Volkswagen Polo 2014 vs BMW i3 2013
| Comparing electrical vehicle (EV) with combustion engine (ICE) one is a complex task, but we are doing our best. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 1.0 Petrol | 0.6 Hybrid | |
| Petrol engines (Volkswagen Polo) are generally cheaper to purchase and maintain, with simpler mechanics and consistent highway performance. Hybrid (BMW i3) engines, on the other hand, provide significantly better fuel efficiency and lower emissions, especially in urban and stop-and-go traffic conditions. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 60 HP | 38 HP | |
| Torque: | 95 NM | 56 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 15.5 seconds | 7.9 seconds | |
| Volkswagen Polo engine produces 22 HP more power than BMW i3, whereas torque is 39 NM more than BMW i3. Despite the higher power, Volkswagen Polo reaches 100 km/h speed 7.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Consumption: | 4.7 l/100km | 0.6 l/100km + 13.5 kWh/100km | |
| Fuel cost per 100km: | 8.80 € | 5.20 € | |
|
Change fuel prices per unit to adjust the calculation to the fuel prices in your country. Petrol€/lElectricity€/kWh | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 45 litres | 9 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 950 km in combined cycle | no data | |
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Volkswagen Polo) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (BMW i3) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 143 mm (5.6 inches) | 140 mm (5.5 inches) | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.97 m | 4.00 m | |
| Width: | 1.68 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.58 m | |
|
Volkswagen Polo is smaller. Volkswagen Polo is 3 cm shorter than the BMW i3, 9 cm narrower, while the height of Volkswagen Polo is 13 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 280 litres | 260 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
952 litres | 1100 litres | |
| Even though the car is shorter, The BMW i3 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 BMW i3 (by 148 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 9.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volkswagen Polo is 0.7 metres more than that of the BMW i3, which means Volkswagen Polo can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 1`570 kg | 1`730 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`055 kg | 1`315 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 515 kg | 415 kg | |
| Volkswagen Polo load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 19 procentiem more than BMW i3. Therefore, Volkswagen Polo is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 6400 | 10 000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Polo has
|
BMW i3 has
| |