VW Polo 1.4 - how does it pull?

hyperian

hyperian

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2008
Messages
2,030
Reaction score
168
Location
I'm not sure, but it's dark and there are LCD scre
I'm thinking of getting a 1.4 polo (2nd hand). Ideally I'd like the 1.6, but they generally seem to be R20k more expensive. I drive like an old fart - into 5th gear by 50km/h, cruise at 110km/h on the freeway.

The 1.4 only pushes out 62kw and 112nm of torque - my question is whether it still feels nippy for lack of a better term? Or should I just bite the bullet and get the 1.6? I'll be using it mostly for the commute to work (about a 75km round trip), but wouldn't mind taking it down the coast every now and then.
 
The 1.4 polo will suit your need perfectly. Drove in one for a while and it was more than adequate for my "young blood".
My opinion: go for it
 
hyperian said:
I'm thinking of getting a 1.4 polo (2nd hand). Ideally I'd like the 1.6, but they generally seem to be R20k more expensive. I drive like an old fart - into 5th gear by 50km/h, cruise at 110km/h on the freeway.

The 1.4 only pushes out 62kw and 112nm of torque - my question is whether it still feels nippy for lack of a better term? Or should I just bite the bullet and get the 1.6? I'll be using it mostly for the commute to work (about a 75km round trip), but wouldn't mind taking it down the coast every now and then.
Click to expand...

I just rented a 1.4 polo and drove around the UK, did 3500 km's. It was very nippy, felt great up to 130 - 150 km/h. (Was a bit dead after that though) Great little car. Quick off the mark, and you didnt need to get the revs up to feel some of the power.

Just wish the windscreen was heated, it kept on freezing over with all the snow etc. :wtf:
 
I would save up for the 1.6, I have a 1.3xl Bantam and when ever I hit the freeway wish that I spent the little bit extra on the 1.6xl

I have driven a lot of rental polos and have always found them underpowered even compared to my 1.3.
 
Thanks for all the responses. I'm now torn between the two. I've heard that the 1.6 is just as economical as the 1.4. Perhaps I should stop being such a miser and pay the extra R20k ;)

But I feel cheated paying R90k for a 2006 1.6 polo. For that I could get a new spec 2005 Hyundai Tiburon with the same mileage :eek:
 
I have a 1.4, and it goes very well actually. off the mark it beats a focus 1.6 until about 3rd. It produces it's power quite low down, so you can do normal driving without actually going over 2500rpm! and as for the open roads, the thing is amazing :P. I have a 2003 model, and got 750kms off the 45 liter tank :). But yeah, there times where you kinda wished you had a 1.6, however, I live at the top of northcliff hill, so steep roads don't agree with it :p
 
I have had a `1.4 and a 1.6 Polo, and don't make the mistake of thinking that the 1.4 will be lighter on petrol!

The 1.6 has a better power to weight ratio and is far more miserly when it comes to the petrol pump!

Apart from crazy fuel consumption, my 1.4 was fine for power at the coast, but I would certainly recommend the 1.6 as a sweeter package.
 
scotty777 said:
I have a 1.4, and it goes very well actually. off the mark it beats a focus 1.6 until about 3rd.
Click to expand...

Having owned a focus and been in a polo 1.4 I can vouch for that being quite likely... Focus seems to have a switch that only turns on the power at about 4000rpm.:confused:
 
rorz0r said:
Having owned a focus and been in a polo 1.4 I can vouch for that being quite likely... Focus seems to have a switch that only turns on the power at about 4000rpm.:confused:
Click to expand...

I think it's just the ford engines, because my mates ford fiestas seem to produce little power until 3500rmp, and then suddenly you in business...
 
looking at buying a 2nd hand polo as well later this year but is there anything else you can recommend in the same price range that is economical on the pocket dieta
 
Last edited:
labratza said:
looking at buying a 2nd hand polo as well later this year but is there anything else you can recommend in the same price range that is economical on the pocket
Click to expand...

I see that you like to set yourself up for about 5000 conflicting answers....:whistle::D:p
 
labratza said:
looking at buying a 2nd hand polo as well later this year but is there anything else you can recommend in the same price range that is economical on the pocket
Click to expand...

I was looking at the 1.6 corolla, but they seem to retain their value much better - looking at at least R10k more for a corolla than a polo of same year, engine capacity and mileage. Otherwise, there's always the ford fiesta (the 3 door looks pretty cool) which seems to have a worse resale value than the corolla and polo. You can also pick up the "old" shape astra for a decent price.

For the polo, I'd actually consider getting a low mileage 2005 round-headlight model. They all came standard with disc breaks all round, whereas the newer polo only has disc breaks at the front with drums at the rear.
 
hyperian said:
I drive like an old fart - into 5th gear by 50km/h, cruise at 110km/h on the freeway.
Click to expand...
In that case the engine & horsepower should be at the bottom of your priority list.

I'd suggest putting reliability at the top of the list & going with a toyota of some sort. Also have a good look at the JD Powers rankings on reliability (Though that is more for 1st hand current cars).

Also keep in mind that VWs are prone to getting removed by the affirmative acquisitions squad.:o

hyperian said:
They all came standard with disc breaks all round, whereas the newer polo only has disc breaks at the front with drums at the rear.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't worry too much about drum brakes at the back. Most cars have their brakes heavily biased towards the front anyway. If however the front brakes are drums too then things start getting seriously sketchy.:D
 
I've done a disc brake conversion (for the rear) on one of my Corsa's didn't make much difference because you need to bias the brakes as AnomalyNexus says else the rear wheels lock up and you're going into a tree.

What did make a big difference was fitting the calipers and discs from a Opel Kadett Big Boss on the front. Car stopped better than my Moms Mercedes and my Dads Corolla after that.

Once again as with all things, take the car for a ride. Decide if the brakes are good enough for you, decide if the power is enough for you.

Still, one of my standard Corsa's (A Corsa Lite) was neck to neck all the way to 120 (didn't try further) against my friends Polo 1.6 so you might want to take that 1.6 instead, because a standard Corsa Lite isn't exactly what I would call quick.
 
Last edited:
hyperian said:
I was looking at the 1.6 corolla, but they seem to retain their value much better - looking at at least R10k more for a corolla than a polo of same year, engine capacity and mileage. Otherwise, there's always the ford fiesta (the 3 door looks pretty cool) which seems to have a worse resale value than the corolla and polo. You can also pick up the "old" shape astra for a decent price.

For the polo, I'd actually consider getting a low mileage 2005 round-headlight model. They all came standard with disc breaks all round, whereas the newer polo only has disc breaks at the front with drums at the rear.
Click to expand...
Well that's because the Corolla/RunX/Auris actually competes with the Jetta/Golf. The Polo competes with the Yaris. So the value on the Toyota is actually a bit worse.

As for the disc brakes at the rear, my mom's 2005 1.6 Polo (the current shape) does have discs at the rear. VW seem to have changed that from 2006 onwards. So if you can find a 1.6 2005 model of the current range, rather take that :)
 
U drive like an 'old fart'

Your question should be : Do u get a 1l polo?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X