Hyundai i20 versus VW Polo Vivo

[boramk]

Calling me a racist?

Erm, no, then I'd be a racist towards the Chinese
If the Hyundai is better than the Vivo on EVERYTHING, but you claim the Vivo is still better because its European, is dumb, not racist

 

[HapticSimian]

Erm, no, then I'd be a racist towards the Chinese
If the Hyundai is better than the Vivo on EVERYTHING, but you claim the Vivo is still better because its European, is dumb, not racist

Again - 'better' is not a quantifiable concept, it means different things to different people. Here's my position on the matter in a nutshell: would you be willing to bet on, percentage-wise, which of the Vivo or i20 will have more examples running in 15 years' time? I know where I'd put my money...

 

[LancelotSA]

They do come with a lot of kit, and superficial quality seems decent enough. However I know, from sitting through boring and long-winded presentations on both manufacturers' models, that European cars as a rule are designed and built to a more exacting standard from better materials.

May I ask who was giving the presentation? A European car manufacturer by any chance?

 

[HapticSimian]

May I ask who was giving the presentation? A European car manufacturer by any chance?

Worked for both... so no, the bias you're digging for isn't a factor.

 

[LancelotSA]

Worked for both... so no, the bias you're digging for isn't a factor.

I'm still not buying

If you are sitting through a presentation by Hyundai they are unlikely to tell you that they do not have exacting standards and use inferior materials. It can therefore only be a European manufacturer that would say that... and then bias has to play a part. How can they say with certainty that the Koreans do not build to exacting standards?

If there is proof somewhere please share it with us.

 

[HapticSimian]

I'm still not buying

If you are sitting through a presentation by Hyundai they are unlikely to tell you that they do not have exacting standards and use inferior materials. It can therefore only be a European manufacturer that would say that... and then bias has to play a part. How can they say with certainty that the Koreans do not build to exacting standards?

If there is proof somewhere please share it with us.

No, any manufacturer will obviously sing its own praises when presenting its own products to its own employees. If one has been exposed to both sets of information however, it is not exactly rocket science to look at the data presented in both and draw one's own conclusions.,,

As for sharing - I can't exactly share confidential internal documentation now, can I? :twisted: Let's just say that there's a reason why Johnny Red and Johnny Black don't cost the same, but if your main interest on a given evening is to get plastered on whiskey, either will do. Similarly, for day-to-day reliable transport, 90% of cars would fit the bill equally well - it's only when you start digging below the surface where differences in execution become evident.

Buy your Hyundai, Lance. I'm sure it'll serve you well. The Vivo doesn't quite fit the bill and the new Polo is too pricey. That's OK.

 

[LancelotSA]

I know JD Power was mentioned earlier, and not given much weight by some, but seeing this does make one wonder why the quality of workmanship on the Hyundai's is questioned?

 

[the graduate]

@enigma243...you're the guy with the inside info, right...is it true that the new range of Hyundai's i10, i20, i30 is designed in Europe...? Looks materials, fit, finish....

 

[HapticSimian]

@enigma243...you're the guy with the inside info, right...is it true that the new range of Hyundai's i10, i20, i30 is designed in Europe...? Looks materials, fit, finish....

How exactly does having a design studio in Europe, in an attempt to make styling more acceptable to European tastes, influence anything other than styling?

EDIT

This:

is a GWM Florid, obviously penned to resemble the love-child of a Toyota Yaris and a Suzuki Swift. Does that make it comparable to either? This is getting inane.

 

[boramk]

The above reason is why I dislike Chinese cars, they are all rip offs, and blatant ones at that

Yeah, Hyundai hired out European designers to make their cars look sexy ... I suggest you guys take a look at the Hyundai Genesis (not out here) or the new Sonata, it's coming here soon, and wow, that Sonata looks HOT

 

[Cube]

How exactly does having a design studio in Europe, in an attempt to make styling more acceptable to European tastes, influence anything other than styling?

EDIT

This:

is a GWM Florid, obviously penned to resemble the love-child of a Toyota Yaris and a Suzuki Swift. Does that make it comparable to either? This is getting inane.

Very OT, but have you seen the interior!? Quite nasty IMO.

