Volkswagen Polo 2006 vs Renault Clio 2005
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 105 HP | 112 HP | |
| Torque: | 153 NM | 151 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.3 seconds | 12.2 seconds | |
|
Volkswagen Polo is more dynamic to drive. Volkswagen Polo engine produces 7 HP less power than Renault Clio, but torque is 2 NM more than Renault Clio. Despite less power, Volkswagen Polo reaches 100 km/h speed 0.9 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.4 | 7.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.6 l/100km | 8.9 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Polo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volkswagen Polo consumes 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Renault Clio, which means that by driving the Volkswagen Polo over 15,000 km in a year you can save 15 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 Renault Clio. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 45 litres | 50 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 600 km in combined cycle | 660 km in combined cycle | |
| 760 km on highway | 810 km on highway | ||
| 590 km with real consumption | 560 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
| Renault Clio 2005 1.6 engine: The engine is very robust and long-lived, up to half a million kilometres, and can suffer minor damage, but overall it is quite reliable. Fuel consumption is relatively high for these engines, but they are not ... More about Renault Clio 2005 1.6 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.92 m | 3.99 m | |
| Width: | 1.65 m | 1.71 m | |
| Height: | 1.47 m | 1.49 m | |
|
Volkswagen Polo is smaller. Volkswagen Polo is 7 cm shorter than the Renault Clio, 6 cm narrower, while the height of Volkswagen Polo is 2 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 270 litres | 288 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1030 litres | 1035 litres | |
| Volkswagen Polo has 18 litres less trunk space than the Renault Clio. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Renault Clio (by 5 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 11.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volkswagen Polo is 0.7 metres less than that of the Renault Clio, which means Volkswagen Polo can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Power steering: | Hydraulic power steering | Electric power steering | |
| Hydraulic power steering is technologically more complex, louder, increases fuel consumption and requires more servicing. It has the advantages of more power, less strain on the car's electrical system and better feedback (feeling) when steering. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`650 | 1`680 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | low | |
| Volkswagen Polo has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Renault Clio has serious deffects in 25 percent more cases than Volkswagen Polo, so Volkswagen Polo quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 2000 | 1400 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.0/10 | 6.1/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Polo has
|
Renault Clio has
| |