Volkswagen Polo 2000 vs Toyota Corolla 2002
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 100 HP | 110 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 150 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.3 seconds | 11.8 seconds | |
|
Toyota Corolla is a more dynamic driving. Volkswagen Polo engine produces 10 HP less power than Toyota Corolla, whereas torque is 5 NM less than Toyota Corolla. Due to the lower power, Volkswagen Polo reaches 100 km/h speed 1.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.6 | 7.9 | |
|
The Toyota Corolla is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Volkswagen Polo consumes 0.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Toyota Corolla, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volkswagen Polo could require 105 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 45 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 520 km in combined cycle | 690 km in combined cycle | |
| 670 km on highway | 850 km on highway | ||
| Toyota Corolla gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 480'000 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: | 11 years | 12 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Skoda Octavia, Seat Toledo, Seat Ibiza | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Toyota Avensis, Toyota Corolla Verso | |
| 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: | 4.14 m | 4.38 m | |
| Width: | 1.64 m | 1.71 m | |
| Height: | 1.46 m | 1.50 m | |
|
Volkswagen Polo is smaller. Volkswagen Polo is 24 cm shorter than the Toyota Corolla, 7 cm narrower, while the height of Volkswagen Polo is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 390 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1250 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.9 meters | 10.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volkswagen Polo is 0.7 metres more than that of the Toyota Corolla, which means Volkswagen Polo can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`550 | 1`300 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | above average | high | |
| Toyota Corolla has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volkswagen Polo has serious deffects in 35 percent more cases than Toyota Corolla, so Toyota Corolla quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Polo has
|
Toyota Corolla has
| |