Anyhoot, whether it be a review, report, investigation, etc, there is bound to be a level of discrimination of some means everywhere. I am no expert or even mildly clued-up, but surely you can't compare a SAAB equally to a KIA? Even if you rate it as # of issues per 100 cars? A SAAB is driven by a different group of people to that of a KIA, and it is driven differently. It requires different levels of engineering, care, service, etc.
So to say the KIA is better than the SAAB simply coz it rates better on JD's list, is misleading. Just as it is so say the Europeans are more anal when it comes to detail. (Though that is in all probability true)

This goes for most arguments. There are a multitude of variables. Most, I'm sure, will probably not even be touched and requires much more time under scrutinization.

Look at that report - see the difference in standing between the Ford and Mazda? All sorts of opinions could be raised about that...

My 1.5 cents. Doesn't carry much weight.

 

[the_don46]

Is this thread still going?

Damn, enigma243 - you're like a Duracel bunny.... Just don't stop!

Lancelot, I would go for the 1.6 but that's just because if I had bought a 1.4, I would always know I could have bought the 1.6. Normally, a 1.6 sits at lower revs at 120. The 1.4 will sit at around 4000rpm in order to have pull without changing down a gear to go up a hill.

So, yeah, 1.6 for me - even though it's R10k extra cash or finance. I would add more to the purchase price coz the i20 is in desperate need of rims....

I must say, I had a look @ the i30, it's not at all as cool or "like" a golf as I had read. It's actually hardly any more impressive than the i20 - I'm rather disappointed...

Regarding the discount, those Hyuandai sales people do NOT budge for discount (another reason I bought by Ford, knocked off R6k on asking price as well as "on the road costs")

 

[boramk]

True, I am not at all impressed with the i30

 

[Gnome]

What you're looking for then is a car with a more torque, and a relatively flat torque curve.

More power doesn't necessarily translate into better fuel economy. Torque, however, will allow you to get into a higher gear earlier.

Depends on the gear ratio's. High torque engines generally have wider gear ratio's translating into the same amount of shifting in the end. The ratios are geared toward allowing the car to stay within it's peak power band. A car making torque lower in the rev range does not translate into less shifting. Getting into a higher gear earlier does not translate into better fuel economy. Lower RPM does not translate into better fuel economy. Hence the reason road tests are done. Car A could be running very lean at a high rpm translating into less fuel usage than Car B that runs stoichiometric at a lower rpm.

Running at partial throttle at a high rpm is preferable to running at a lower rpm at full or close to full throttle because the fuel map is very lean (close to 18:1 air/fuel ratio) at partial throttle vs stoichiometric to rich at full and close to full throttle (14:1 down to 12:1 at full throttle). Running at higher rpm translates into more power which means you can run with less throttle than lower rpm where very little power is made in comparison.

Less shifting generally gives you better consumption.

Where on earth did you pull that information from?

To be honest, this is where the Vivo really is better. The 1.4 and 1.6 in the VW and Hyundai produce pretty much exactly the same amount of torque, however the torque on the VW peaks at about 3500 RPM, whereas it peaks at about 4200 RPM on the Hyundai. The torque curve on the VW is also pretty flat, meaning that most of the torque is available throughout the rev range so there's less stirring of the gearbox.

Do you just pull this stuff out of a hat? Where to get the information that the VW's torque curve is less flat. The only way to substantiate that claim is to show a torque/power sheet from a dynamometer. I'm guessing you just made that up so I won't even ask for one. I highly doubt you'd be able to produce it.

All that I can see is the Vivo's power band sits lower in the rev range. The following is true of ALL N/A engines: After peak torque the torque only goes down (hence the word peak) and after peak power the torque REALLY goes down (very quickly). So your drivable range ends once you've reached peak power, within 100rpm or so. Before peak torque your torque only increases.
Vivo:
Peak Torque = 155Nm @ 3500rpm (56.81kW)
Peak Power = 77kW @ 5250rpm (140.05Nm)
Rpm difference between peak power and peak torque: 1750rpm

i20:
Peak Torque = 156Nm @ 4200rpm (68.62kW)
Peak Power = 91kW @ 6300rpm (137.93Nm)
Rpm difference between peak power and peak torque: 2100rpm

