Page 1 of 1
Performance differences in CL & GT?
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 7:23 pm
by MadManMike
As the title really, 0-60, torque etc differences between the two?
I'm only wondering as the CL is so much easier to get hold of... unless they are crap I wouldn't mind getting one...
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 7:25 pm
by robz
The basic car was the 1043cc Polo Fox featuring a 45bhp engine whilst the range was topped by the hatch back and coupe GT model featuring a 1272cc Digifant multi-point injection engine similar to the 8V Golf GTI engine of the same time. With a quoted top speed of 107mph and external additions such as arch extensions and side skirts, sports seats, 3 spoke steering wheel and black VW emblems this was the sportiest VW Polo to date. However, the production run of the hatch back version was limited and by 1992 only the coupe was available.
The Fox was competitively priced against other cars of its type at £6,500 with both body styles being priced identically.
The CL was the interim model. With a 1272cc single point injection engine producing 55bhp it filled the middle ground between the Fox and the GT and was the best selling Polo of this period.
not sure about torque ect tho
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 9:01 pm
by DelG40
CLs range from 1.0 carb to 1.3 SPI with 45bhp to 55bhp.
GTs, in the Mk3 UK guise, are 75bhp 1.3 MPI. 0-60 in 9.5/10
Again, I don't know the torque figures but it's quite impressive for a 1.3
Easier to get a hold of a CL because there are SO many more of them in comparison to GTs.
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 9:26 pm
by Krupa
GT is 75bhp and 72lbs/ft torque as standard.
That's spread over a wider rev range than the torque in a CL, which has a peaky curve. i.e. it runs out of puff quickly.
So I'm told anyway, I've never driven a CL.
On paper the GT is much quicker, and I'd imagine that's the same in real life.
0-60 for the different engines is roughly as follows:
1.0 SPI 19 seconds
1.3 SPI 15 seconds
1.3 MPI (GT) 10 seconds
The NZ engined CLs are probably a bit quicker than the SPI, but won't be as quick as a GT.
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:29 pm
by heartagram
Had a 1.3 NZ Genesis and I had a 1.3 GT and the NZ was pokey but not as much so as the GT. The GT was alot quicker picking up speed. NZ still wasn't bad though.
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 12:36 am
by Woodie
I want a GT
Must get looking!! and saving!
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 9:41 am
by MadManMike
Thanks for clearing that up guys, i'll DEFINATELY be holding out for a GT then...
Speed freak you see
Thanks for the info everyone!
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 10:27 pm
by Karl_CLCoupe
If you're after an example of the torque and power delivery from a stock CL, click the 'Tried and Tested' part of my sig. That printout was from a run at Aldon Automotive for the last Club polo RR day.
The car at that point just had a universal cone filter with Passat 1.8 airbox on it (I can't see that making much difference to power tbh).
I've had a bash in a GT (fitted with G40 inlet manifold), and low down, there didnt appear to be too much difference. Its when the 2nd throttle butterfly opens on the GT that you really do see how quick they are.
The GT engine can be taken a little further along the rev range to get the most out of it, where as with a 1.3 SPi it would be pointless taking it above 4500rpm as thats when torque and power drop off.
Karl.
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:42 pm
by hardhitter
Hmm, very peaky low down torque there. Good for town driving etc.
A GT is very rewarding high up the rev range and usually have a pretty wide torque spread too.