Volkswagen Polo 1996 vs Seat Cordoba 1996
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.4 Petrol | 1.9 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 60 HP | 90 HP | |
| Torque: | 116 NM | 202 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 16 seconds | 12.5 seconds | |
|
Seat Cordoba is a more dynamic driving. Volkswagen Polo engine produces 30 HP less power than Seat Cordoba, whereas torque is 86 NM less than Seat Cordoba. Due to the lower power, Volkswagen Polo reaches 100 km/h speed 3.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.7 | 4.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.9 l/100km | 5.2 l/100km | |
|
The Seat Cordoba is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volkswagen Polo consumes 1.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Seat Cordoba, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volkswagen Polo could require 270 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volkswagen Polo consumes 1.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Seat Cordoba. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 45 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 670 km in combined cycle | 910 km in combined cycle | |
| 830 km on highway | 1090 km on highway | ||
| 650 km with real consumption | 860 km with real consumption | ||
| Seat Cordoba gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 380'000 km | 600'000 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 Seat Cordoba engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 4 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Volkswagen Vento | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Audi A4, Volkswagen Sharan, Volkswagen Polo, Seat Toledo | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Seat Cordoba might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.14 m | 4.14 m | |
| Width: | 1.64 m | 1.64 m | |
| Height: | 1.41 m | 1.42 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Volkswagen Polo and Seat Cordoba are practically the same length. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 455 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
760 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.9 meters | 10 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volkswagen Polo is 0.9 metres more than that of the Seat Cordoba, which means Volkswagen Polo can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`455 | 1`000 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | average | |
| Volkswagen Polo has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Seat Cordoba has serious deffects in 40 percent more cases than Volkswagen Polo, so Volkswagen Polo quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Polo has
|
Seat Cordoba has
| |