Volkswagen Polo 1997 vs Skoda Octavia 2000
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.4 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 60 HP | 102 HP | |
| Torque: | 116 NM | 148 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 16 seconds | 11.9 seconds | |
|
Skoda Octavia is a more dynamic driving. Volkswagen Polo engine produces 42 HP less power than Skoda Octavia, whereas torque is 32 NM less than Skoda Octavia. Due to the lower power, Volkswagen Polo reaches 100 km/h speed 4.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.8 | 7.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.8 l/100km | 7.5 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Polo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volkswagen Polo consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Skoda Octavia, which means that by driving the Volkswagen Polo over 15,000 km in a year you can save 60 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volkswagen Polo consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Skoda Octavia. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 45 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 660 km in combined cycle | 760 km in combined cycle | |
| 810 km on highway | 960 km on highway | ||
| 660 km with real consumption | 730 km with real consumption | ||
| Skoda Octavia gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 380'000 km | 480'000 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 Skoda Octavia engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 4 years | 11 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Volkswagen Vento | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Volkswagen Polo, Seat Ibiza, Seat Toledo | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Skoda Octavia might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Skoda Octavia 2000 1.6 engine: This is a simple and reliable engine with an impressive lifespan when properly maintained. However, many of its issues stem from air leaks, so checking hoses and the intake manifold is essential. The ignition ... More about Skoda Octavia 2000 1.6 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.14 m | 4.51 m | |
| Width: | 1.64 m | 1.73 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.46 m | |
|
Volkswagen Polo is smaller. Volkswagen Polo is 37 cm shorter than the Skoda Octavia, 9 cm narrower, while the height of Volkswagen Polo is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 390 litres | 548 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1250 litres | 1512 litres | |
|
Skoda Octavia has more luggage space. Volkswagen Polo has 158 litres less trunk space than the Skoda Octavia. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Skoda Octavia (by 262 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.9 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volkswagen Polo is 0.1 metres more than that of the Skoda Octavia. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`490 | 1`805 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | above average | above average | |
| Volkswagen Polo has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Skoda Octavia has serious deffects in 10 percent more cases than Volkswagen Polo, so Volkswagen Polo quality is probably slightly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.0/10 | 7.5/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Polo has
|
Skoda Octavia has
| |