Hyundai i20 versus VW Polo Vivo

[LancelotSA]

Went through exactly the same thing with a friend looked at both these cars i went along for some joy rides. Go test drive the i20 and the Vivo... If you pick the Vivo you need your head examined by the best doctors money can by.
the 1.6 i20 makes 91kw! the 1.4 makes 74kw you can feel the difference between the VW's old kark citi golf engines and these modern engines

We're talking about: remote steering wheel controls, on board computer, electric windows, ABS, EBD, disc brakes all round, electric power steering not pump, ipod connector, Cooler box clove compartment all standard on the i20

Seriously if this is a tough choice go see a shrink! o wait 5year 150000 warranty. After that you need to go to a loony bin if the vivo is still an option

Ha ha ha thanks! As you can tell by my comments I was leaning towards the i20 but opinions are always appreciated. The Vivo was now being considered as a result of a family member recommending perhaps taking a look at it. They had heard about it.


Out of interest, crash test ratings show the following : (The Vivo is apparently a version of the Mk4 polo which was in production from 2002-2005)

Vivo -

i20 -

I think that justifies the extra expenditure.

 

[HapticSimian]

...VW's old kark citi golf engines and these modern engines

:erm: The Vivo uses exactly the same new 16v engines as the new Polo...

 

[Vegeta]

:erm: The Vivo uses exactly the same new 16v engines as the new Polo...

Thats because... The engines in the "new" Polo are the old engines from the previous polo which the vivo is based on... VW didn't give south africa their new engines because we are the "special" children in the 3rd world country.

 

[HapticSimian]

Thats because... The engines in the "new" Polo are the old engines from the previous polo which the vivo is based on... VW didn't give south africa their new engines because we are the "special" children in the 3rd world country.

Erm... not quite. The old Polo used 8v motors, the new Polo and Vivo use new(er) 16v lumps. The discrepancy in EuroX rating has more to do with fitment of catalytic converters and whatnot than the engine itself. As an example (and if memory serves) the old 1.9TDI motor showed a 2-step change in Euro emissions rating simply by virtue of having a particulate filter fitted.

 

[Fudzy]

:erm: The Vivo uses exactly the same new 16v engines as the new Polo...

Can your explain the power difference in the 1.4 models then please?

http://www.vw.co.za/models/polovivo/performance/

vs.

http://www.vw.co.za/models/polo/performance/

I own a 1.6 i20 that I bought this year, really love the car. My only gripe are petty things like I wish the mirrors folded away automatically if you held in the Lock button.

 

[LancelotSA]

I own a 1.6 i20 that I bought this year, really love the car. My only gripe are petty things like I wish the mirrors folded away automatically if you held in the Lock button.

They do fold away though don't they? Are you just saying not with the remote they don't?

Do the Vivo mirrors do this?

 

[HapticSimian]

Can your explain the power difference in the 1.4 models then please?

Check the Vivo 1.4 T/Line against the new Polo 1.4. As for Vivo Base vs. T/Line... engine management; essentially dropping the output artificially to differentiate the two models. Yes, it's a cheap trick. :erm:

 

[LancelotSA]

Check the Vivo 1.4 T/Line against the new Polo 1.4. As for Vivo Base vs. T/Line... engine management; essentially dropping the output artificially to differentiate the two models. Yes, it's a cheap trick. :erm:

So the i20 with it's 74KW is far superior?

Why would they do this? Surely the engine still costs the same?

 

[Fudzy]

They do fold away though don't they? Are you just saying not with the remote they don't?

Do the Vivo mirrors do this?

There's a button next to the electric mirrors to fold away the mirrors. I have always thought this was a gimmick until I recently found myself having to park in very narrow bays and folding the mirrors really helps in getting in and out of the car.

 

[Fudzy]

Check the Vivo 1.4 T/Line against the new Polo 1.4. As for Vivo Base vs. T/Line... engine management; essentially dropping the output artificially to differentiate the two models. Yes, it's a cheap trick. :erm:

So it's just a engine mod? Those pesky marketeers.

 

[LancelotSA]

So the i20 seems to be the way to go by opinions on here. I have to admit to being surprised as I seriously expected more opinions favouring the VW. It just goes to show how Hyundai have created a good reputation for themselves.

 

[Vegeta]

Erm... not quite. The old Polo used 8v motors, the new Polo and Vivo use new(er) 16v lumps. The discrepancy in EuroX rating has more to do with fitment of catalytic converters and whatnot than the engine itself. As an example (and if memory serves) the old 1.9TDI motor showed a 2-step change in Euro emissions rating simply by virtue of having a particulate filter fitted.

