Volkswagen Polo 2009 vs Volvo C30 2009
| Gearbox: | Automatic | 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: | 105 HP | 100 HP | |
| Torque: | 175 NM | 150 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.7 seconds | 11.8 seconds | |
|
Volkswagen Polo is more dynamic to drive. Volkswagen Polo engine produces 5 HP more power than Volvo C30, whereas torque is 25 NM more than Volvo C30. Thanks to more power Volkswagen Polo reaches 100 km/h speed 2.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.3 | 7.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.6 l/100km | 7.5 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Polo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volkswagen Polo consumes 1.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo C30, which means that by driving the Volkswagen Polo over 15,000 km in a year you can save 255 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volkswagen Polo consumes 0.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo C30. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 45 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 840 km in combined cycle | 780 km in combined cycle | |
| 1000 km on highway | 960 km on highway | ||
| 680 km with real consumption | 730 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 330'000 km | 440'000 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 Volvo C30 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 14 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Skoda Fabia, Seat Altea, Skoda Yeti | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Volvo V50, Volvo S40 | |
| 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. | |||
| Volkswagen Polo 2009 1.2 engine: Although the engine has a chain, its lifetime is relatively short. Vibration at idling speed tends to be excessive. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.97 m | 4.27 m | |
| Width: | 1.68 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.49 m | 1.44 m | |
|
Volkswagen Polo is smaller, but higher. Volkswagen Polo is 30 cm shorter than the Volvo C30, 10 cm narrower, while the height of Volkswagen Polo is 4 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 280 litres | 251 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 921 litres | |
|
Volkswagen Polo has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Volkswagen Polo has 29 litres more trunk space than the Volvo C30. The Volvo C30 may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`570 | 1`700 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Volkswagen Polo scores higher in safety tests, but Volvo C30 is better rated in child safety tests. | |||
| Quality: | high | below average | |
| Volkswagen Polo has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volvo C30 has serious deffects in 75 percent more cases than Volkswagen Polo, so Volkswagen Polo quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 4000 | 4200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Polo has
|
Volvo C30 has
| |