I'm planning on buying a second hand polo,
have two cars in mind to view this weekend but wish to have a bit of advice regarding them.
Both cars come within my rather modest budget so it's really a case of weighing up the pros and cons for each
the first is a 1998 1.4 cl model (which i prefer over the other), but with 94000 miles on the clock. has regular service history to 91000.
the second is a 1.3 l model (which i hear is quite a poor model in comparison), but with a lower 65000 miles on the clock, not as much service history.
it's mainly the mileage that concerns me. is 95000 miles high for a polo of this age or will there happily be another 20-30000 miles to go.
Any info or suggestions would be really cool thanks.
|
IMO 1.4CL is a better option from these two. From my own experience 94k miles with SH until 91k miles isn't much for a Polo. I've seen Polos with over 150k miles on petrol models.
1.3 would have been a better choice if it was a CL model. L range is the basic one with no power steering etc.. I'm sure you won't fancy driving such a heavy car round town without power steering.
When talking about the money make sure you point out the fact that 94k miles is quite high for this model and for the car based on its age. All the best with hunting mate.
|
|
|
|
Don't let the mileage worry you and you also have a good idea that it is genuine.You could really do with a proper inspection before you part with your money and a proper 3 months underwritten gaurantee if its a dealer.
|
Check the rear arches and the bottom edge of the rear window on the tailgate carefully for rust. Our 97R model was "starting to go" in these areas, and I was told by a VW tech mate that it wasn't the first he'd heard of.
Otherwise ours was pretty reliable in the year we had it. Its previous owner (my father in law) had had it from new and apart from copious oil consumption that never really settled, and a PAS rack leak when it was 6 months old it was a reliable motor. Also had a couple of niggles with electrics (windows and c/locking) but nothing too serious.
All I would say is we have a similar vintage Fiesta now, and it is a far sharper drive.
Cheers
DP
|
I've seen ones with rusty bottom doors, rusty rear valences.
Gearboxes can be varaible in feel, hall senders go. Generally reliable though. Not a bad car but not the best value for money IMO.
|
|
We've owned a (80K mile) 1997 1.4 CL for the last 2 years. Mechanically it has been excellent. The 1.4 8valve engine is grunty enough (better than the old 1.3), and is apparently more reliable than the 1.4 16valve engines. Gearchange on our car was notchy but was fixed completely by 'skilled' bending of the selector rod. Rust does seem to be a problem on Polos this age though- nothing structural, but the front valance and door bottoms on our car have rusted badly so worth checking.
|
|
Numer 2 son has one, as others have said you need to keep an eye on rust at the door bottoms. Otherwise he thinks its a great car, well specified for its age and type and his research among mates etc suggested reliability should be better than most.
|
Many thanks for all the advice.
The 1.4 CL sounds the much wiser option IMO.
Just as a further quoery does £1,000.00 sound a decent price for it?
Thanks once again
|
a £1000 sounds good
check the door locks work
have oil filter done
check when cambelt done
must have at least 8 months mot so it was safe 4 months ago at least,if not get vendor to test it before you buy it
these will easily do 95,000 miles if the history is genuine you can tell this straight away on a polo by looking at the wheel rims they will be basically rust free,if after trims have been fitted pull one off and observe
|
you can tell this straight away on a polo by looking at the wheel rims they will be basically rust free,if after trims have been fitted pull one off and observe
Really? Ours had a FVWSH (my father-in-law had it from new) and the rims had rust spots all over them.
Guess it depends on the dealer.
|
Hmm.... two cars are the same price.
Both are the smae model but one has a better spec (both technically and in terms of equipment), has been better maintained and is three years newer.
The other has 30k miles less on the clock, although the other one is only average mileage.
On paper, there is absolutely no contest between the two cars. The newer one for me, every single time, by a mile - obviously unless you turn up and discover that the newer one is in fact a wreck.
|
hi
i have a Polo 1.6 GL 1997 model. i am the 4th owner and have had it for the past 2 years. great car! it was my first and although i have bought another car (needed a bigger one as my family had expanded) i have still kept it and don't want to sell it yet.
it had 63000 on the clock when i got it - it has nearly 80000 now. got the cambelt done last month as i was doing heavy mileage - cost me 150 quid or so at halfords - great job.
it's true about the rust on the body and the wheel trims - mine's got them now - no mechanical faults though.
very reliable - have been all over the country in it. 80000 on the clock seems to be no bother for me - go for it mate
hope this was useful.
by the way can anybody give me some advice on how to spray paint the wheel trims please??
|
|