I know its not the 8v motors that VW shamelessly used only a while ago in their "new" citi this and that... in this freakin age! I know its the OLD 16v motors from the OLD polo. Go round the internet and notice that we didn't get the new Polo with the new Polo engines instead we got the lovely new Polo with the old polo engines. just like that lifted from the outgoing model done deal... lekka VW!
http://www.wheels24.co.za/NewModels/We-drive-the-new-VW-Polo-20100121
O and pardon me if you're trying to say that these old engines were "revised" and "tweaked" lol

 

[HapticSimian]

So the i20 with it's 74KW is far superior?

On paper, yes. However there's more to a car's power delivery than peak output figures. To make a definitive call one would have to compare the output graphs, i.e. where in the rev-range do the cars develop usable power. An engine that develops a lot of power and torque (for its capacity) only higher up in the range makes for tiring, gearbox-churning progress. Conversely, you'll find that VeeDubs normally aren't rated near the top in their segments in ultimate power output, but tend to deliver usable power from lower down in the rev-range. As capacity drops this gap narrows, though. Just about any <1.4 engine is going to be a thrashy affair, except if it happens to be a 118kW turbo- and super-charged 1.4TSI.

Why would they do this? Surely the engine still costs the same?

As stated, purely to differentiate the cheaper & more expensive models in terms of output. And, also as stated, it's a cheap marketing trick. It's right up there with slapping together the entry-level 3dr Vivo Base just to get to that R101k price-point - anyone able to afford better wouldn't possibly buy it. No ABS as an option, no alloys as an option, only available in black and white... :erm:

 

[Fudzy]

So the i20 seems to be the way to go by opinions on here. I have to admit to being surprised as I seriously expected more opinions favouring the VW. It just goes to show how Hyundai have created a good reputation for themselves.

Admittedly, if they were the same price I would rather have a brand new Polo 1.6 to the same spec I would take it at a heartbeat but unfortunately they aren't and the Polos do seem to be favoured by the hijackers. Hopefully the Vivo isn't as appealing.

 

[Fudzy]

As stated, purely to differentiate the cheaper & more expensive models in terms of output. And, also as stated, it's a cheap marketing trick. It's right up there with slapping together the entry-level 3dr Vivo Base just to get to that R101k price-point - anyone able to afford better wouldn't possibly buy it. No ABS as an option, no alloys as an option, only available in black and white... :erm:

Under the bonnet, the new Polo Vivo is powered by a choice of three new, locally built, petrol engines. First up is the 1,4-litre in 55 kW guise. The 4-cylinder engine produces its peak power at 5 000 rpm and a maximum torque figure of 132 N.m, of which 90% is available from 2 200 rpm. The 55 kW engine delivers a claimed fuel consumption of 6.2 l/100km and is available in any of the three body styles.
A more powerful 63 kW version of the same 1,4-litre engine is the middle of the range engine. Peak power is produced at 5 000 rpm and maximum torque of 132 N.m is available at 3 600 rpm. The 63 kW 1.4 offers an identical fuel consumption figure of 6.2 l/100km. The 63 kW engine is available in either the 4-door hatch or sedan body styles.

Read more: http://www.sacarfan.co.za/2010/03/first-drive-volkswagen-sas-polo-vivo/#ixzz0oDsS4D8x

Seems they are the same engine, I expect the after-market chip makers to catch up on this soon.

 

[HapticSimian]

I know its not the 8v motors that VW shamelessly used only a while ago in their "new" citi this and that... in this freakin age! I know its the OLD 16v motors from the OLD polo. Go round the internet and notice that we didn't get the new Polo with the new Polo engines instead we got the lovely new Polo with the old polo engines. just like that lifted from the outgoing model done deal... lekka VW!
http://www.wheels24.co.za/NewModels/We-drive-the-new-VW-Polo-20100121

From VW Australia: "Like its 1.4 litre petrol engine, which delivers an impressive 63kW of power and 132Nm of torque"
From VW Japan: 最高出力[ネット値] kW (PS)/rpm 63(85)/5,000 最大トルク[ネット値] Nm (kgm)/rpm 132(13.5)/3,800
From VW UK: 1.4 85PS (85PS = 62.52kW)

Looks the same to me... :erm: Wheels24 isn't always the best source of accurate motoring information.

EDIT

To add: there are NO old 16v engines from the old Polo - not in a local context, anyway - they were 8v engines. The only 16v engine in the 9N Polo was a 77kW 1.6 not used locally. The pre-facelift derivative had some early iterations of 16v engines, and even a 1.4FSI engine, but these were never sold here.

 

[Vegeta]

Seems they are the same engine, I expect the after-market chip makers to catch up on this soon.

