Volkswagen Polo 2014 vs Ford Fiesta 2012
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.4 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 105 HP | |
| Torque: | 250 NM | 150 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7.8 seconds | 10.5 seconds | |
|
Volkswagen Polo is more dynamic to drive. Volkswagen Polo engine produces 45 HP more power than Ford Fiesta, whereas torque is 100 NM more than Ford Fiesta. Thanks to more power Volkswagen Polo reaches 100 km/h speed 2.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.7 | 5.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.7 l/100km | 7.1 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Polo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volkswagen Polo consumes 1.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Fiesta, which means that by driving the Volkswagen Polo over 15,000 km in a year you can save 180 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volkswagen Polo consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Fiesta. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 45 litres | 42 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 950 km in combined cycle | 710 km in combined cycle | |
| 1090 km on highway | 930 km on highway | ||
| 670 km with real consumption | 590 km with real consumption | ||
| Volkswagen Polo gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 460'000 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 Ford Fiesta engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 10 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Volkswagen Passat, Volkswagen Golf, Audi A4, Skoda Octavia | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Ford Focus, Ford C-Max, Ford B-Max | |
| 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: | 3.97 m | 3.95 m | |
| Width: | 1.68 m | 1.72 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.48 m | |
| Volkswagen Polo is 2 cm longer than the Ford Fiesta, 4 cm narrower, while the height of Volkswagen Polo is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 280 litres | 295 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
952 litres | no data | |
| Despite its longer length, Volkswagen Polo has 15 litres less trunk space than the Ford Fiesta. This could mean that the Volkswagen Polo uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volkswagen Polo is 0.4 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`680 | 1`500 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Ford Fiesta is better rated in child safety tests. | |||
| Quality: | above average | below average | |
| Volkswagen Polo has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford Fiesta has serious deffects in 40 percent more cases than Volkswagen Polo, so Volkswagen Polo quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 6600 | 5000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Polo has
|
Ford Fiesta has
| |