VW Polo gets facelift, new engines

Oh and the article states that VWSA has not confirmed the new engines. Europe has had the 1l and 1.2l TSI engines for years already so want makes you think VWSA will bring the new motors in? Its common knowledge that VWSA recycle old junk for decades and the VDUB4LYF club lap it up.
 
Brawler said:
Those are totally incomparable..

At least compare a Ecoboost to a TSI? What is the most someone has got out of a TSI?
Click to expand...

They're comparable as they're the entry level offerings in the market. Ford decided to go the boost route for power, VW decided to avoid boost for reliability. Pros and cons to both.
 
Brawler said:
Those are totally incomparable..

At least compare a Ecoboost to a TSI? What is the most someone has got out of a TSI?
Click to expand...

They are definitely comparable - same segment cars.

And I was pointing out to Gerhardva that the VW engine will last longer at the ford when he almost wet his pants.
 
TehStranger said:
They're comparable as they're the entry level offerings in the market. Ford decided to go the boost route for power, VW decided to avoid boost for reliability. Pros and cons to both.
Click to expand...

Did you even look at his link? Its like a 2002 Polo 1.4 NA. How does that compare to a 2014 1.0T?
 
genetic said:
They are definitely comparable - same segment cars.

And I was pointing out to Gerhardva that the VW engine will last longer at the ford when he almost wet his pants.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about your links (Which I quoted). 1 000 000 KM NA vs 250 000 Turbo. I then asked for a better matched comparison such as a TSI vs Ecoboost.
 
Brawler said:
Did you even look at his link? Its like a 2002 Polo 1.4 NA. How does that compare to a 2014 1.0T?
Click to expand...

Both entry level segment cars, different time periods. You owuld expect reliability to get better after 12 years of development, not worse.
 
TehStranger said:
Both entry level segment cars, different time periods. You owuld expect reliability to get better after 12 years of development, not worse.
Click to expand...

If you are going to compare, compare apples with apples. 2002 Polo 1.4 vs 2002 Fiesta 1.4, 2014 Ecoboost vs 2014 TSI. I can't believe I even need to explain this...:erm:

Do you think a 1.0 TSI VW is going to see 1 000 000 in real world driving?
 
Brawler said:
If you are going to compare, compare apples with apples. 2002 Polo 1.4 vs 2002 Fiesta 1.4, 2014 Ecoboost vs 2014 TSI. I can't believe I even need to explain this...:erm:

Do you think a 1.0 TSI VW is going to see 1 000 000 in real world driving?
Click to expand...

You're not getting it...

You're taking entry level car from 2002 with entry level car from 2014. Both cars are in the same "apple" segment. They have different design technologies.

All you're trying to do is change the single parameter dictating the comparison. You're using induction as a baseline, we're using segment as a baseline.

I understand your point, but it's a different comparison.

N/A vs. F/I CAN be compared, as this comparison most effectively highlights the differences between the two technologies.
 
Skew it as much as you like then. VDUB4LYF.

We could easily turn the tables, 2014 TSI vs 2002 NA Ford and compare those two.. My bet will be on the NA Ford.

The two links were comparing two cars, not two induction technologies.
 
Last edited:
Brawler said:
Skew it as much as you like then. VDUB4LYF.

We could easily turn the tables, 2014 TSI vs 2002 NA Ford and compare those two.. My bet will be on the NA Ford.

The two links were comparing two cars, not two induction technologies.
Click to expand...

Nice edit. I'm happy to turn the tables and agree that the 2002 NA Ford will probably outlast the 2014 TSI quite comfortably. Whats your point?
 
TehStranger said:
Nice edit. I'm happy to turn the tables and agree that the 2002 NA Ford will probably outlast the 2014 TSI quite comfortably. Whats your point?
Click to expand...

Original point is that when comparing two cars on longevity you need to choose cars from the same period / engines. Choosing a 2002 NA vs 2014 FI skews it as there are other factors at play. I'd say the exact same thing if you were comparing an old NA Ford to a new FI VW.

Obviously it is fine to compare NA vs FI if your objective is to compare the two tech but that was not what the comparision was. Genetic basically said "look heres a VW with 1 000 000 on the clock and Ford only 250 000" meanwhile the cars are generations apart and not really comparable. The interesting thing is that there are comparable cars available (2002 NA Ford vs 2002 NA VW, same with 2014 FI VW and Ford) but yet he chose to compare cars from very different times to try and prove a point.

A more extreme example: " Fords (2014 1.6) are much faster than VW(1992 1.6)" HTF can you compare that? Even if they are both same segment cars?
 
Last edited:
Brawler said:
Original point is that when comparing two cars on longevity you need to choose cars from the same period / engines. Choosing a 2002 NA vs 2014 FI skews it as there are other factors at play. I'd say the exact same thing if you were comparing an old NA Ford to a new FI VW.

Obviously it is fine to compare NA vs FI if your objective is to compare the two tech but that was not what the caparison was. Genetic basically said "look heres a VW with 1 000 000 on the clock and Ford only 250 000" meanwhile the cars are generations apart and not really comparable. The interesting thing is that there are comparable cars available (2002 NA Ford vs 2002 NA VW, same with 2014 FI VW and Ford) but yet he chose to compare cars from very different times to try and prove a point.
Click to expand...

I think you're hung up on the time difference, rather than the technology difference. Why do you need to choose cars from the same period/engines? That completely disregards the pros of NA technology.

One can compare ANYTHING as long as there is a single baseline that both items conform to. That baseline can be year, induction technology (or the lack thereof), power, heck even the width. All the baseline does is serve as a way to highlight other aspects of two items that are in some way identical.

In the case above, the baseline of entry level market was identical. We're not trying to skew this towards favouring VW (well I'm not), I'm just trying to highlight that an engine which only lasts up to 250,000kms might not be the best choice in the entry level market segment when one has longevity in mind.

Buy the car that ticks all of your boxes. If you want power combined with fuel economy, 1.0L Ecoboost. If you want longevity, small capacity, NA VW (or Honda, or Toyota, or Kia - take your pick).
 
I'm not going to continue but I disagree with you big time. When comparing anything one needs to set an objective and for the comparison you need to be as fair as possible to avoid bias on both sides.
 
Brawler said:
I'm not going to continue but I disagree with you big time. When comparing anything one needs to set an objective and for the comparison you need to be as fair as possible to avoid bias on both sides.
Click to expand...

The objective here was set though? :confused: (It's longevity if you're still wondering).

It's only when we start adding in parameters that we need to reduce what can effectively be compared.

If our objective is fuel economy around town, we could easily compare a 2013 Honda Jazz 1.3 vs 2013 Ferrari 458. The Jazz wins. Then we add in a new parameter, engine capacity has to be under 1.8L. New comparison, 2013 Honda Jazz 1.3 vs 2013 Toyota Corolla 1.4. The Jazz wins. Then we add in a new parameter, the car needs to be a Honda. New comparison, 2013 Honda Jazz 1.3 vs 2013 Honda Civic 1.6L. The Jazz wins. Then we add in a new parameter... and so on.
 
Read the thread. They were comparing Ecoboost vs TSI Longevity then all of a sudden a 12 year old NA engine was thrown in when he wanted to make a point.

Your comparisons are foolish.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X