Volkswagen Polo 1998 vs Renault Clio 2001
| Body: | Estate car / wagon | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 100 HP | 110 HP | |
| Torque: | 140 NM | 148 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.9 seconds | 9.6 seconds | |
|
Renault Clio is a more dynamic driving. Volkswagen Polo engine produces 10 HP less power than Renault Clio, whereas torque is 8 NM less than Renault Clio. Due to the lower power, Volkswagen Polo reaches 100 km/h speed 1.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.9 | 7.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.7 l/100km | 7.4 l/100km | |
|
The Renault Clio is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volkswagen Polo consumes 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Renault Clio, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volkswagen Polo could require 135 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volkswagen Polo consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Renault Clio. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 45 litres | 50 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 560 km in combined cycle | 710 km in combined cycle | |
| 730 km on highway | 890 km on highway | ||
| 580 km with real consumption | 670 km with real consumption | ||
| Renault Clio gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 4 years | 26 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Volkswagen Golf | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Dacia Duster | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Renault Clio 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. | |||
| Renault Clio 2001 1.6 engine: The engine is very robust and long-lived, up to half a million kilometres, and can suffer minor damage, but overall it is quite reliable. Fuel consumption is relatively high for these engines, but they are not ... More about Renault Clio 2001 1.6 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.14 m | 3.81 m | |
| Width: | 1.64 m | 1.64 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.42 m | |
| Volkswagen Polo is 33 cm longer than the Renault Clio, width is practically the same , while the height of Volkswagen Polo is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 390 litres | 510 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1250 litres | no data | |
|
Renault Clio has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Volkswagen Polo has 120 litres less trunk space than the Renault Clio. 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: | 10.9 meters | 10.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volkswagen Polo is 0.2 metres more than that of the Renault Clio. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`550 | 1`500 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | below average | |
| Volkswagen Polo has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Renault Clio has serious deffects in 30 percent more cases than Volkswagen Polo, so Volkswagen Polo quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Polo has
|
Renault Clio has
| |