Volkswagen Lupo 1998 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: | 17.7 seconds | 14.9 seconds | |
|
Volkswagen Polo is a more dynamic driving. Volkswagen Lupo engine produces 10 HP less power than Volkswagen Polo, whereas torque is 30 NM less than Volkswagen Polo. Due to the lower power, Volkswagen Lupo reaches 100 km/h speed 2.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.6 | 6.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.4 l/100km | 6.9 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Lupo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volkswagen Lupo consumes 0.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Polo, which means that by driving the Volkswagen Lupo over 15,000 km in a year you can save 135 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volkswagen Lupo consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Polo. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 34 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 600 km in combined cycle | 690 km in combined cycle | |
| 730 km on highway | 880 km on highway | ||
| 530 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, Seat Arosa | 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. Volkswagen Lupo might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.53 m | 3.72 m | |
| Width: | 1.64 m | 1.66 m | |
| Height: | 1.46 m | 1.42 m | |
|
Volkswagen Lupo is smaller, but slightly higher. Volkswagen Lupo is 19 cm shorter than the Volkswagen Polo, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Volkswagen Lupo is 4 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 130 litres | 245 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
830 litres | 975 litres | |
|
Volkswagen Polo has more luggage space. Volkswagen Lupo 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 145 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.8 meters | 10.1 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volkswagen Lupo is 0.3 metres less than that of the Volkswagen Polo. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`340 | 1`400 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | high | high | |
| Volkswagen Polo has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volkswagen Lupo has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than Volkswagen Polo, so Volkswagen Polo quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Lupo has
|
Volkswagen Polo has
| |