Volkswagen Polo 1997 vs Peugeot 106 1996
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.9 Diesel | 1.5 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 64 HP | 58 HP | |
| Torque: | 124 NM | 95 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 15.8 seconds | 18.5 seconds | |
|
Volkswagen Polo is more dynamic to drive. Volkswagen Polo engine produces 6 HP more power than Peugeot 106, whereas torque is 29 NM more than Peugeot 106. Thanks to more power Volkswagen Polo reaches 100 km/h speed 2.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.7 | 5.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 4.9 l/100km | 5.2 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Polo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volkswagen Polo consumes 0.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Peugeot 106, which means that by driving the Volkswagen Polo over 15,000 km in a year you can save 90 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volkswagen Polo consumes 0.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Peugeot 106. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 45 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 950 km in combined cycle | 840 km in combined cycle | |
| 1180 km on highway | 1040 km on highway | ||
| 910 km with real consumption | 860 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 | 280'000 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 | 9 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Audi 80, Seat Toledo, Skoda Felicia | Used only for this car | |
| 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: | 3.72 m | 3.68 m | |
| Width: | 1.66 m | 1.59 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.38 m | |
|
Volkswagen Polo is larger. Volkswagen Polo is 4 cm longer than the Peugeot 106, 7 cm wider, while the height of Volkswagen Polo is 4 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 245 litres | 215 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
975 litres | 953 litres | |
|
Volkswagen Polo has more luggage capacity. Volkswagen Polo has 30 litres more trunk space than the Peugeot 106. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volkswagen Polo (by 22 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volkswagen Polo is 0.2 metres more than that of the Peugeot 106. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`375 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | average | |
| Volkswagen Polo has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Peugeot 106 has serious deffects in 40 percent more cases than Volkswagen Polo, so Volkswagen Polo quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Polo has
|
| |