Polo Vivo 1.4

Slow it down, no. Increase fuel consumption yes. Also most cars sold by manufacturers today have steel rims (if it isn't alloy it's steel, they are easy to spot). Alloy rims are significantly lighter so you can increase the size without compromising weight.


Going from 14" to 17" your car will definitely be slower. Use a gear calculator and you'll see the huge difference in speed between 14" and 17"

If the Polo has steel rimz, the 17 alloys will probably weight the same.
And btw, theres probably about 5 cars that come with steel wheels these days.

As for the speed, the first month there might be some drag, gear ratios will feel different, 2 - 3 months, 1000km later, it will all be back to normal.
Im speaking from experience here. Although Ive never owned a 1.4.
 
And 18s are just way to big...


IMG-20101221-00067.jpg
 
[Quattro];5366407 said:
And 18s are just way to big...


IMG-20101221-00067.jpg

That just looks stupid.

It's like putting a massive tailpipe on the exhaust and drilling a hole in the silencer to make a 1300 sound more powerful. I mean wtf???
 
[Quattro];5365975 said:
Lol go fly a kite. Theres some 19s that are lighter than the wheel you have on your car.

My very first car was a Toyota Corrolla 1.3 that came with 13" steel wheels. I then fitted it with 15" TSW Evo R Alloys and Pirelli P6000 tyres. The car looked awesome (almost like an RXI ) but boy was it slow off the mark.
A classic case of all show and no go :D
 
VW Polo and Vivos are overpriced cars like the Toyota Tazz. There is also too much of them on the road and white in colour if i may add. I would not buy one personally and their prices is ridiciouless for what you are actualy getting. if you need a decent new car that has looks, space (4door) comfortability, low on fuel, nippy and nice to drive i would advice you to get a Getz.
 
I dont know, putting rims on the entry lvl vivo would be kiff if the rims werent too big.
The standard wheel on the 3 door is so ****e, looks like a wheel that lost its hubcap!!
I'd do it fo sho!!
 
I guess its one of those type threads where when they get the solution they close it.

My response clearly was the solution ;)
 
I guess its one of those type threads where when they get the solution they close it.

My response clearly was the solution ;)

A Figo isn't the solution to anything, except maybe any latent self-respect. :erm: But, jokes aside, here's what I had typed out in reply in PPPot's thread:

They are tin cans, Roux. They're tiny, tiny, tinny, tinny tin cans. Their design necessitates it. In an environment where I a) risk being side-swiped by an overloaded taxi, or b) have to travel at anything over 60km/h... EVER... I'd rather be in a grown-up size car than an oversized roller-skate. Real-world accidents often don't involve friendly, stationary walls but other 1.5 to 3 ton masses of metal hurtling your way. In that scenario I don't want to be in a tiny, tinny tin can.

We can argue 'til the cows come to roost about the merits of this brand vs that, but unless we're all in them tiny, tinny cars are daft. And yes, I know cows don't roost
 
I am responding to this under duress. If you had not brought it up then I would have left it, but since you insist and this thread is about old Polos - here goes :

Your argument is invalid because in Euroncap tests the i10 and Spark are safer cars overall than the much bigger and much older Polo. They all score 15.2~16.0 points for side impacts while the Spark and i10 are much safer for pedestrians. Looking at a Corsa which can be had for the same money and it immediately becomes the safest choice.

Sure, size does matter, but as was proven with the Toyota iQ smart design can make very small cars safer than cars twice their size.
 
I am responding to this under duress. If you had not brought it up then I would have left it, but since you insist and this thread is about old Polos - here goes :
I'm bored... and you under duress brings a smile to my face. :p
Your argument is invalid because in Euroncap tests the i10 and Spark are safer cars overall than the much bigger and much older Polo. They all score 15.2~16.0 points for side impacts
Well, no... EuroNCAP states on the old 9N Polo re the side impact test: "The car achieved maximum points for the test. VW provides an optional head-protecting side airbag (curtain) and the company paid for a pole test to be conducted. The car passed, confirming that the head-protecting airbag performs well. But, because it is an option, these results are not included in the official rating." So, maximum points for the side impact whilst the results for the pole test were excluded. Apart from that, direct comparisons on the merit of EuroNCAP cannot be made between cars pre and post '09.
...while the Spark and i10 are much safer for pedestrians.
Selfish maybe, but I don't particularly care for pedestrian ratings. My main concerns are for myself and the people with me in the car. People who find themselves in the way of a car on foot often have only themselves to blame. /care.
Looking at a Corsa which can be had for the same money and it immediately becomes the safest choice.
...but, it's an Opel. :D Just as you wouldn't drive a Polo, I wouldn't drive a Corsa. Apart from brand preference there isn't much between them.
Sure, size does matter, but as was proven with the Toyota iQ smart design can make very small cars safer than cars twice their size.
Physics > number of air bags, at least when you're talking about the smallest of the small. People don't let other people they care about drive super-superminis. Not in SA.
 
Well, with that I can't find anything wrong - expect the pedestrian safety bit. I sometimes worry that my safe Corsa might someday save a pedestrian that owns a Polo - that would be a sad day for me.

Still, in that other thread I would really not want such a high mileage Polo that is close to its cambelt service when I could have a Corsa with half the kilos or a new i10. But as you say, brand preference has made people spend a whole more on weird deals.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X