Tried the polo 1.2

Chat about your 9n Polo (inc GT and Fun)
Post Reply
sony
Getting There!
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 8:37 pm
Location: Sheffield

Tried the polo 1.2

Post by sony »

Tried a Polo 1.2 this morning ( 52reg) and my god I just couldn't believe what a load of pooe that was. I stalled twice I had to rev it so much!
I'll stick to my golf SE (1800cc).....! Or probably wait for the polo GTI!!
vwclub.gr
Bronze Member
Posts: 179
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 3:33 pm
Location: Athens-Greece
Contact:

Post by vwclub.gr »

Slower than a "Replay" LOL!!!
dino
Sponsor
Posts: 3023
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 11:59 am
Location: Milton Keynes

Re: Tried the polo 1.2

Post by dino »

sony wrote:Tried a Polo 1.2 this morning ( 52reg) and my god I just couldn't believe what a load of pooe that was. I stalled twice I had to rev it so much!
I'll stick to my golf SE (1800cc).....! Or probably wait for the polo GTI!!
Wha do you expect your comparing it to a Golf 1.8 :roll:
Andrew B
Getting There!
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 6:42 pm
Location: Darlo

Post by Andrew B »

I'm kind of kicking myself for going for the 1.2 because of the interest free, should have gone for the 1.4 tdi or the 1.4 fsi
sony
Getting There!
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 8:37 pm
Location: Sheffield

Re: Tried the polo 1.2

Post by sony »

[quote="dino
Wha do you expect your comparing it to a Golf 1.8 :roll:[/quote]

Yeah, i'm not really comparing to the 1.8..
Just saying that it felt very very underpowered.. I need to feel at least 90-100bhp in a car it seems.
dino
Sponsor
Posts: 3023
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 11:59 am
Location: Milton Keynes

Re: Tried the polo 1.2

Post by dino »

sony wrote:[quote="dino
Wha do you expect your comparing it to a Golf 1.8 :roll:
Yeah, i'm not really comparing to the 1.8..
Just saying that it felt very very underpowered.. I need to feel at least 90-100bhp in a car it seems.[/quote]

Ver very underpowered because your used to a 1.8....
sony
Getting There!
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 8:37 pm
Location: Sheffield

Re: Tried the polo 1.2

Post by sony »

dino wrote: Ver very underpowered because your used to a 1.8....
No actually, I used to own a 1.0l Mk4 Polo a few months ago. This is when I joined the forum. Even that felt quicker!! Just my opinion really, I think the Polo should be a 1.4 at least. Quite a few reviews point out the 1.2 is very underpowered.....
User avatar
GaryUK
Gold Member
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 12:54 pm
Location: Cheshire

Post by GaryUK »

Do you know which version of the 1.2 was it? 55bhp or 65bhp?

When my car went in for it's service I tried out both in E spec. The 55bhp was gutless and a chore to drive, foot to the floor and not much happens. The 65bhp was not bad actually, very punchy low down and comparable to the fsi (which you really have to rev) up to about 40, after that though it lacks the kick! Both cars do the job though ie. made for going round town.

Was such a relief getting back in mine, umm comfy sports seats and suspension! :P
sony
Getting There!
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 8:37 pm
Location: Sheffield

Post by sony »

GaryUK wrote:Do you know which version of the 1.2 was it? 55bhp or 65bhp?

:P
Was the 55bhp one. I'd have yours straightaway!
PhilGTi
Platinum Member
Posts: 1473
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 6:34 pm
Location: Newcastle, UK
Contact:

Post by PhilGTi »

The 9n is quite a big heavy car, 1.2 55bhp is a f*****g stupid engine to put in a car of its size/weight IMO. My old 1.4 MPI 6n2 was 60bhp and that was slower then a granny on smack.
Post Reply