highway | ||
| 540 km with real consumption | 650 km with real consumption | ||
| Volkswagen Polo gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 330'000 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: | 3 years | 4 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Volkswagen Polo, Seat Ibiza, Volkswagen Lupo | 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. Seat Arosa might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.54 m | 3.72 m | |
| Width: | 1.64 m | 1.66 m | |
| Height: | 1.46 m | 1.42 m | |
|
Seat Arosa is smaller, but slightly higher. Seat Arosa is 18 cm shorter than the Volkswagen Polo, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Seat Arosa is 4 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 130 litres | 245 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
790 litres | 975 litres | |
|
Volkswagen Polo has more luggage space. Seat Arosa has 115 litres less trunk space than the Volkswagen Polo. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volkswagen Polo (by 185 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.8 meters | 10.1 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Seat Arosa is 0.3 metres less than that of the Volkswagen Polo. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`360 | 1`400 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | high | |
| Volkswagen Polo has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Seat Arosa has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Volkswagen Polo, so Volkswagen Polo quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Seat Arosa has
|
Volkswagen Polo has
| |