Just based on these quick observations the power band quickly drops off on the Vivo (notice the narrow rpm band between peak power and peak torque). Torque only increases before peak torque (on any N/A engine), hence the Vivo's torque very quickly increases, then drops off slowly until peak power finally dropping rapidly at peak power (as with ALL N/A engines). On the i20 the peak torque will increase more slowly reaching peak torque then drop slowly until peak power and then drop rapidly. The i20's peak power is close to the rev limiter. Hence it more likely has a incredibly nice torque curve, increasing almost right through the range. Vivo on the other hand will jump up quickly then fall down rapidly. Not flat at all, more like a mountain, up on the one side and down on the other.

You should also note that both these engines probably run at close to 4000rpm once at 120km/h. Cars don't need torque at low speeds, they need it at high speeds, especially with small engines. With the i20 1.6 you should really have some pull once you reach 120km/h+ VS. the Vivo where I think it'll get it's ass handed to it by the i20 in that regard. Before those speeds all you need to do is gear according to how much power you need.

Just an observation, no bias But if your main criteria is fuel consumption then get a diesel.

At least I can agree about the diesels, other than that your opinion did seem biased toward the Vivo (as mine does to the i20 but at least I try to use some facts).

I'll just go ahead and sound biased and say it, the i20 engine is much better than the Vivo engine. That's my 2c. And no I don't own one, I own an Opel and the engine is better than any current Opel N/A engines as well IMHO. Very nice power for such a small engine.

 

[HapticSimian]

Damn, enigma243 - you're like a Duracel bunny.... Just don't stop!

Eh, that's what she said...?

 

[the_don46]

HaHa!

 

[Mike Hoxbig]

Gnome you'll have to excuse me for not being able to respond to all your points as time is a bit limited today

Running at partial throttle at a high rpm is preferable to running at a lower rpm at full or close to full throttle because the fuel map is very lean (close to 18:1 air/fuel ratio) at partial throttle vs stoichiometric to rich at full and close to full throttle (14:1 down to 12:1 at full throttle). Running at higher rpm translates into more power which means you can run with less throttle than lower rpm where very little power is made in comparison.

Running partial throttle at lower RPM is better than both.

Where on earth did you pull that information from?

I did say generally, didn't I? If you're plodding along at 20km/h in 5th, downshifting to 2nd to accelerate will increase consumption.

Do you just pull this stuff out of a hat? Where to get the information that the VW's torque curve is less flat. The only way to substantiate that claim is to show a torque/power sheet from a dynamometer. I'm guessing you just made that up so I won't even ask for one. I highly doubt you'd be able to produce it.

Please show me where I said that it was less flat?? I said that it was pretty flat because I can substantiate it. I'm agnostic on the Hyundai's torque curve because I can't substantiate it. Here, go knock yourself out before throwing about wild accusations that I can't back up what I say: http://www.rri.se/index.php?DN=29&List=U-Z

 

[DanH]

VW are not known for making good normally aspired engines. They rely on build quality of the car and brand image.

Their engines as Gnome pointed out produce torque low down and then it drops off, so its fine for being in city traffic but as soon as you out of the city there's nothing going on. It constantly feels like you accelerating slower and slower and running out of steam.

The ideal torque delivery is linear and the torque delivery graph looks like table mountain. Giving a nice wide rpm band with constant torque.

Have a look at the torque graph of a normal supercharged c180k merc. I know its not fair to compare these engines to a forced induction engine, but it gives a good point to aim for in terms of a torque delivery graph.

Take the vivo and i20 for a test drive and put it in 3rd and pull from low down up to 6000rpm. Do the same with the vivo and the i20 and you'll quickly see that open road with a vivo isn't going to be pleasant and overtaking, going up hill etc in a vivo is going to be a struggle.

Remember, with a 1.4 in these medium sized cars you have to change down and use high revs for overtaking, going up hill etc.

I'd say i20. But if it were my money, I couldn't go Jap. I'd go with a Corsa D enjoy in silver.

