Volkswagen Golf 2008 vs Volkswagen Polo 2009
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 1.6 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 140 HP | 75 HP | |
| Torque: | 320 NM | 195 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.3 seconds | 14 seconds | |
|
Volkswagen Golf is more dynamic to drive. Volkswagen Golf engine produces 65 HP more power than Volkswagen Polo, whereas torque is 125 NM more than Volkswagen Polo. Thanks to more power Volkswagen Golf reaches 100 km/h speed 4.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.9 | 4.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.8 l/100km | 4.7 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Polo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volkswagen Golf consumes 0.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Polo, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volkswagen Golf could require 105 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volkswagen Golf consumes 1.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Polo. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1120 km in combined cycle | 1070 km in combined cycle | |
| 1370 km on highway | 1250 km on highway | ||
| 940 km with real consumption | 950 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 390'000 km | 350'000 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 Golf engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 12 other car models, including Volkswagen Passat, Volkswagen Sharan, Audi A3 | Used also on Skoda Fabia | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volkswagen Golf might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Volkswagen Golf 2008 2.0 engine: The engine is very durable and can last a long time with proper maintenance, and is also quite economical for its power. There may be some problems with the turbine geometry. It is important to use good ... More about Volkswagen Golf 2008 2.0 engine Volkswagen Polo 2009 1.6 engine: The 1.6 TDI turbo diesel engine is generally reliable, which is especially reassuring given its frequent use in commercial vehicles. Even under heavy use, it can exceed 500,000 km, provided that maintenance is performed regularly and ... More about Volkswagen Polo 2009 1.6 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.20 m | 3.97 m | |
| Width: | 1.79 m | 1.68 m | |
| Height: | 1.48 m | 1.49 m | |
|
Volkswagen Golf is larger, but slightly lower. Volkswagen Golf is 23 cm longer than the Volkswagen Polo, 11 cm wider the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 350 litres | 280 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1305 litres | 952 litres | |
|
Volkswagen Golf has more luggage capacity. Volkswagen Golf has 70 litres more trunk space than the Volkswagen Polo. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volkswagen Golf (by 353 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | no data | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`910 | 1`650 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | above average | average | |
| Volkswagen Golf has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volkswagen Polo has serious deffects in 10 percent more cases than Volkswagen Golf, so Volkswagen Golf quality is probably slightly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 4000 | 4200 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.7/10 | 6.4/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Golf has
|
Volkswagen Polo has
| |