UK-POLOS.NET - THE VW Polo Forum

I’m looking at buying my first performance car. My heart is telling me to go for a 6C polo GTi over the competition. I’ll most likely be financing the car from a dealer. Would the blueGT be a more sensible option for a fairly young driver as I don’t have the largest budget for maintenance in the world so wondering how high the cost of consumables tends to be between the two cars?

Not sure about the consumables etc -- but the BlueGT will be cheaper to insure....

albob wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:16 am Not sure about the consumables etc -- but the BlueGT will be cheaper to insure....

Agree, especially for a young driver on a limited budget.

@Robinson6973; probably worth getting some insurance quotes for a BlueGT and a GTI to give you an idea of the likely cost.

The Blue GT should also give better mpg, which might be important consideration if you’re driving quite a few miles. If you need a decent sized boot, the GTI doesn’t have the flexible boot floor (upper and lower positions) that the BlueGT has - GTI has the upper position only, so the boot is quite small with the rear seats in place.

Also bear in mind that the GTI comes with diamond cut alloy wheels, which are prone to white worm corrosion. Most succumb to the dreaded white worm corrosion between 2-3 years old, so it might be necessary to get them refurbished (you’d be looking at around £90+VAT per wheel to get a good quality refurb in a diamond cut finish). The BlueGT’s alloys are a painted / powder coated finish, so are much more durable and white worm won’t be an issue either.

If you’re looking at a pre April 2017 car, the Blue Gt also wins out on road tax. Only £20 p.a.

Whilst there is a difference against the stop watch I very much doubt that you would notice it on the road particularly if you opt for the DSG version of the BGT.

Ricmondo wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2020 4:20 pm Whilst there is a difference against the stop watch I very much doubt that you would notice it on the road particularly if you opt for the DSG version of the BGT.

Lots of good advice in the thread but have to disagree about the suggestion that you would not notice the difference on the road. I've only had a 20 minute test drive in a 148 BHP Blue GT compared to 3 years ownership of a 6c GTI but it was night and day. The GTI has over 50lbs/ft more torque and 40BHP and is a second quicker. If a car accelerates to 62 in 15 secs and you manage to improve this by 1 second, I would agree you'd struggle to notice the difference but 1 second of the Blue GT's performance is fairly significant

Had my BlueGT for a year now and I absolutely love it!

I also couldn’t decide between a GTI and a BlueGT but due to me doing 50 miles a day commuting to and from work I decided to go for the more economical, cheaper to tax, cheaper to insure BlueGT! It is still a quick car, granted it’s not as quick as a GTI but plenty quick enough especially with the flappy paddle DSG gearbox.

£20 to tax a year which is cheap as chips! I get around 45 - 48mpg on my 50 mile commute to work and back driving on back roads and main roads with a little town driving too, get around 400 miles to a tank!

Also I believe the BlueGT is quite a rare car too!!

Here’s mine,




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hi Gee.
I suggest you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference, you suggest you’d struggle to detect a one second difference, it looks as though really we are on the same page.

I’m talking about my personal perception of the reality of road driving rather than bragging rights, I’m sure you are doing exactly the same but we are probably at opposite ends of the motoring spectrum and almost certainly have owned very different cars.

Not going to fall out but for me the additional insurance, VED and inferior MPG of the GTi are a clincher even without the cheaper purchase price. I know it’s highly subjective but for me the smaller engine also feels smoother and seems to rev easier.

Horses for courses but that’s what this particular thread is about isn’t it.

Hi Ricmondo

I think we are largely on the same page as I think the GT is a better overall package bearing in mind the OP says they are relatively young etc. My point about not telling the difference between a car that is 1 second quicker was suggesting this to be the case in cars that have relatively gentle acceleration but in cars like the GT and GTI with fairly rapid acceleration I feel the difference is quite marked as the GTI is about 15% quicker than the GT. Either way both cars are quick enough to make me smile and as you say its down to personal preference. My friends son has the older twin charged 1.4 6R GTI and I cant tell the difference between that and the GT, but in manual form, the 6c with much more torque than the GT, 6rGTI or 6cGTI DSG, has amazing in gear performance.

If I didn't live in a very insurance friendly part of Derbyshire and wasn't old enough to remember Mary Mungo and Midge I'd go for the GT LOL

Thanks for the replies guys! I’ve looked at quotes on insurance, both were affordable but weirdly the GTi would be costing around 50 pounds less a year than the BlueGT. Not what I expected at all!

Robinson6973 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 6:54 pm Thanks for the replies guys! I’ve looked at quotes on insurance, both were affordable but weirdly the GTi would be costing around 50 pounds less a year than the BlueGT. Not what I expected at all!

Less ?!?!? -- now that is weird....

I’ve been with LV and their predecessor since 1964 and my NCB dates back to then.

When I bought my BGT their quote for the GTi was around 50% higher than that for the BGT. That’s a difference of around £100 a year.

Seems odd that a company would go in the other direction.

Until fairly recently I'd spent 20+ years as a senior manager for a large UK insurer looking after their motor claims rather than underwriting, so I'm not an expert but I might be able to shed some light although the situation with the GTI being cheaper is unusual. When a new model is released the ABI ( Assoc of British Insurers ) assess the vehicle and allocate it an insurance group between 1 and 50 that takes into account the likelihood of the vehicle being involved in claims and the potential cost of claims. This insurance group is the starting point the underwriters use when providing a quote. They then apply other factors to this starting point such as age of the driver, driving history, driver occupation and claims histories for the make and model in the area local to the driver, eg if an insurer has had a number of theft claims for that car locally, they will load the premium for that car in that area. Must admit that even taking the above into account its unusual to hear about a car 6 groups higher being cheaper

I feel like a bit of a Muppet now. Just re read my quotes and noticed the price difference is the other direction. Still only 50 pounds though which is relatively insignificant given the increase in performance.

Perhaps more oddly, a 986 2.7 boxster is genuinely cheaper without a black box. Admiral would be £1086 in the boxster, or £1290 in the GTi.

I don't think you can go far wrong with either car and as Ricmondo said its about personal taste. The GT is a really interesting car with the cylinder on demand technology ( not sure why it wasn't fitted to the 6c GTI) it does have the ability to provide some guilty freeish fun with excellent MPG. Assuming the Mildenhall as you location is the one in East Anglia you should be able to enjoy the performance of the GTI as having spent a lot of time in the area with work, I know the roads around there are fantastic. If you are careful on traffic free roads you should see upwards of 40 MPG in the GTI but being careful in a 6c GTI takes some real self restraint. If you decide to go for the GTI I'd suggest you test drive both the manual and the DSG. Both post the same time to 62mph, but the manual has a lot more torque and better in gear performance ( The DSG keeps up with lightning quick gear changes )

The Boxster is a good car, but having driven the 3.2s owned by the lad next door I preferred the low down grunt of the Polo. His Boxster is a bit quicker in a straight line, but all the performance is top end (I would imagine this would be exaggerated even further in the 2.7) and it takes a lot more skill to drive it quickly when the going gets twisty. We've been out on a couple of drives round the high peak and I have no trouble keeping up on twisty county lanes even when he is trying. Also bear in mind servicing/consumables are a lot more on the Boxster and the MPG will be low 20s unless you are on a long traffic free run

Good Luck