Volkswagen Polo 1999 vs Peugeot 206 1998
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.9 Diesel | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Diesel (Volkswagen Polo) engines typically outperform gasoline engines in terms of fuel efficiency and low-end torque. This makes them more economical and better suited for towing or long-distance travel. However, gasoline (Peugeot 206) engines mostly are lighter, quieter, and offer better acceleration and responsiveness, especially in smaller vehicles. For more information, see the article "Diesel or Petrol: Fuel Economy and Key Differences." | |||
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 64 HP | 90 HP | |
| Torque: | 124 NM | 135 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 15.8 seconds | 12.5 seconds | |
|
Peugeot 206 is a more dynamic driving. Volkswagen Polo engine produces 26 HP less power than Peugeot 206, whereas torque is 11 NM less than Peugeot 206. Due to the lower power, Volkswagen Polo reaches 100 km/h speed 3.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.7 | 7.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 4.8 l/100km | 8.4 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Polo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volkswagen Polo consumes 2.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Peugeot 206, which means that by driving the Volkswagen Polo over 15,000 km in a year you can save 345 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volkswagen Polo consumes 3.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Peugeot 206. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 45 litres | 50 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 950 km in combined cycle | 710 km in combined cycle | |
| 1180 km on highway | 890 km on highway | ||
| 930 km with real consumption | 590 km with real consumption | ||
| Volkswagen Polo gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
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 306, Citroen Xsara Picasso, Peugeot 106 | |
| 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: | 3.74 m | 3.82 m | |
| Width: | 1.63 m | 1.65 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.43 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Volkswagen Polo is 8 cm shorter than the Peugeot 206, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Volkswagen Polo is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 245 litres | 245 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
975 litres | 1130 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 9.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volkswagen Polo is 0.5 metres more than that of the Peugeot 206, which means Volkswagen Polo can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`400 | 1`525 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | above average | below average | |
| Volkswagen Polo has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Peugeot 206 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 Polo has
|
Peugeot 206 has
| |