Heloooooooooo!
The car model I’m reviewing in the next lines doesn’t bring back very pleasant memories: the VW Polo 1.2. Yes, once again, I lived with a 3-cylinder Polo for a couple of days.
Back in 2006, I spent a week with one of these things, and hated most of that time. Put simple, the old Polo was a poor product, living entirely on its badge.
This one though, is a little bit different.
The engine remains virtually unchanged, but thanks to a 5 PS power increase and 20 kg weight reduction, it feels a bit less lethargic.
The biggest change in the drivetrain though, is the gearbox. It feels a bit more precise, albeit as slow as before, and all gear ratios are way longer. Even so, this setup doesn’t compromise performance too much, comparing to the old one. The clutch, just as the accelerator and brake pedals, has a long travel.
Like the 1.2-litre 60PS engine in the Lancia Y, this one is also tuned for torque. Even so, it completely lacks the Fiat’s low-rev energy and refinement – it feels at home mid-range – but revs with less strain as well. You just have to ignore the (loud) noise it makes at high revs, like it’s going to break down in pieces…
On the road, the other main problem is noise insulation. I’m used to noisy cars, but this was a surprise on this car – one of the few good things about the old Polo. Wind noise is very loud, as well as tyre noise past 100 km/h (62 mph).
Maybe, I thought at the beginning, so much tyre noise translates into good grip, but I was completely wrong.
Climbing the Montserrat mountain confirmed what was already noticeable on roundabouts and tight corners: the tires soon let go, and while doing so, they scream a lot. Understeer sets in at a very early stage, and there’s nothing you can do about it than go slower. It doesn’t matter if the Dunlops are cold or warm – they’re rubbish all the time.
These, together with a soft suspension, compromise handling. The body rolls a lot in corners (not as much as the Panda’s, though) and dives while braking, so it never feels composed nor it inspires a lot of confidence. However, it is better than what the old Polo managed to get. Braking power is ok, but the pedal has a spongy feel.
Despite the soft-suspension setup, sometimes riding comfort is not very well accomplished, something noticeable especially on the motorway: sudden and strong tarmac irregularities are badly absorbed, but maybe the relatively low-profile tires (195/55 R15) are to blame. Even so, it rides acceptably on the city streets, mostly covered with low-intensity, high-frequency irregularities.
And here begin the Polo's qualities, starting with body rigidity. On this class, I had never came across such a stiff structure like the one on the Polo, something immediately noticeable when it starts to move: every single reaction feels like the output of a meeting with every single bit of the car, it reacts to the suspension, steering and brakes like if it was a single brick. That’s a nice feeling.
And that brings me to the main characteristic of this car: unlike the old Polo, the new one is a quality product. End of story.
On the exterior, body panels are aligned beyond reproach; the doors close with a solid clunk and the dashboard looks like a single rubber piece, where all the buttons have been sculpted. A shame it’s very hard, cheap plastic everywhere – not a single bit of soft rubber… Just like the Fiat Panda’s, the difference being the rubber-texture and (dark) colour, enough to make the Polo’s look great.
However, built quality is phenomenal and the design, albeit conservative, is elegant and fresh enough. A shame it’s so cramped at the back, especially in width, and that all the pedals are displaced far to the right.
Of course, the few extras this particular unit had helped a bit, as it had nice alloys, aircon and trip computer – standard equipment in most cars today. Economically-speaking, the Polo is very poor – it’s very expensive for what you get…
On the end, I ended up with mixed feelings about this car. The Polo was never a driver’s car, and for that reason alone I couldn’t buy one. The steering is always too light (even at speed), it lacks any sort of feel and the suspension is a hopeless compromise.
However, its inherent quality is very appealing, even for me – it’s expensive, but it also feels expensive, despite the poor interior materials. For that reason alone, I would not stop anyone from buying this car – at least with a bigger engine.
Verdict: a good-looking, underpowered city car that impresses for its real quality.
Vital data:
Engine and transmission:
1198 cc, inline-3 cylinder, 4 valves per cylinder (petrol)
70 PS (51 kW)/ 5400 rpm
112 Nm/ 3000 rpm
Red line: 6000 rpm
5-speed manual transmission
Dimensions and weights:
Length/ width/ height: 3,970/ 1,682/ 1,462 metres
Turning circle: 10,6 metres
Empty weight (icl. driver): 1067 kg
Boot: 280 litres
Fuel tank: 45 litres
Tyres: 195/55 R15 Dunlop SP Sport E1A
Official performance:
Top speed: 165 km/h (103 mph)
0-100 km/h (0-62 mph): 14.1 seconds
Fuel consumption (urban/extra-urban/average): 7.3/ 4.5/ 5.5 l/100km (39/ 63/ 51 UK mpg)
CO2 emissions: 128 g/km
3000 rpm, 4th gear: 96 - 88* km/h (60 - 55* mph)
3000 rpm, 5th gear: 116 - 106* km/h (72 - 66* mph)
*GPS-verified speeds
Main equipment: air conditioning, twin front and side airbags, radio with CD-player, trip computer, alloy wheels, foldable rear seats, ASR, hill-start assist.
Price in Spain: 13 500€.
Driven: June-July 2010 – 7 days, 968.7 km (605.4 miles), 6.4 l/100km (44 UK mpg); car left with 3 358 km (2099 miles).
