Volkswagen Polo 2001 vs Citroen C3 2002
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.9 Diesel | 1.4 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 64 HP | 68 HP | |
| Torque: | 125 NM | 150 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 17 seconds | 15.4 seconds | |
|
Citroen C3 is a more dynamic driving. Volkswagen Polo engine produces 4 HP less power than Citroen C3, whereas torque is 25 NM less than Citroen C3. Due to the lower power, Volkswagen Polo reaches 100 km/h speed 1.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.7 | 4.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.0 l/100km | 4.7 l/100km | |
|
The Citroen C3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volkswagen Polo consumes 0.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Citroen C3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volkswagen Polo could require 75 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volkswagen Polo consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Citroen C3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 45 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 950 km in combined cycle | 1070 km in combined cycle | |
| 1150 km on highway | 1180 km on highway | ||
| 900 km with real consumption | 950 km with real consumption | ||
| Citroen C3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 700'000 km | 420'000 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: | 14 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Audi 80, Seat Toledo, Skoda Felicia | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Citroen Xsara, Peugeot 206, Citroen C2, Peugeot 1007 | |
| 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: | 3.90 m | 3.85 m | |
| Width: | 1.65 m | 1.67 m | |
| Height: | 1.46 m | 1.52 m | |
| Volkswagen Polo is 5 cm longer than the Citroen C3, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Volkswagen Polo is 6 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 270 litres | 305 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1030 litres | 1150 litres | |
|
Citroen C3 has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Volkswagen Polo has 35 litres less trunk space than the Citroen C3. This could mean that the Volkswagen Polo 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 Citroen C3 (by 120 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.5 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volkswagen Polo is 0.1 metres more than that of the Citroen C3. | |||
| Power steering: | Hydraulic power steering | Electric power steering | |
| Hydraulic power steering is technologically more complex, louder, increases fuel consumption and requires more servicing. It has the advantages of more power, less strain on the car's electrical system and better feedback (feeling) when steering. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`630 | 1`501 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | below average | below average | |
| Citroen C3 has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Volkswagen Polo, so Citroen C3 quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Polo has
|
Citroen C3 has
| |