VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - Teapot42

I'm still on the lookout for a new car to replace my trusty old Yaris. SWMBO has taken a liking to the new-style Polo. I must admit I do like the looks of it but am a bit concerned about the spec of the base model which is the only one anywhere near in my budget.

I'm quite surprised the base engine only gives out 60ps - is this really enough for this size of car? My old 998cc Yaris has 67bhp and that feels... well, I can't say I'd want any less power, put it that way. It copes but more would be nice.

The Polo does have more torque, 108Nm against 90Nm. How much effect will that have or will the the extra 180kg mean you need that bit more anyway?

Also, I gather the 1.2 in the Polo is a 3-pot while my Yaris is the older 4-pot version. I understand that having one less cylinder means less friction but what actual effect does this have? Would it increase the output power or mean that the power available is better used?

Truth be told I think I'd prefer the 70ps version but there don't seem to be many of them around and certainly not within my budget.

I'm trying to convince her to consider the i20. Not only does that seem roomier (a big consideration as I need to transport stuff around) but the engines seem more modern, powerful and efficient.

My right foot says that a Mazda 2 would be an even more fun proposition to drive, albeit less space and not as well specced...

VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - tanvir

Whenever I see questions like this, the only reply I can think of is... for gods sake test drive one, and make your own mind up

VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - Teapot42

I have similar thoughts when I see replies such as this, generally along the lines of the fact a test-drive is 15 minutes if you are lucky and is on a very limited range of road types.

If a test drive covered 200 mile motorway trips full of luggage, driving through the hilly parts of the peak district etc, etc then your comment would make sense.

This is why I was asking for the experience of people who own the car and have driven it in a range of circumstances. All a test drive would tell me would be if it was so bad as to be not even worth thinking about.

VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - unthrottled

I'm still on the lookout for a new car to replace my trusty old Yaris.

Why? Your proposed replacement is inferior in every respect to your existing car. Yes, the 60 hp engine will be a slug.

The Polo does have more torque, 108Nm against 90Nm. How much effect will that have or will the the extra 180kg mean you need that bit more anyway?

It means that the engine will have more grunt in the mid range and low down due to its larger displacement. As you have surmised, the extra weight will nullify this advantage.

[3 pot vs 4 pot] but what actual effect does this have?

The engine should be more efficient-but you're lugging around the equivalent of two heavy passengers so this will cancel out any fuel economy savings in stop-start driving. 3 pots are noticeably less smooth at low speeds than 4-that's why they were traditionally shunned. Get them above about 2000 RPM and you won't tell the difference. Take the engine beyond ~4000RPM and the 3 pot is smoother than the 4.

Unless owning a 61 plate is the overriding consideration, I'd stick with what you have.

VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - Teapot42

Is a modern Polo really inferior in every aspect to a 12 year old Yaris? It strikes me from what I have seen and read that the build quality is better, there is more space in the back and it looks nicer.

The over-riding consideration is that the Yaris is too small for what I need from a car. A secondary consideration is that I can tell things are starting to wear to the point where expensive repairs will be necessary, maybe not imminently but certainly in the next couple of years.

I had initially dismissed the 60hp engine, wondering why on earth a company like VW would put something that small in to one of their cars. However, HJ's writeup seemed to suggest it wasn't actually all that bad.

VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - Leif
[3 pot vs 4 pot] but what actual effect does this have?

The engine should be more efficient-but you're lugging around the equivalent of two heavy passengers so this will cancel out any fuel economy savings in stop-start driving. 3 pots are noticeably less smooth at low speeds than 4-that's why they were traditionally shunned. Get them above about 2000 RPM and you won't tell the difference. Take the engine beyond ~4000RPM and the 3 pot is smoother than the 4.

What do you mean when you say 'smooth'? How does that manifest itself?

Yes a 3 cylinder engine is no good if the car is heavier. But these days fuel economy is seen as important by manufacturers.

I have a 3 cylinder engine in my VW Up, and it is a very nice engine. It could sound a bit like a tractor at times for the first 3K miles, but not any more. Generally quiet, and sounds nice when revved too. I think the problem with 3 cylinder engines has been the lack of inherent balance, so they have to be made to higher tolerances. But they are becoming quite common, and used by Peugeot, Citroen, VW, Ford, Toyota and others probably.

VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - Auristocrat

In June my neighbour was to have the cylinder head replaced on his 59 reg Polo (15,000 miles) which has this engine. According to the dealer the engine has a common problem with the cylinder head, and said the issue may occur again. Cost estimated by dealer circa £1200.

