Volkswagen Polo 1997 vs Suzuki Baleno 1995
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.9 Diesel | 1.9 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 64 HP | 75 HP | |
| Torque: | 124 NM | 135 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 16.9 seconds | n/a seconds | |
| Volkswagen Polo engine produces 11 HP less power than Suzuki Baleno, whereas torque is 11 NM less than Suzuki Baleno. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.1 | 7.0 | |
|
The Volkswagen Polo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Volkswagen Polo consumes 1.9 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 285 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 45 litres | 51 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 880 km in combined cycle | 720 km in combined cycle | |
| 1090 km on highway | 890 km on highway | ||
| Volkswagen Polo gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 700'000 km | 630'000 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: | 14 years | 12 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Audi 80, Seat Toledo, Skoda Felicia | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Citroen Xantia, Suzuki Vitara | |
| 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 | 1.69 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 | 1377 litres | |
| 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. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Suzuki Baleno (by 127 litres). | |||
| 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`620 | 1`520 | |
| 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 | 600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.0/10 | 7.0/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Polo has
|
Suzuki Baleno has
| |