Yes they are the same, but isn't that kark sneaky style by any company? I dont understand VW its like they have no remorse when dealing with those dirt monkeys down on the southern tip of africa

 

[Vegeta]

EDIT

To add: there are NO old 16v engines from the old Polo - not in a local context, anyway - they were 8v engines. The only 16v engine in the 9N Polo was a 77kW 1.6 not used locally. The pre-facelift derivative had some early iterations of 16v engines, and even a 1.4FSI engine, but these were never sold here.

The outgoing polo had 8v engines? OMG /jaw to the floor. Gosh i didn't know the situation was that dire! You clearly know your Vdubs. I didn't go read up on them. We dont have to argue they make less power and VW sells people recycled crap in the entry level market more often than not. Thats all i'm trying to say really.

 

[HapticSimian]

The outgoing polo had 8v engines? OMG /jaw to the floor. Gosh i didn't know the situation was that dire! You clearly know your Vdubs. I didn't go read up on them. We dont have to argue they make less power and VW sells people recycled crap in the entry level market more often than not. Thats all i'm trying to say really.

I do work for them - it kinda comes with the territory. All I'm trying to counter with is there's more to it than "8v suxx0rz, eleventy-seven valves uber alles!". The 'old' engines were chosen for the local market for a number of reasons, not the least of which was undoubtedly related to cost. As an aside - I had an old 2.0 Polo (the ancient 8v 85kW 2.0) as a company car for a long time. That car is such a nice drive - it's like a junior V8... well, no... it isn't. But it was a frugal, well-proven motor with a very relaxed nature - ample torque low-down and very little need for stirring the gearbox at every opportunity. The mainstream VWs tend to suit people who want to tottle along at 70km/h in 5th much better than they do yobs who want to drag away from every traffic light.

As for why we don't get the bleeding-edge motors here...? Well, there's our shoddy fuel. But more than that I don't think the SA market is mature enough to accept small capacity/high output engines. You can get the Polo with a 1.2TSI in the UK. Once you've seen the looks I get on the showroom floor when I tell people the 2.0FSI Jetta has been replaced by a 1.4TSI ("a fourteen-hundred in THAT big car... you must be joking!") you'll understand why it isn't on the market here... yet.

 

[Gnome]

Ok first thing first, you CANNOT compare the i20 EuroNCAP directly to that of the Vivo (Mk4 Polo).

The Polo doesn't even have a side pole impact score AND more importantly the EuroNCAP website advices that for Pre-2009 ratings the complete score must be used AND NOT INDIVIDUAL SCORES for comparison! Therefore I conclude the i20 is safer based on the 5 star score VS 4 star score of the Polo.

Next up weight:
Polo: 1055kg as per Euro NCAP
i20: 1035kg as per Euro NCAP

Finally engines:
You CANNOT compare an engine by looking at peak power and peak torque. You'd have to compare their torque curves because a engine that makes 100kW @ 7000rpm VS 90kW @ 5000rpm are worlds apart. Only solution is to drive the car and feel how it responds to your driving style.

In this case I'm willing to bet that the i20 engine is superior in terms of torque right through the rev range to that of the Polo (Vivo). Reason is it's an older engine VS. a newer one. i20 probably has infinite variable valve timing (IVVT), multi length intake manifold, etc. which older engines generally lacked. Allowing it to make more power while bringing down emissions. It sounds like marketing but it's a fact, you can put performance cams on a car with IVVT and tune it for the emissions of a car with very modest cams. Using multi-length intake manifolds you can change manifold length to increase low down torque when a longer manifold is preferable and shorten it for top end power. It doesn't stop there, comparing CC's to CC's (IE. 1400 Vs 1400) isn't enough, they could both lack those features and the i20 could STILL make more power due to virtue of it flowing air better than the Polo engine for example.

The more air an engine flows the more power it makes, how well it does that depends on how much development went into the engine and circumstances (IE. low duration cams decrease emissions but also decrease performance using IVVT you get the best of both).

Check the Vivo 1.4 T/Line against the new Polo 1.4. As for Vivo Base vs. T/Line... engine management; essentially dropping the output artificially to differentiate the two models. Yes, it's a cheap trick. :erm:

No. Perhaps if it's a Turbo charged engine, they may do it. Naturally aspirated forget about it. If you want the 411 on engine management I'll start another thread where I'll explain it to you, but trying to dumb down performance on a N/A using management is ridiculously difficult. The engine starts running badly, increased emissions, etc. It's much easier to change to a performance cam, exhaust, intake manifold,etc. which will have little effect on reliability in a N/A setup.

At most they could decrease performance by a 1kW before you'd start noticing that this OEM engine you have is running very much like Uncle Pieter's backyard job.