Suzuki Baleno 1995 vs Volkswagen Polo 1997
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 1.6 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: | 121 HP | 75 HP | |
| Torque: | 152 NM | 135 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.2 seconds | 13.3 seconds | |
|
Suzuki Baleno is more dynamic to drive. Suzuki Baleno engine produces 46 HP more power than Volkswagen Polo, whereas torque is 17 NM more than Volkswagen Polo. Thanks to more power Suzuki Baleno reaches 100 km/h speed 3.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.7 | 7.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.0 l/100km | 7.0 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Polo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Suzuki Baleno consumes 0.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Polo, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Suzuki Baleno could require 75 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Suzuki Baleno consumes 1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Polo. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 660 km in combined cycle | 620 km in combined cycle | |
| 790 km on highway | 780 km on highway | ||
| 630 km with real consumption | 640 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 460'000 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 | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Skoda Octavia, Seat Ibiza, Seat Cordoba | |
| 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.38 m | 4.14 m | |
| Width: | 1.69 m | 1.64 m | |
| Height: | 1.46 m | 1.43 m | |
|
Suzuki Baleno is larger. Suzuki Baleno is 24 cm longer than the Volkswagen Polo, 5 cm wider, while the height of Suzuki Baleno is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 375 litres | 390 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1377 litres | 1250 litres | |
| Despite its longer length, Suzuki Baleno has 15 litres less trunk space than the Volkswagen Polo. This could mean that the Suzuki Baleno 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 Suzuki Baleno (by 127 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.8 meters | 10.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Suzuki Baleno is 1.1 metres less than that of the Volkswagen Polo, which means Suzuki Baleno can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`590 | 1`515 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | high | above average | |
| Suzuki Baleno has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volkswagen Polo has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Suzuki Baleno, so Suzuki Baleno quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 600 | 1000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.0/10 | 7.0/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Suzuki Baleno has
|
Volkswagen Polo has
| |