I can't think of a single reason why the Polo would be better than a Panda.
Unless you don't want a car with bodywork that turns to rust at the first sign of a puddle and an interior that has the same quality feel as paper mache...
|
I can't think of a single reason why the Polo would be better than a Panda.
snipquote
So you've not been inside or around the outside a recent FIAT then??
|
It's hard to compare the current Polo with its obvious competitors because it's just a facelifted version of a design that's been around for several years. When the pre-facelifted model was introduced, there were all sorts of horror stores about quality. See the car-by-car breakdown on this site for details.
In the past year or so Renault, Peugeot, Vauxhall/Opel, and Fiat have all introduced new models that seem a massive improvement on their predecessors. The Fabia, with which the Polo shared its floorpan and many components, has also been replaced recently.
|
Had a Polo as a hire car recently. Nasty, plasticky and rubbish to drive. And before you say it had been thrashed it had 9 miles on the clock. It was just so bland and plasticky and sooooooo utterly dull to drive I couldn't imagine ever buying one. The new Corsa is so far ahead in terms of drive and interior quality it's embarrassing
But people will still buy the Polo 'cos it's got a VW badge on it. This chap will buy it regardless of what people on here say so why bother putting the post on in the first place?
|
|
Never driven a decent Polo either. Or Fiesta come to that.
|
I drove a Polo : new- once.
It reminded me of a small bus.
madf
|
|
|
|
Had a Polo as a hire car recently. Nasty plasticky and rubbish to drive. And before you say it had been thrashed it had 9 miles on the clock. It was just so bland and plasticky
It is ina different league to the Panda. Even in its own terms it is well screwed together, no more 'plasticky' then many much more upmarket models.
It may come as a shock to you, but most car interiors use 'plastics'. Perhaps you have a Cortina with a furry dash...
If you want real cheap, go back to the original Panda which has as a glove compartment a piece of fabric with a couple of curtain rail inserts as support.
|
|
|
|
|
>> I can't think of a single reason why the Polo would be better than a Panda. Unless you don't want a car with bodywork that turns to rust at the first sign of a puddle and an interior that has the same quality feel as paper mache...
Modern Fiat's don't rust do they? I know old Fiats (before my time) used to rust badly, but since they've been galvanising them I thought they've been very good. From what I've seen/heard, Seicento's seem to have good rust protection.
The quality of the interior doesn't seem too bad either. I'd be tempted to say that the Panda interior may be better than the Polo. The Polo looks dull and boring.
|
You wouldn't catch me buying a Fiat in a month of Sundays.
Same with Alfa Romeo. Except in Alfa's case, at least they are good looking cars..... but unfortunately still poorly built.
|
|
|
|
|
snipquoteReally? The 1.2 Corsa (and 1.2 16V Punto) has the same power output as that and the Corsa's 1.4 has 88bhp.
Fur enough.
However, the new Corsa I drove recently felt much more docile than the 1.4 Polo.
And can the Corsa get 80hp at 5000rpm..?
|
when all is said and done you still have a better clunk from a polo door than a fiat one
perhaps they have sub woofers hidden in the depths for this very porpoise?
|
|
|
snipquote - SIGH! However the new Corsa I drove recently felt much more docile than the 1.4 Polo.
Oh, I've just reallised, it's a newer, bigger, heavier Corsa now. In the old Corsa the 1.2 was great, but the new one is a whole second slower to 60mph.
And can the Corsa get 80hp at 5000rpm..?
I don't know, but I would be more interested in the torque rather than the power and rpm, unless I was going to race it.
|
Ziggy, you know very well what I'm talking about when I use the term "plasticky". There are soft to the touch showroom friendly plastics and there are nasty, hard to the touch, cheap ones like that in the Polo. They may last a long time, fair enough, but for feelgood factor and showroom appeal they are horrible. So please don't patronise me in future.
Having said all that I'm the mug who bought 2 Golf mark 4s because of their fantastic interiors and they were the worst cars I ever owned. So what do I know?
|
Why are soft-touch plastics considered the be-all and end-all anyway? The whole thing strikes me as the hobgoblin of tiny minds.
The Daewoo Nubira I've been given has soft-touch plastics on the dash and the doors. Is that a "high quality interior" now as well?
