Volkswagen Golf 1996 vs Volkswagen Lupo 1998
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.9 Diesel | 1.7 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 90 HP | 60 HP | |
| Torque: | 202 NM | 115 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.3 seconds | 16.8 seconds | |
|
Volkswagen Golf is more dynamic to drive. Volkswagen Golf engine produces 30 HP more power than Volkswagen Lupo, whereas torque is 87 NM more than Volkswagen Lupo. Thanks to more power Volkswagen Golf reaches 100 km/h speed 3.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.8 | 4.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.8 l/100km | 4.7 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Lupo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volkswagen Golf consumes 2.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Lupo, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volkswagen Golf could require 360 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volkswagen Golf consumes 2.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Lupo. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 34 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 800 km in combined cycle | 770 km in combined cycle | |
| 1030 km on highway | 940 km on highway | ||
| 800 km with real consumption | 720 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 630'000 km | 560'000 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: | 6 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Audi A6, Audi 80, Volkswagen Vento, Seat Alhambra | Used also on Seat Arosa | |
| 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 1996 1.9 engine: This engine stands out for its durability and generally remains trouble-free until it has been used extensively over many years. Despite its robust construction, the wear and tear from prolonged use, ... More about Volkswagen Golf 1996 1.9 engine Volkswagen Lupo 1998 1.7 engine: The engine is not very powerful or dynamic, but it is robust. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.02 m | 3.53 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.64 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.46 m | |
|
Volkswagen Golf is larger, but slightly lower. Volkswagen Golf is 49 cm longer than the Volkswagen Lupo, 6 cm wider, while the height of Volkswagen Golf is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 130 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 860 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.7 meters | 10.1 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volkswagen Golf is 0.6 metres more than that of the Volkswagen Lupo, which means Volkswagen Golf can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`430 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | Volkswagen Lupo has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volkswagen Golf has serious deffects in 325 percent more cases than Volkswagen Lupo, so Volkswagen Lupo quality is probably significantly better | ||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Golf has
|
Volkswagen Lupo has
| |