Hyundai i20 versus VW Polo Vivo

[Vegeta]

Actually i can agree with your last post had an old SOHC 1.6 toyota once which served me very very well, power, reliability and fuel wise so yes "older" isn't crappy by default respect to that ask any boy racer.

 

[HapticSimian]

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.

In that case, I've learnt something tonight as well. I would actually be interested to know, but suffice it to say the method (for the topic of discussion) is unimportant. They are the same engines. Exactly which internals were changed to effect the difference in output I obviously have wrong, though.

 

[Vegeta]

In that case, I've learnt something tonight as well. I would actually be interested to know, but suffice it to say the method (for the topic of discussion) is unimportant. They are the same engines. Exactly which internals were changed to effect the difference in output I obviously have wrong, though.

I dont know much about internals of engines... maybe cams? pistons? bore stroke? i know nothing about these things but my imagination has more knowledge that i can ever comprehend

 

[HapticSimian]

I dont know much about internals of engines... maybe cams? pistons? bore stroke? i know nothing about these things but my imagination has more knowledge that i can ever comprehend

Well, bore, stroke, capacity and compression are all identical between the 55kW and 63kW engines. I'd really love to know. I'd like to think that I know enough of how all the internals come together to understand any explanation offered by Gnome... less aggressive cams, perhaps?

 

[Vegeta]

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).



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.

Googled the i20's engine and it appears it has "VTVT" which i would guess is some sort of variable valve timing. which is very nice indeed.
http://www.desicolours.com/tech/hyundais-new-i20-diesel-and-automatic-transmission/27/08/2009

 

[Gnome]

I dont know much about internals of engines... maybe cams? pistons? bore stroke? i know nothing about these things but my imagination has more knowledge that i can ever comprehend

It's simpler than that usually. Intake manifold, exhaust, camshafts, valve design. Exhaust with 4 into 1 manifold are usually tuned for top end power whereas 4 into 2 into 1 for low and mid end, for example. Long intake manifolds favor low end power whereas shorter intake manifolds favor top end power. Longer duration cams increase top end power while increasing emissions and decreasing low end power. Same for camshaft lift. Valves can aid in the flow of air. There is a whole list of things but you have to look at the actual engines, not bore/stroke and compression. That is not nearly enough to compare 2 engines

There are so many things to compare. I don't personally know these engines but I do know management, so I can tell you, if they used management to decrease power the fuel usage would increase, the engine would run like crap. N/A anyway.

Turbo it's very possible, just decrease boost (IE. the amount of air that will flow through the engine).

Btw. I don't mean to come off as offensive or abrasive, no offense meant

 

[HapticSimian]

Ima taking me a screwdriver to work tomorrow.

Ta, Gnome - makes sense. If I get what you're saying it's essentially that the same mix of physical components run optimally to give a given result, or output then. Discounting boost pressure, which is a non-issue here, you've got to change some combination of the intake/engine/exhaust components to effect a dramatic change in power?

 

[Gnome]

Ima taking me a screwdriver to work tomorrow.

Ta, Gnome - makes sense. If I get what you're saying it's essentially that the same mix of physical components run optimally to give a given result, or output then. Discounting boost pressure, which is a non-issue here, you've got to change some combination of the intake/engine/exhaust components to effect a dramatic change in power?

Yes essentially you can imagine an engine as a trumpet that takes air and turns it into power

The amount of air that flows through the trumpet determines the amount of power. Management cannot restrict this flow of air without the engine running like crap. Unless they somehow prevent the throttle plate from fully opening but that would be very lowly of them.

On Turbo engines by decreasing boost you are decreasing the amount of air flowing through the engine, hence the dramatic change in output.

Management on an engine measure the amount of air entering the engine and then injects an appropriate amount of fuel, inject too little and you get an engine that actually generates lots of power but runs very hot, could knock and very little throttle response (IE the car feels laggy but once it gets going it feels like a rocket). Inject too much and the engine uses lots of fuel but with very nice throttle response. Neither influence power much unless you take it to the extremes where engine damage is assured.

There isn't much leeway on the fuel map so if you want to influence performance that way it would very quickly turn a great running engine into a POS (feels too laggy or shakes and coughs, or uses too much fuel, etc.)

Only other factor is ignition timing which is also determined by the ECU, that can most definitely influence performance but once again, the only thing that would decrease it's performance is decreasing ignition timing which would dramatically decrease the cars fuel efficiency and also increase it's emissions greatly. No self respecting OEM would run a engine with decreased ignition timing.

It's much much easier to create a intake manifold that is restrictive, than the nearly impossible task of doing it with management. Opel's done it on more than 1 occasion on some of their previous generation engines (1.6 16v and early model small block 1.8 16v for example, there are others sad to say). Don't think such practices are above car manufacturers.

 

[HapticSimian]

Don't think such practices are above car manufacturers.

2 things:

1. I feel mildly retarded reading your explanation. I've got a better grasp of physics than this - had I taken the time, I would've figured it out.
2. I'm on the 'inside'. No practice is above (or should that be below?) manufacturers.