When they took the head off, they stripped one of the bolts in the block - new engine under warranty instead.

Have recommended the use of non-supermarket fuel.

VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - unthrottled

Have recommended the use of non-supermarket fuel.

Have recommended the use of supermarket fuel. Never had to clean an injector yet.

VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - thirts
I am in the exact same position. I have an ageing Yaris and am looking at a replacement.

So far I've considered the new Yaris, but the dealer can't get me a 1.0L to test drive, they can only get me the 1.3 !

I've considered the Polo but the dealer was busy when I called and didn't bother to return my call - this added to my concern then VW have rubbish customer service. I thought the Polo had two different 1.2 engines, one with 75 bhp ( have I got that wrong).

The other very high contender on my list is the new Hyundia i20. Not had a chance to test this and I'm a litte put of this as the nearest dealer is some distance away - presumably to preserve it's warranty it's better to use the main dealer rather than an independent
VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - Auristocrat

The Polo (and Fabia and Ibiza) use two versions of the 3 cylinder 1.2 engine - 60bhp and 70bhp.

VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - unthrottled

How old is 'ageing'? A well maintained Toyota should run and run. Too many people think that their car is living on borrowed time whern it passes some psycologically important barrier such as...[pause for effect]...100,000 miles or 10 years.

VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - Rats

How old is 'ageing'? A well maintained Toyota should run and run.

I have just taken over running my father's Corolla, 51 plate, 25,000 miles or so (ok, very low mileage for it's age), it's not worth much and the bodywork is in poor condition (one of the reasons he's not driving anymore!), BUT, it drives well and according to the computer I'm getting 39MPG (will confirm when I have first fillup tonight) in my mind, it's a keeper until there is a problem that is too expensive to sort out, cheap motoring for me!

Hopefully it will "run and run"

VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - Bobbin Threadbare

How old is 'ageing'? A well maintained Toyota should run and run.

I have just taken over running my father's Corolla, 51 plate, 25,000 miles or so (ok, very low mileage for it's age), it's not worth much and the bodywork is in poor condition (one of the reasons he's not driving anymore!), BUT, it drives well and according to the computer I'm getting 39MPG (will confirm when I have first fillup tonight) in my mind, it's a keeper until there is a problem that is too expensive to sort out, cheap motoring for me!

Hopefully it will "run and run"

Yep - Mr B is still running a 9 and a half year old Celica. We've had it for 5 years. It thrives on neglect, it would appear. He has never had to do anything to it other than replace wearable parts such as tyres/wiper blades. Considering what it's designed to do i.e. be a sporty petrol coupé, he gets about 32-33mpg out of it.

VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - thirts
'How old is ageing' In my case my Yaris is over 11 years. The mileage is low at 44k, but it's been the worst possible 44k miles - lots and lots of cold starts/short journeys.

It's also been scrapped several times, and being red, the reprinted panels show a bit, the roof has been jumped on, although I managed to push it out, you can just about see the dents that were left. And unusually for a Toyota, the drivers side door is rusting from the bottom.
VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - Teapot42

Sounds pretty much the same situation as me. I was thinking about the new Yaris but the Mk3 is a bit too new to be affordable and I suspect I can do better than the Mk2 these days.

The i20 is high up there for me as well, but I have a similar issue, the local dealer closed a year or two back and the nearest aren't that handy, either Macc or the centre of Manchester. Certainly for what car you get for the money it seems the best bet out there.

We do have a local Kia dealer, not sure if they would be any better for servicing than just a normal garage, I'm not sure how much cross-over there is between the ranges.

I think I need to get SWMBO off the Polo fixation...

If the boot is big enough then the Mazda 2 would be my choice for styling and being fun to drive but the i20 may be more practical.

VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - RT
We do have a local Kia dealer, not sure if they would be any better for servicing than just a normal garage, I'm not sure how much cross-over there is between the ranges.

With the sole exception of the Kia Sedona, all Kia models are now based on Hyundai underpinnings.

Perversely Kia parts are cheaper than Hyundai even though in most cases they have both Kia and Hyundai part numbers on them.

VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - madf

My younger son has a Y reg Yaris 1.0. He rarely washes it and is the 5th owner. The prior ones neglected it. It has done 116k miles, has just had a new catalyst and MOT (£190 all in). Oroginal battery and clutch and most of the suspension looks original.

