Volkswagen Polo 2001 vs Ford Fiesta 2002
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.4 Petrol | 1.4 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 75 HP | 80 HP | |
| Torque: | 126 NM | 124 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 15.3 seconds | 13.2 seconds | |
|
Ford Fiesta is a more dynamic driving. Volkswagen Polo engine produces 5 HP less power than Ford Fiesta, but torque is 2 NM more than Ford Fiesta. Due to the lower power, Volkswagen Polo reaches 100 km/h speed 2.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.4 | 6.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.1 l/100km | 6.7 l/100km | |
|
The Ford Fiesta is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volkswagen Polo consumes 1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Fiesta, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volkswagen Polo could require 150 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volkswagen Polo consumes 1.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Fiesta. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 45 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 600 km in combined cycle | 700 km in combined cycle | |
| 770 km on highway | 880 km on highway | ||
| 550 km with real consumption | 670 km with real consumption | ||
| Ford Fiesta gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 370'000 km | 350'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 4 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Skoda Octavia, Skoda Fabia, Audi A2 | Used also on Ford Focus | |
| 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. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Volkswagen Polo engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.90 m | 3.92 m | |
| Width: | 1.65 m | 1.68 m | |
| Height: | 1.46 m | 1.46 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Volkswagen Polo is 2 cm shorter than the Ford Fiesta, 3 cm narrower the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 245 litres | 284 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
975 litres | 947 litres | |
| Volkswagen Polo has 39 litres less trunk space than the Ford Fiesta. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volkswagen Polo (by 28 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 9.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volkswagen Polo is 0.8 metres more than that of the Ford Fiesta, which means Volkswagen Polo can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`490 | 1`530 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | below average | above average | |
| Ford Fiesta has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volkswagen Polo has serious deffects in 40 percent more cases than Ford Fiesta, so Ford Fiesta quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1400 | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Polo has
|
Ford Fiesta has
| |