 

[krisjan]

vivo 1.4 is a good option in its price class

hi - saw this thread, and just had to give my 2c's - some "perspective" in support of the vivo as this thread seems a little unequally polarised. I bought a (63kW) vivo trendline and can highly recommend it!
So regarding the whole "vs the i20" debate let me list the following:
1> Firstly - the i20 is quite a bit more expensive. I bought the 1.4 trendline with all the extras and i added smash and grab glass (which is not listed in the extras on the site, but they give as an option at the garage) and it came to about R138k - that's less than 10k cheaper than the i20. So on price alone, I'd say the i20 probably competes in another class...
2> Performance-wise I have the following to say - I believe that for everyday driving the vivo 63kW engine is better...yes, the i20 has higher peak power output - but that is at 5500rpm, where the vivo's is at 5000rpm...but for argument's sake let's say the i20 is the same or better at the same revs - I never take the revs t0 5000 (every day driving - i'm not interestedt in racing the thing). So then I would say the torque is more meaningful to me - and here the difference is 132Nm to 136Nm in favour of the i20, but once again to get the peak torque out of the i20 you have to take the revs to 4200rpm, wheras the vivo's is at 3600Nm - I'm betting the vivo gives much better torque at 3600Nm and below. Of course you can't say for sure without looking at a torque graph, but neither of these being turbo engines there will naturrally be some ramp up to peak torque and not a flat curve. I've seen the vivo 1.6 torque curve in the CAR magazine test and i was impressed it's not a steep curve, and i think the 1.4 will have the same profile - i find useful torque from about 2600rpm. And to me this is where it matters for everyday driving. With the Hyundai you are going to have to go into the high 3000's to get useful power AND there goes your fuel economy - out the door. On my first tank with the vivo i got 6.2 l/100km - exactly as advertised - and i suspect it will get even better as i put some more kilos on the clock.
3> The extras on the vivo are probably lower spec than the hyundai, but for 10k less you get an excellent alarm/locking system - locks when you pull away, inside light goes on when you stop, boot-open only, etc. The radio is great - it has bluetooth - can connect to my phone, takes sd cards and usb - really i can't think that you'd want more. There is lots of convenient packing space in the polo - it is very practical. My other car is an audi A4, and i must say i miss the little holes and spaces that the polo has when i get in the a4. The only gripe i have is electric windows - really miss those - especially when i go through the drive though or have to pick up the parking ticket...but ag, that's really the only time i miss it. And then there's little things like the alarms that warn you the lights are still on - really convenient and unexpected in such a low price car.
4>the other big factor is this. The vivo, being based on the old polo, and also being the best selling car at the moment, and of course the fact that vw is so big in SA, and especially in terms of polos - all the right-hand drive ones are manufactured here - all of this adds up to cheaper services, cheaper parts and better availability - the hyundai loses big time in this arera if you ask me - your total cost of ownership is just less on the vivo, in the long run.

ok - sorry i know this long already - but just to mention - i have driven my share of rental cars too. getz (a few times), new fiesta, yaris and the previous gen polo (which is basically the vivo now...and i'm sorry but the polo wins hands down. I couldn't believe how tin-ny the fiesta was, especially considering the price - not impressed with the build quality. Getz is ok in terms of perceived quality, but it lacks power for sure. In fact some friends of mine bought a getz and traded it in after 6 months and got a second hand honda - according to them the fuel consumption was worse than their old toyota corrola 1.6! ok - granted the i20 has a much better spec engine, but these things unfortunately leaves a lasting impression.

So - my 2c's - your choice...and my best advice is - don't go on a single test drive - do a rental for a few days on both and then decide...

k

 

[Gnome]

1> Firstly - the i20 is quite a bit more expensive. I bought the 1.4 trendline with all the extras and i added smash and grab glass (which is not listed in the extras on the site, but they give as an option at the garage) and it came to about R138k - that's less than 10k cheaper than the i20. So on price alone, I'd say the i20 probably competes in another class...

No no no, you have to compare apples to apples, the 1.4 "trendline" costs R119,900, WITHOUT air condition, without a radio, without alarm and central locking, without a service plan, they also mention a maintenance plan, not sure what that is, but it's also not standard.