It will win no beauty contests but he drives 10 k miles a year and it's 100% reliable. No dount he will run it until the reapir costs are exorbitant. Given we have a good independent garage - (who did the cat and mOT) - and a low mileage engine in good condition is £350 and there are lots of cheap spares, it's going to be used until it drops.

(son is not at all intrested in cars)

VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - Teapot42

They are good cars and I will be sad to see it go. Were it not for the fact I can no longer fit everything I need in the back when going to model railway shows I would keep it going as long as I could as well.

Mine has had to have new suspension bits, coil springs at the rear and bushes at the front but that is because Stockport council will throw speed bumps down on any road they can get away with.

It is only in the last two years I've needed to do anything to mine - brake pads finally needed replacing just after 100k miles and the exhaust (aside from the manifold which is on the way out) went last year.

However, I can now see a few jobs coming up and as I need more space anyway it seems best to move up now before I have to shell out. One of the tappets is getting noisy and I'm told by my mechanic that the cam chain is sounding rough as well so could do with changing if I was keeping it much longer.

VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - jamie745

As much as I think little underpowered cars can be fun to drive at legal speeds where as high powered cars are boring below 120mph, I personally wouldn't buy anything with less than 130bhp in it.

I have 240 rampaging brilliant British steeds and I like them.

VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - Leif

I'm still on the lookout for a new car to replace my trusty old Yaris. SWMBO has taken a liking to the new-style Polo. I must admit I do like the looks of it but am a bit concerned about the spec of the base model which is the only one anywhere near in my budget.

Why not hire one for a day and go for a drive somewhere, and cover the various terrains you are likely to meet on a daily basis? That way you get a feel for it. And what is £50 for a 1 day hire compared to making the wrong choice of car? I had a diesel Polo, 6 months old, as a loan car for 2 weeks. Very nice car, comfy, but not your engine, and I did not really like the diesel, too much turbo lag at low speeds. I also had a new model base spec. Fiesta for 4 days, hated it. Of course were you to take a test drive of a Fiesta, they'd give you a higher spec model with a bigger engine and more toys, which is basically a different car.

You could try a VW Up or one of its variants. I thought it better than the diesel Polo in most respects, but the Polo feels much more upmarket inside, it is really quite posh. Still, the Up feels decent quality, better than a Fiesta, and similar to a Panda which I like.

DriveTheDeal have some good deals on Polos, and other cars.

VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - Avant

Your best argument to counter SWMBO's Polo penchant is that it won't have more room for people and luggage than a Yaris.

A Skoda Fabia is cheaper and roomier, and the base 1.2 has 70 bhp, which has to be an improvement on 60. I had one as a courtesy car and it seemed quite lively.

VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - Teapot42

Are we talking same Yaris here? Mine is the Mk1, 3.6m long. The Polo is about 400mm longer. I can't find the boot size quoted but it must be well under 200l so the Polo wins out again.

The problem though is that she is very hot on design and quality. I do agree that the Polo looks good but I'm not so convinced the technical design is any better than many cheaper rivals.

Currently veering back towards a Jazz. The 1.2 has more power, the car has more space and it is cheaper. Just got to convince SWMBO it is a better bet than the Jazz.

I was considering the Fabia but... I can't quite put my finger on it but I think there are better cars out there for the money. As others have pointed out, isn't the Fabia engine the same as the Polo so has the same flaws?

VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - unthrottled

Currently veering back towards a Jazz. The 1.2 has more power,

It does at the top end, but bear in mind that will have the same amount of power as the Polo below about 4000 RPM, so if you're not keen on revving engines, it won't be of any advantage to you!

VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - Avant

If going for a Jazz, you're better off with the 1339cc engine (which Honda optimistically calls a 1.4). The 1.2 is a little underpowered for a car which is definitely bigger than a Yaris or a Polo.

VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - Leif

Are we talking same Yaris here? Mine is the Mk1, 3.6m long. The Polo is about 400mm longer. I can't find the boot size quoted but it must be well under 200l so the Polo wins out again.

The problem though is that she is very hot on design and quality. I do agree that the Polo looks good but I'm not so convinced the technical design is any better than many cheaper rivals.

Currently veering back towards a Jazz. The 1.2 has more power, the car has more space and it is cheaper. Just got to convince SWMBO it is a better bet than the Jazz.