People who buy cars based on the tactile feel of the plastics used inside deserve all that's coming to them -- a company who feels it has to offer soft-touch plastics at the expense of basic engineering is desperate and not worth spending money on.
|
|
|
|
I don't know but I would be more interested in the torque rather than the power and rpm unless I was going to race it.
It is the same thing, in a way. E.g do you want your 88horses at 7500rpm or at 4500rpm..?
Torque is telling you how many horses you have at a given rpm.
|
Torque is telling you how many horses you have at a given rpm.
??
Theres a lot of nonsense talked about torque (!) and power - I blame it on advertising copywriters who try to sell us Diesel engined cars and suddenly 'discovered' torque as a good way to talk up Diesel engines.
Torque is a measure of the engine's ability to do work; power is the rate of doing work, so power is the product of torque and angular speed. The gearbox is there to help us exchange between power and torque at the wheels. If you want to drive a car like a steam engine and not change gears then go for something with lots of torque at low rpm. Otherwise go for something with lots of power, and reasonable torque at mid-revs - and use the gearbox! I would much rather have a smooth and powerful revvy engine than something with a max rpm of 4500 that puts out loads of torque - no fun in driving that!
To return to the Polo - well, they are a safe choice IMHO. Not the best and not the worst by any means. Can't get into the 'soft touch plastics' fetish myself - so long as properly put together I don't mind it soft or hard.
|
|
If I had just one car, and had to do a lot of driving, a 2.0 turbo diesel would get my vote. The 2.0 litre petrol I have is only powerful and "fun" between 50 and 60 in second, 70 and 90 in third, and I don't know about 4th because I want to keep my license! Rest of the time, its a matter of waiting for the revs to build up. However, the OP is talking about a 1.4 petrol VW: 1. No 1.4 in a car is remotely exciting. 2. Corsa and the like as equally as dull to drive. 3. OP wants a car for utility presumably: I agree re Polo being a safe choice, althought the interior of the Corsa is a lot better than previous dire efforts.
|
My wife had a '97 1.6GL 5dr 75bhp (Spannish built) which was sold a couple of years ago due to the tin moth getting the better of the two passenger side doors.
Driving it was OK, it did the job, started first time and never let her down. The car covered about 10k miles per year with a service and MOT.
Fuel economy was good but then it only had 75bhp 1.6 8v engine so was pretty pointless driving hard.
This was the GL model (elec. front windows, remote central locking, power steering) but felt spartan inside. Seats were rock hard - matching the plastic facia. The radio was diabolical and the two standard speakers were the cheapest nastiest pieces of rubbish EVER fitted to a car.
My wife was very happy with the car and I'm sure she would have another. My opinion, there were/are better cars for the money.
|
My ex-wife bought a 1995 Polo 1.3 when the new five door model came out. It was a great car in 1.3 form and was very reliable until it was nicked (and maybe after - who knows?).
However I drove a 1.0 litre model with air con overseas for a month and the only car slower that I can think of is the Nissan Serena diesel. I had to turn the a/c off before it would get up a steep hill.
|
|
|
|
. No 1.4 in a car is remotely exciting.
I could show you a number of exceptions to this statement - VW Polo G40, Fiat Punto GT, 106 Rallye etc
|
|
Exciting? None meet that criteria, to me. 113bhp? Trundlewagen. Far too slow off the mark. Try riding a bike with 1400cc, or even 500cc, but for a car (unless its a Caterhamor similar) you need much, much more poke to make up for the dead weight.
|
Exciting? None meet that criteria to me. 113bhp? Trundlewagen. Far too slow off the mark. Try riding a bike with 1400cc or even 500cc but for a car (unless its a Caterhamor similar) you need much much more poke to make up for the dead weight.
Yes, you need at least 200bhp in a small car to make it tolerable. Absolutely essential when crawling along the High Street, parking at Asda or negotiating speed bumps outside the primary school, LOL!
|
|
|
|
|
want to drive a car like a steam engine and not change gears then go for something with lots of torque at low rpm.
Or put more simply: go for something with lots of POWER at low revs. It is just normal to quote the peak torque@Xrevs, rather than the equivalent power@Xrevs.
Torque at X revs is just telling you the POWER at those revs.
|
|
"go for something with lots of POWER at low revs." Not in a 1.4 surely, although the turbo and super-charged VW 1.4 engines might meet that criteria. If you're brave and know the VW dealership directors intimately:) Otherwise you need something of very much larger engine capacity. Which is off the OP menu.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