Thanks for taking the time to put those responses together!

 

[Gnome]

I feel mildly retarded reading your explanation. I've got a better grasp of physics than this - had I taken the time, I would've figured it out.

Erm, lol, sorry you'll just have to take my word for it It's late and I haven't really read my responses after typing it so I guess it may be a bit incoherent but I've been at this stuff for a few years now so having gotten used to that background it's difficult for me to explain without leaving out essential details, that would make an otherwise obvious explanation, tedious and hard to read

Thanks for taking the time to put those responses together!

I'm procrastinating doing work so np

 

[HapticSimian]

Erm, lol, sorry you'll just have to take my word for it It's late and I haven't really read my responses after typing it so I guess it may be a bit incoherent but I've been at this stuff for a few years now so having gotten used to that background it's difficult for me to explain without leaving out essential details, that would make an otherwise obvious explanation, tedious and hard to read

I'm procrastinating doing work so np

My 'mildly retarded' statement was aimed at my own lack of displayed mental fortitude, not the structure of your replies... Nothing incoherent about it - my thoughts, on the other hand... :erm:

Anyhat, it is late & I need to flog some more VeeDubs in a few hours' time. G'night. And to paraphrase Ellen deGeneris: don't always leave things for later, procrastinate NOW!

 

[the graduate]

i20, 1.4 or 1.6....would go with the 1.4 and yes, go NEW....nobody picked up the standard bluetooth feature on the i20...so you can use the car's bluetooth feature with you telephone...

the i20 is a no-brainer to the Vivo....5 year/150k km warranty + 3 year/60k km service plan...for a woman...peace of mind, bro, peace of mind...

Maybe its just me, but the Vivo is a very sad attempt by VW to have a "market player" for this segment. I certainly blame VW for running the Golf MK1 for so long that it has single handedly left us in the dark ages with entry level cars. The sadest part is that Saffers still choose these death traps offered by these manufaturers.

 

[greg_SA]

Why not test drive both and feel which one drives better? And which one has more power or power delivery which is to your driving style?

I don't think you can compare cars by their peak power (kW) rating - someone mentioned this earlier in the thread, and I agree 100%. I have driven several older cars with 8v engines and newer 16v engines, and in general, I preferred the power delivery of the 8v engines - you don't need to rev them as much to get going (as they have more low down torque)... most of the newer engines need to be revved like hell to get anywhere.

 

[Brawler]

Driven a lot of these kind of cars (mostly AVIS rentals)

My 2c:
I wouldn't consider the Polo, just meh.
I had a bad i20, it had less than 500KM on the clock and the key broke into 5 pieces as I tried to turn the ignition, other than that it was fine but bad taste in my mouth.
I would pick the Corsa 1.4

 

[Fudzy]

i20, 1.4 or 1.6....would go with the 1.4 and yes, go NEW....nobody picked up the standard bluetooth feature on the i20...so you can use the car's bluetooth feature with you telephone...

Uh, what standard bluetooth feature on the i20?

 

[DanH]

My sister has the Corsa 1.4 enjoy, power delivery is smooth and linear and doesn't drop off as the revs climb, beautiful car to live with, everything's modern and never given any trouble, also a 5year warranty, paid R150k new a year ago.

Other sister has the Polo 2.0 (vivo shape) and front seats squeak and creak, the surface of the steering wheel and indicators stalks are badly worn after 4years. Good car all round but the interior is dated now and the engine really lets it down. It takes a second before it responds to throttle input, runs out of steam quickly as the revs rise like a diesel and is rough and noisy. The quality of the outside is still as good as new.

Have also driven a few 1.4 polos, felt like the car was to heavy for the engine really.

I'd go with the i20, would rather have a modern car than a recycled one for 3rd world countries only.

 

[Sly21C]

My sister has the Corsa 1.4 enjoy, power delivery is smooth and linear and doesn't drop off as the revs climb, beautiful car to live with, everything's modern and never given any trouble, also a 5year warranty, paid R150k new a year ago.

Other sister has the Polo 2.0 (vivo shape) and front seats squeak and creak, the surface of the steering wheel and indicators stalks are badly worn after 4years. Good car all round but the interior is dated now and the engine really lets it down. It takes a second before it responds to throttle input, runs out of steam quickly as the revs rise like a diesel and is rough and noisy. The quality of the outside is still as good as new.

Have also driven a few 1.4 polos, felt like the car was to heavy for the engine really.

I'd go with the i20, would rather have a modern car than a recycled one for 3rd world countries only.

I stand to be corrected, but don't the new polo vivo and the new polo have the same engine? In other words, everything else about the new polo vivo may be dated except the engine, which is new.

 

[DanH]

Yep, newer, but still low on power, doubt there's any variable valve/lift/intake timing.

 

[LancelotSA]

Guys, thanks for the responses to this thread. We got some engine education too

So far most comments seem to favour the i20 with the only ones against it coming from a VW salesman (hee heee just teasing enigma).

Now it's about deciding between the 1.4 or the 1.6 for only R10,000 more.....

 

[Brawler]

Why not consider the Corsa?