Volkswagen Polo 1997 vs Suzuki Baleno 1995
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.4 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 60 HP | 96 HP | |
| Torque: | 116 NM | 134 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 16 seconds | 11.2 seconds | |
|
Suzuki Baleno is a more dynamic driving. Volkswagen Polo engine produces 36 HP less power than Suzuki Baleno, whereas torque is 18 NM less than Suzuki Baleno. Due to the lower power, Volkswagen Polo reaches 100 km/h speed 4.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.8 | 7.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.8 l/100km | 7.4 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Polo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volkswagen Polo consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Suzuki Baleno, which means that by driving the Volkswagen Polo over 15,000 km in a year you can save 105 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volkswagen Polo consumes 0.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Suzuki Baleno. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 45 litres | 51 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 660 km in combined cycle | 680 km in combined cycle | |
| 810 km on highway | 820 km on highway | ||
| 660 km with real consumption | 680 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 4 years | 15 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Volkswagen Vento | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Suzuki Grand Vitara, Suzuki Vitara | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Suzuki Baleno 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 | 1.69 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.46 m | |
|
Volkswagen Polo is smaller. Volkswagen Polo is 24 cm shorter than the Suzuki Baleno, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Volkswagen Polo is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 390 litres | 375 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1250 litres | no data | |
| Even though the car is shorter, Volkswagen Polo has 15 litres more trunk space than the Suzuki Baleno. The Suzuki Baleno may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.9 meters | 9.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volkswagen Polo is 1.1 metres more than that of the Suzuki Baleno, which means Volkswagen Polo can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`490 | 1`200 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | above average | high | |
| Suzuki Baleno has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volkswagen Polo has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Suzuki Baleno, so Suzuki Baleno quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 800 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.0/10 | 7.0/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Polo has
|
Suzuki Baleno has
| |