Volkswagen Polo 2014 vs Ford Focus 2011
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.2 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 90 HP | 125 HP | |
| Torque: | 160 NM | 159 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.8 seconds | 10.9 seconds | |
| Volkswagen Polo engine produces 35 HP less power than Ford Focus, but torque is 1 NM more than Ford Focus. Despite less power, Volkswagen Polo reaches 100 km/h speed 0.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.7 | 5.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.0 l/100km | 6.6 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Polo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volkswagen Polo consumes 1.2 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 180 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volkswagen Polo consumes 0.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Focus. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 45 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 950 km in combined cycle | 930 km in combined cycle | |
| 1120 km on highway | 1140 km on highway | ||
| 750 km with real consumption | 830 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 9 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Used also on Ford C-Max | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Ford Focus 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. | |||
| Volkswagen Polo 2014 1.2 engine: Although the engine has a chain, its lifetime is relatively short. Vibration at idling speed tends to be excessive. Ford Focus 2011 1.6 engine: The engine boasts a simple and reliable design. After 100,000 km, piston knocking is a common issue. Electromagnetic Ti-VCT valves often develop leaks, and high-voltage wires frequently disconnect. The engine ... More about Ford Focus 2011 1.6 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.97 m | 4.36 m | |
| Width: | 1.68 m | 1.82 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.46 m | |
|
Volkswagen Polo is smaller. Volkswagen Polo is 39 cm shorter than the Ford Focus, 14 cm narrower the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 280 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
952 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volkswagen Polo is 0.4 metres less than that of the Ford Focus, which means Volkswagen Polo can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`620 | 1`825 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | average | below 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 (€): | 6000 | 4000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Polo has
|
Ford Focus has
| |