I was chatting to a colleague recently, and he said he has a Jazz, and he loves it. Good ride, quiet, and plenty of room inside. Decent mpg too. The Polo has I think 290L of boot space, comparable to a Fiesta, and an Up has 250L. Car length is not necessarily closely correlated with internal space, it depends in part on the engine compartment length, and how they arrange the engine bits, and the shape of the top rear part of the car. Not sure what you mean by technical design. My impression of the Polo was that it was a bit dull to drive, but the plastics inside made it feel upmarket.

VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - oldgit

Well, this discussion just proves how useless it is for someone to ask " what car or engine should I buy etc.etc.....................................". Just form your own opinions and do the research or go and get your own driving tests down on some models.

In over 55 years of motoring, I think that I can honestly say that I have never asked for opinions on these matters. Ultimately, it's what I like that will be the final arbiter and not what someone else tells me to do based on their own experiences or prejudices.

VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - Teapot42

I looked at an Up (and the Skoda / Seat versions) at the Cheshire Show recently. If I'd just been doing a direct replacement for the Yaris they would go straight to the top of the list.

The boot, however, seemed a worse 'shape'. It may technically be bigger but not more useable. In some ways, quoting boot capacity in litres isn't much help as it depends what you are loading to. I need more area, not necessarily height.

When I say technical design I mean things like drivetrain, engines etc. The Polo looks like a very good piece of design in terms of style, looks and quality of parts, but the engine especially really lets it down. Pretty much what you say at the end, upmarket style but not an impressive drive.

I've done some interesting sums comparing the models. The main thing I'd not realised is how much difference there is between the Mk1 and Mk2 Yaris. I always thought a 1.0 in that size of car was just about perfect but I'd not realised how much weight the Mk2 has put on. The following are in the order Yaris Mk1 1.0, Yaris Mk2 1.0, Yaris Mk2 1.33, Jazz 1.2, Polo 1.2, i20 1.2

Power (bhp): 67, 69, 100, 88, 59, 77

Weight (kg): 885, 1030, 1080, 1047, 1017, 1085

Power/Weight (bhp/t): 75.7, 67, 92.6, 84, 58, 71

Torque (Nm): 90, 92, 132.7, 114, 108, 117.8

Torque/Weight (Nm/t): 101.7, 89.4, 122.9, 108.9, 106.2, 108.6

MPG: 49, 52, 54, 53, 51, 55

Luggage (Litres): na, 257, 257, 337, 280, 295

Because the Mk1 Yaris is so light, the power to weight isn't actually that bad. The Polo would be a massive drop so I think that counts it out right away. The Jazz, however, is a bit better but the best would be the 1.33 Yaris Mk2.

Torque to weight (is this a valid measure?) is fairly even aside from the 1.0 Yaris Mk2 which is looking worse and worse with each measure...

Not a lot to MPG, they are all better but not by a massive amount.

The Jazz stands out for luggage space. I can't for the life of my find a stat for that of the Mk1 Yaris but the Colt is 187l and I'd judge the Yaris to be smaller than that.

I think my next step is to test-drive a Jazz and an I20, maybe a Yaris Mk2 if I can find a 1.33 version at a decent price and see. The Polo would have to be a bigger engined one to be worth considering and they seem quite rare anywhere near my budget.

The Polo (and Yaris Mk2 1.0) are probably great city cars but that's not good enough for me. I need to be happy on long journeys and in the countryside so I think both can be discounted right away. The 1.2 Jazz seems good enough - better than my Mk 1 Yaris - but of course the 1.4 would be better still if there is one at the right price.

VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - unthrottled

Be careful that your comparisons don't mislead you. Quoted horsepower refers to maximum horsepower which,in naturally aspirated petrols, is often north of 6000 RPM. If you never rev past 4000 then the quoted horsepower is all but irrelevant. In this case torque is often a more useful indication. The problem with torque, is that gearing comes into play-so you have another variable to consider.

If you measure the specfic torque, you'll find it very similar for all these engines, so don't fall into the trap of thinking that the 77hp 1.2 will more 33% more strongly than the 59hp one throughout the rev range. It's only at the top end, that you'll see the advantage.

VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - jamie745

You haven't been getting out much have you unthrottled? :)

VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - unthrottled

Still can't find the front door key, Jamie. trapped inside with only a well thumbed copy of Cheshire Life and HJ Backroom for company.

VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - jamie745

Please tell me Cheshire Life is a made up publication.

VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - unthrottled

Sadly not. I'll leave the contents to the imagination...

VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - Bobbin Threadbare

Please tell me Cheshire Life is a made up publication.

No. There's Lancashire Life too.

VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - 72 dudes

Would you consider a nearly new or 2 year old car?

If so, look at the 1.4 Polo or a 1.25 Fiesta in Zetec or Titanium trim. With the Fiesta, the interior is an aquired taste and some of the plastics are a little cheap, but they do drive well.

However, for reliability, you probably need to stay with a Yaris or Jazz or possibly an i20.

In my experience German horses are stronger than Japanese ones! Now, that sounds daft but some years ago my dad had a VW Derby (Polo with a boot) 1.3 with 60 bhp. It went like a rocket. His next car was a Nissan Sunny, also a 1.3 with 60 bhp. No guts at all and felt very strained.

Sure, some of it was gearing and weight, but the torque figures were similar.

VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - Teapot42

I was looking around 3 years old, with a budget of around £7k - I'm unlikely to get more than a few hundred trade-in for the Yaris.

If the base Polo was OK then I'd push the budget to get one but from what I've read it sounds like the 60 is more of a second car and I'd really need the 1.4. However, I can't find any of them for under about £9k locally.

There are loads of Jazz within budget locally. Not so many i20s locally as we no longer have a dealer but there are a few.

If I can find a Yaris with the 1.33 I'll give it a look but I was wanting a slight upgrade in power so the 1.0 wouldn't be much use, same power but an extra 150kg to haul around.

VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - Avant

It may help to mention that the original 1.3 engine (as opposed to the current 1.33) was available in the Mark 2 Yaris up to (I think) 2009.

My daughter has had both: there's no perceptible difference between them in terms of performance, but the 1.33 has a 6-speed gearbox and is clearly more environmentally friendly as it has a lower VED band.

VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - Teapot42

Hmmm... I know what you mean, but I think the 1.33 is such a better engine that the Yaris would only be a worthwhile choice with it.

The specs give much better fuel consumption (54 against 47mpg) as well as an extra 14bhp. I don't know how much of the better fuel consumption comes with the 6th gear. I must admit I'm surprised that you say there is no difference, even without the extra gear I'd have thought there would be a difference and with the 6th gear it should be even more noticeable.

Still.... Worth a look I guess! I think the main issue will be how much bigger it is than the Mk 1 as I don't just need a tiny bit more space, I need a fair bit more as while I am becoming expert in fitting a quart in to a pint pot, I am also getting sick of the hassle of doing so...

VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - Teapot42

Local dealer has an 09 1.33 TR for just over £5k... It has done 60k miles but could well be worth a look. My old one is still fairly sweet at 120k so a bigger engine and probably longer runs shouldn't be such an issue.

I think I'll be paying them a visit ASAP

VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - unthrottled

The specs give much better fuel consumption (54 against 47mpg) as well as an extra 14bhp.

Cycle tuning. Toyota didn't suddenly find that they'd been designing engines wrong all these years and find an extra 15% efficiency. The gear ratios make a big difference in the test because the gear changes are prescribed. In the real world, the extra gear won't make a huge amount of difference.

VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - Auristocrat

According to Toyota the 1.33 engine is little bigger in physical size than the 1.0 engine used in the Aygo and Yaris - which is why they have been able to fit the 1.33 in the IQ.

Before I took early retirement (54), on my daily commute through Birmingham city, my previous 2006 Corolla 1.4 did around 32-33 mpg and just over 42 on a run. The Auris did 35-37 on the daily commute, and does up to 48-49 on a run - in a slightly larger/heavier car than the Corolla. Both cars produced around the same power (98bhp in the Corolla, and 101bhp in the Auris).

The Auris's sixth gear wasn't of much practical use on the daily commute - lots of stop/start driving, with the 7 mile one-way journey taking on average 40-50 minutes. However the Auris's stop start technology made for a more relaxed time in the heavy traffic. The sixth gear is a boon on the motorway though.

The second generation Yaris has sto/start, but I believe it has been dropped on the third generation - due to cost.

VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - unthrottled

To be fair, the older 1.4 4ZE-FE engine was a bit of an oddball, basically a destroked 1ZZ-FE, which spolit the geometry. Improving on that was low hanging fruit!

VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - Teapot42

I'd just taken it to be that it was a newer, more advanced engine. The 1.3 was available in the original Yaris from the late 90s so a newer engine is always going to have some advantages.

I guess I'm also thinking that if I'm going for a car intended to last 8+ years then I'm better off getting the best one I can so the more modern one if at all possible is a better bet surely?

VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - barney100
We had a three pot Polo and it was good, not a fast car but the it was for basic A to B transport. It was well built and functional in that VW way, felt more robust than a Yaris.
VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - DeejayP999

We had a three pot Polo as a hire car in Spain last year, and found it to be perfectly acceptable. OK, it was no fireball but it performed perfectly adequately most of the time. The only downside, as with any small engine, was fuel consumption: Excellent in town but poor on the A Roads and motorways. Over a fortnight of fairly sedate driving we averaged 33mpg - about the same as I get from my Volvo estate (2.5 petrol auto!) under similar conditions. So for town use it's perfect - for anything else get a bigger car.

VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - bear807
Coming from a jazz owner to the new polo. I really love it every bit. Don't be put off by the 60ps engine, at first I find it looks awfull on spec, but when driving is not that bad. I have to say even is low output cruising on motorway is ok as long you don't drive like nuts 80-90mph, constant 70mph can return 50-55mph at 3100rpm. The cabin is very well insulated, very stable at high speed eg.85mph , not like the jazz, which feels like going to fly anytime after 80mph. Only bad think is practicality and the unknown reliability. As far as that I really love this car!
VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - TVman

I have a 2012 Polo fitted with the 60hp three cylinder engine.

It's easy to dismiss it, after all, 60hp is nothing these days, is it? But l suggest driving the car before making assumptions.

The engine has character with its off-beat sound, and pulls the car along surprisingly well. Off the line it is more lively than you'd think, and feels torquey.

It will maintain motorway speeds with ease, as peak torque at 3,000 rpm equates to about 75mph.

I test drove the 70hp version, which is a four-valve per cylinder rather than two in the 60hp. At lower speeds it feels worse, as the engine needs to be revved more to deliver the goods.

Overall the little 1.2 60hp Polo is better than it has any right to be, and l do know what performance is.....my other car is a Lotus Elise S2 which will do 0-60 in 5.3 seconds.

Edited by TVman on 20/04/2014 at 23:51

VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - tanvir

Just seen my reply from 2 years ago. I must have been in a bad mood... sorry

VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - jc2

Hired a 1.2 3cyl. years ago-went OK but I don't think I'd want to do a long journey in it-having said that,I now own a 1.24 Fiesta and am well pleased with it,including long journeys.Went on holiday to South of France with about 150 miles on the clockl and had to keep easing back on the throttle on the autoroutes to stay legal.

VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - dodo

We bought a new 1.2 Polo Match 60 bhp in January to replace a Citroen C3. The car is used mainly as a second car and now has 4000 miles on it. We have been delighted with it in every way and behaves very much as a mini Golf. The engine can work really well but has a particular knack to using it most effectively (maybe something to do with utilizling the heavy flywheel effect). It's light and easy to drive and has a lot more kit that other cars at the same price have (bluetooth, privacy glass, reversing sensors etc) and is returning around 48 mpg. Great wee car and easy parked!

VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - Snakey

We had a 2006 Polo E which was even lower powered (55bhp!) but I have to say both me and the missus loved it. It was pretty slow, but the revvy engine liked to be flogged and it felt unburstable. It was also a delight in traffic with light controls and a very slick throttle response.

We then had a 2008 1.4 Polo which was quicker etc, but felt totally boring in comparison - we kept the 55bhp one for 4 years, the 1.4 for 6 months.

VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - retgwte

In one Asian country I know quite well VW's have a terrible reliability reputation. Mainly caused by their rubbish automatic gearboxes, in a country where most people drive automatics this make it a big deal. Also their aftersales dealing with auto gearbox problems is considered rubbish. Makes me laugh in this country to see them perceived as a premium brand where people are prepared to pay over the odds for a very average car.

VW Polo - Polo 1.2 60 - underpowered or acceptable - Avant

I think you're missing the point, Retgwte, as this thread is about a manual Polo in the UK!

This could be a matter of horses for courses. 60 bhp will get the Polo up to motorway speeds, but it won't have much in reserve. On the other hand it could be very good in town and nippier than more powerful engines.

Years ago SWMBO had a 1.4 Renault Clio which was never as nippy as we'd have liked. I borrowed a 1.2 when it was being serviced and this was a lot quicker off the mark and generally more fun to drive.

As Tanvir said in the second post on this thread (no need for an apology!) the answer is to test drive the varius options and see what suites your driving needs and style. If I wanted a car purely for short trips I'd be very tempted by a VW Up or one of its Skoda or SEAT siblings.

Edited by Avant on 22/04/2014 at 18:35