Volkswagen Polo 1996 vs Toyota Corolla 2004
| Body: | Sedan | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| The hatchback generally has more luggage space thanks to a larger trunk door opening and the ability to convert the rear of the passenger compartment into luggage space. Sedans tend to be quieter than hatchbacks, due to a more isolated rear area. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.9 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 64 HP | 116 HP | |
| Torque: | 125 NM | 280 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 16.9 seconds | 10.6 seconds | |
|
Toyota Corolla is a more dynamic driving. Volkswagen Polo engine produces 52 HP less power than Toyota Corolla, whereas torque is 155 NM less than Toyota Corolla. Due to the lower power, Volkswagen Polo reaches 100 km/h speed 6.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.0 | 5.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 4.9 l/100km | 6.2 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Polo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volkswagen Polo consumes 0.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Toyota Corolla, which means that by driving the Volkswagen Polo over 15,000 km in a year you can save 90 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volkswagen Polo consumes 1.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Toyota Corolla. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 45 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 900 km in combined cycle | 980 km in combined cycle | |
| 910 km with real consumption | 880 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 14 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Audi 80, Seat Toledo, Skoda Felicia | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Toyota Avensis, Toyota RAV4, Toyota Corolla Verso | |
| 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 | 4.18 m | |
| Width: | 1.64 m | 1.71 m | |
| Height: | 1.41 m | 1.48 m | |
|
Volkswagen Polo is smaller. Volkswagen Polo is 4 cm shorter than the Toyota Corolla, 7 cm narrower, while the height of Volkswagen Polo is 7 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 455 litres | 310 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
762 litres | no data | |
|
Volkswagen Polo has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Volkswagen Polo has 145 litres more trunk space than the Toyota Corolla. The Toyota Corolla 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 | 10.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volkswagen Polo is 0.7 metres more than that of the Toyota Corolla, which means Volkswagen Polo can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`500 | 1`300 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | high | |
| Toyota Corolla has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volkswagen Polo has serious deffects in 200 percent more cases than Toyota Corolla, so Toyota Corolla quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 600 | 2000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.2/10 | 8.4/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Polo has
|
Toyota Corolla has
| |