UK-POLOS.NET - THE VW Polo Forum

its up to you. my bros got a well nice 306 but its build like s**t. its like when you take the door card of or go over a bump its like falling apart!
id say the french cant really have build quality. if you really want the pug keep both see how you get on and then if you are a cheeky devil sell the 106 for a tad more and spend the cash on your polo!
jon

good idea

actually its not more powerful than a bog standard polo
the 1.0 polo is equivalent to a 1.2 of most other makes of cars like the punto, fiesta etc, due to its magnificient engine build, blame the germans!
-Ben-

polopowah wrote:actually its not more powerful than a bog standard polo
the 1.0 polo is equivalent to a 1.2 of most other makes of cars like the punto, fiesta etc, due to its magnificient engine build, blame the germans!
-Ben-

I won't disagree that the polo's engine is pretty decent for a 1 litre and is built like a particularly strongly built thing, but mine puts out 45bhp and the pug puts out 60.. that's an increase of 133%...

if you really want the pug keep both see how you get on and then if you are a cheeky devil sell the 106 for a tad more and spend the cash on your polo!

My mentality exactly Could make a fairly decent amount on it, but it's a hassle finding somewhere to keep it, then I have to sort out advertising for as long as it takes to sell.. still, I'm tempted

I'm not at all convinced that the Polo puts out a lot of power compared to other makes! Maybe american cars But not really other european or pseudobritish makes (Vauxhall, "local" Fords).

As GT or G40 variants, yes... but the more recent models seem to have rather large blocks for their output, and the older, far more common CL's (single-barrel carb / Spi) are kinda lazy too. The torque output's damn fine, but the power is lacking when you rev harder.

Example: Fiat got 45hp out of first a 998, then 903cc, and finally 899cc engine in the Panda, Uno and Cinquecento (compared to the 1043 Polo...) and that came in at 5900 rpm for the 903, hardly thrashing it for such a small motor. (Mk3 - 5200rpm, mk2 - 5600rpm, or more!)
(plus their 1109cc Sportings have 55hp - similar to a 1272cc CL, or a more modern "1.2", however big THAT is... and the Seicento's 899cc may only stick out 39hp, but that's STILL even-stevens per cc with the Polo). I don't actually know of any over-1000cc engines since the 70s that have developed less than 40 horsepower, except for "early" Polo 1098cc ones...

And even if you DID drive a GT - that's 75hp from 1272cc, at around 5900rpm. Or in other words - what you used to get from a 1275cc Punto at only 100 revs less. And the new shape Fiats have 5hp extra compared to that from the same or less capacity!

However, except for the better built of the FIRE variants, I'd expect the Fiat engine to fall to pieces loooooong before the dub's!

(Hmm... the old Fiat 500... now that might be a viable contender for having less hp per litre... but it's not exactly a contemporary stablemate)

Space-wise... Dude! Keep the Polo! There ain't anything comparable that you can fit more stuff into (and onto!) than a Mk2/Mk3 hatch. Well... maybe a Uno. But would you want to drive one of those?
It's basically a large brick-shaped box with an engine bay welded to the front after all Whereas you can see the 106 is far more slopey at the back - maybe not as much as a Coupe, but bad enough - not to mention being shorter overall.

(I can't say much on the interior room of the Polo... this example should suffice though. I've had four big-ish guys (three plus me) in it and completed a comfortable-enough 300 mile round trip, but I wouldn't say there was surplus legroom. At least one of them was limbs akimbo for much of the ride, and I felt knees in my back a couple times! Not cramped, in that you're pushing the main body of the front seats, but leg will touch leatherette for certain)

cough* mpi engine *cough
-Ben-

come again PP? what about it?

MPI is all very nice, except I have a carburetta.. and a bog standard one at that.

Ah I get it...

the GT is MPi, read what I writ again

[quote="Prash"]if u wanted better handling and performance go for the 106, but its not all about performance, so keep the dub [/quote]
what u on about pugs have torshion beam rear axle its the worst set up ever all freanchie cars have it fooking crap and for the handling use the cash u gonna buy it with and spend it on a full susspension kit for your polo i can out corner pugs peace of p***

lol, its a pretty common fact that little 106's do have decent handling, even the basic 1s i'd especially like to see u 'out corner' a 106 gti on a windy road

my learner car was a 1.5D Saxo and that fell to bits on a straight road (nearly the same as 106)

my birds got a 1.1 106, its handling is much better than my mums 1.4 8v v reg polo. it does roll thro corners but feels safe and grippy, and does actually give u feed back. my mums seems to roll all the time and feels vague so u dont really know your limits. even the 16v has less feel than the pug, but i do agree that a suspension kit on your polo would easily kick the 106's ass. its just as everyone else has said quality is crap. ur c reg polo has a much better dash than my birds 1999 dash (i used to have a d reg in that scab colour). why dont u buy the pug then sell it on at parkers book price. make urself some money and spend in on ur polo or on another car.