Volkswagen Polo 1996 vs Ford Focus 1999
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.4 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 60 HP | 100 HP | |
| Torque: | 116 NM | 145 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 16 seconds | 11 seconds | |
|
Ford Focus is a more dynamic driving. Volkswagen Polo engine produces 40 HP less power than Ford Focus, whereas torque is 29 NM less than Ford Focus. Due to the lower power, Volkswagen Polo reaches 100 km/h speed 5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.7 | 7.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.9 l/100km | 7.4 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Polo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volkswagen Polo consumes 0.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Focus, which means that by driving the Volkswagen Polo over 15,000 km in a year you can save 45 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volkswagen Polo consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Focus. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 45 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 670 km in combined cycle | 780 km in combined cycle | |
| 830 km on highway | 980 km on highway | ||
| 650 km with real consumption | 740 km with real consumption | ||
| Ford Focus gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 380'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 4 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Volkswagen Vento | Used only for this car | |
| 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 | 4.36 m | |
| Width: | 1.64 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.41 m | 1.43 m | |
|
Volkswagen Polo is smaller. Volkswagen Polo is 22 cm shorter than the Ford Focus, 6 cm narrower, while the height of Volkswagen Polo is 2 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 455 litres | 490 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
760 litres | no data | |
|
Ford Focus has more luggage space. Volkswagen Polo has 35 litres less trunk space than the Ford Focus. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.9 meters | 10.9 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`455 | 1`615 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | high | above average | |
| Volkswagen Polo has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford Focus has serious deffects in 25 percent more cases than Volkswagen Polo, so Volkswagen Polo quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 800 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.2/10 | 8.3/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Polo has
|
Ford Focus has
| |