Classification: 14 out of 20
The car model I’m reviewing in the next lines doesn’t bring back very pleasant memories: the VW Polo 1.2. Yes, once again, I lived with a 3-cylinder Polo for a couple of days.
Back in 2006, I spent a week with one of these things, and hated most of that time. Put simple, the old Polo was a poor product, living entirely on its badge.
This one though, is a little bit different.
The engine remains virtually unchanged, but thanks to a 5 PS power increase and 20 kg weight reduction, it feels a bit less lethargic.
The biggest change in the drivetrain though, is the gearbox. It feels a bit more precise, albeit as slow as before, and all gear ratios are way longer. Even so, this setup doesn’t compromise performance too much, comparing to the old one. The clutch, just as the accelerator and brake pedals, has a long travel.
Like the 1.2-litre 60PS engine in the Lancia Y, this one is also tuned for torque. Even so, it completely lacks the Fiat’s low-rev energy and refinement – it feels at home mid-range – but revs with less strain as well. You just have to ignore the (loud) noise it makes at high revs, like it’s going to break down in pieces…
On the road, the other main problem is noise insulation. I’m used to noisy cars, but this was a surprise on this car – one of the few good things about the old Polo. Wind noise is very loud, as well as tyre noise past 100 km/h (62 mph).
Maybe, I thought at the beginning, so much tyre noise translates into good grip, but I was completely wrong.
Climbing the Montserrat mountain confirmed what was already noticeable on roundabouts and tight corners: the tires soon let go, and while doing so, they scream a lot. Understeer sets in at a very early stage, and there’s nothing you can do about it than go slower. It doesn’t matter if the Dunlops are cold or warm – they’re rubbish all the time.
These, together with a soft suspension, compromise handling. The body rolls a lot in corners (not as much as the Panda’s, though) and dives while braking, so it never feels composed nor it inspires a lot of confidence. However, it is better than what the old Polo managed to get. Braking power is ok, but the pedal has a spongy feel.
Despite the soft-suspension setup, sometimes riding comfort is not very well accomplished, something noticeable especially on the motorway: sudden and strong tarmac irregularities are badly absorbed, but maybe the relatively low-profile tires (195/55 R15) are to blame. Even so, it rides acceptably on the city streets, mostly covered with low-intensity, high-frequency irregularities.
And here begin the Polo's qualities, starting with body rigidity. On this class, I had never came across such a stiff structure like the one on the Polo, something immediately noticeable when it starts to move: every single reaction feels like the output of a meeting with every single bit of the car, it reacts to the suspension, steering and brakes like if it was a single brick. That’s a nice feeling.
And that brings me to the main characteristic of this car: unlike the old Polo, the new one is a quality product. End of story.
On the exterior, body panels are aligned beyond reproach; the doors close with a solid clunk and the dashboard looks like a single rubber piece, where all the buttons have been sculpted. A shame it’s very hard, cheap plastic everywhere – not a single bit of soft rubber… Just like the Fiat Panda’s, the difference being the rubber-texture and (dark) colour, enough to make the Polo’s look great.
However, built quality is phenomenal and the design, albeit conservative, is elegant and fresh enough. A shame it’s so cramped at the back, especially in width, and that all the pedals are displaced far to the right.
Of course, the few extras this particular unit had helped a bit, as it had nice alloys, aircon and trip computer – standard equipment in most cars today. Economically-speaking, the Polo is very poor – it’s very expensive for what you get…
On the end, I ended up with mixed feelings about this car. The Polo was never a driver’s car, and for that reason alone I couldn’t buy one. The steering is always too light (even at speed), it lacks any sort of feel and the suspension is a hopeless compromise.
However, its inherent quality is very appealing, even for me – it’s expensive, but it also feels expensive, despite the poor interior materials. For that reason alone, I would not stop anyone from buying this car – at least with a bigger engine.
Verdict: a good-looking, underpowered city car that impresses for its real quality.
Vital data:
Engine and transmission:
1198 cc, inline-3 cylinder, 4 valves per cylinder (petrol)
70 PS (51 kW)/ 5400 rpm
112 Nm/ 3000 rpm
Red line: 6000 rpm
5-speed manual transmission
Dimensions and weights:
Length/ width/ height: 3,970/ 1,682/ 1,462 metres
Turning circle: 10,6 metres
Empty weight (icl. driver): 1067 kg
Boot: 280 litres
Fuel tank: 45 litres
Tyres: 195/55 R15 Dunlop SP Sport E1A
Official performance:
Top speed: 165 km/h (103 mph)
0-100 km/h (0-62 mph): 14.1 seconds
Fuel consumption (urban/extra-urban/average): 7.3/ 4.5/ 5.5 l/100km (39/ 63/ 51 UK mpg)
CO2 emissions: 128 g/km
3000 rpm, 4th gear: 96 - 88* km/h (60 - 55* mph)
3000 rpm, 5th gear: 116 - 106* km/h (72 - 66* mph)
*GPS-verified speeds
Main equipment: air conditioning, twin front and side airbags, radio with CD-player, trip computer, alloy wheels, foldable rear seats, ASR, hill-start assist.
Price in Spain: 13 500€.
Driven: June-July 2010 – 7 days, 968.7 km (605.4 miles), 6.4 l/100km (44 UK mpg); car left with 3 358 km (2099 miles).
Classification: 14 out of 20
Comments