Now Vivo 1.4 "Trendline": R119,900
(Metallic paint, standard on i20, R840)
(14" alloy rims, i20 steel 15" standard, R2,480)
Air condition: R7,950
Mp3 radio (w/o bluetooh) : R2,210
Alarm and Central Locking: R1,400
Service Plan “Bolt-on” (60 000km): R5,560
Maintenance Plan “Bolt-on” (60 000km): R7,268

I did not include prices in brackets (rims & paint), R144 288, it's getting very close to the price of the i20 there.

2> Performance-wise I have the following to say - I believe that for everyday driving the vivo 63kW engine is better...yes, the i20 has higher peak power output - but that is at 5500rpm, where the vivo's is at 5000rpm...but for argument's sake let's say the i20 is the same or better at the same revs - I never take the revs t0 5000 (every day driving - i'm not interestedt in racing the thing). So then I would say the torque is more meaningful to me - and here the difference is 132Nm to 136Nm in favour of the i20, but once again to get the peak torque out of the i20 you have to take the revs to 4200rpm, wheras the vivo's is at 3600Nm - I'm betting the vivo gives much better torque at 3600Nm and below. Of course you can't say for sure without looking at a torque graph, but neither of these being turbo engines there will naturrally be some ramp up to peak torque and not a flat curve. I've seen the vivo 1.6 torque curve in the CAR magazine test and i was impressed it's not a steep curve, and i think the 1.4 will have the same profile - i find useful torque from about 2600rpm. And to me this is where it matters for everyday driving. With the Hyundai you are going to have to go into the high 3000's to get useful power AND there goes your fuel economy - out the door. On my first tank with the vivo i got 6.2 l/100km - exactly as advertised - and i suspect it will get even better as i put some more kilos on the clock.

I'm not commenting on that again, as I said before, city driving hardly requires torque, you can gear down when you need torque. You need torque as you drive on the highway, which is why the i20 is more suitable. You can't say engine X running at 4000rpm uses more fuel than engine Y at 3000rpm, unfortunately it's not that clear cut.

3> The extras on the vivo are probably lower spec than the hyundai, but for 10k less you get an excellent alarm/locking system - locks when you pull away, inside light goes on when you stop, boot-open only, etc. The radio is great - it has bluetooth - can connect to my phone, takes sd cards and usb - really i can't think that you'd want more. There is lots of convenient packing space in the polo - it is very practical. My other car is an audi A4, and i must say i miss the little holes and spaces that the polo has when i get in the a4. The only gripe i have is electric windows - really miss those - especially when i go through the drive though or have to pick up the parking ticket...but ag, that's really the only time i miss it. And then there's little things like the alarms that warn you the lights are still on - really convenient and unexpected in such a low price car.

LOL, warning when the lights are still on, that you consider an extra? Wow! My sisters Corsa Lite has that. Hyundai on the other hand automatically turns off the lights, that I would consider an extra.

4>the other big factor is this. The vivo, being based on the old polo, and also being the best selling car at the moment, and of course the fact that vw is so big in SA, and especially in terms of polos - all the right-hand drive ones are manufactured here - all of this adds up to cheaper services, cheaper parts and better availability - the hyundai loses big time in this arera if you ask me - your total cost of ownership is just less on the vivo, in the long run.

Ok let's get one thing straight, VW are not cheap. You can find plenty of people on this forum who'll contest that view, with a cambelt change cost being around R6 000 it's hardly cheap. Factor in the fact that the Hyundai doesn't need the timing chain to be replaced, ever, during the life of the engine and the i20 is probably cheaper IMHO, the previous generation Hyundai spares weren't expensive when bought from a store like AutoZone. Naturally we are talking outside the service plan now because the i20 comes standard with a 60 000km/3 year service plan.

Getz is ok in terms of perceived quality, but it lacks power for sure. In fact some friends of mine bought a getz and traded it in after 6 months and got a second hand honda - according to them the fuel consumption was worse than their old toyota corrola 1.6! ok - granted the i20 has a much better spec engine, but these things unfortunately leaves a lasting impression.

You are comparing a 1.1l inline 3 engine to a 1.4 or 1.6 inline 4 engine? Of course the performance will suck.

and my best advice is - don't go on a single test drive - do a rental for a few days on both and then decide...

Good idea, not sure if you can rent an i20 yet but definitely sounds like a plan.