UK-POLOS.NET - THE VW Polo Forum

It's actually from the 3rd season of The Grand Tour, episode 10.

Thought the Polo would come last there. Other two must have had terrible starts


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Slider09 wrote: Mon Sep 30, 2019 3:11 pm Thought the Polo would come last there. Other two must have had terrible starts

I reckon DSG had a lot to do with the outcome...an in gear test might be a different outcome

VW always under-quote their output, and they've usually got more torque than other marques of a similar output.

Both the Fiesta ST and Yaris GRMN are well down on torque with 290Nm and 250Nm respectively.

It seems then that being 200kg lighter (not including any weight difference between May and Clarkson) and 9ps up doesn't cancel out a 70Nm torque deficit.

monkeyhanger wrote: Mon Sep 30, 2019 5:27 pm VW always under-quote their output, and they've usually got more torque than other marques of a similar output.

Both the Fiesta ST and Yaris GRMN are well down on torque with 290Nm and 250Nm respectively.

It seems then that being 200kg lighter (not including any weight difference between May and Clarkson) and 9ps up doesn't cancel out a 70Nm torque deficit.

The weight difference is visible when comparing lap times, with fiesta ST beating the Polo in every hotlap video I've seen. Still, I prefer the polo as an everyday car to the fiesta. Much higher quality interior, ride and tire noise.

^ 1:47.0 Polo vs 1:44.4 ST is the best comparison Neubergring video I saw on youtube - lots of others for old ST vs old Polo or new ST vs old Polo.

Not a lot in it - and you've got to wonder about the variables - the Vid I saw had Polo on Michelin PS4 and ST on Michelin PSS. The PS4 is supposed to be a replacement for the PSS, but it really isn't The PS4 is a significantly harder tyre -still feat, but got to wonder how much of that 2.3% deficit the Polo might claw back on slightly better rubber.

Does the ST have multilink rear suspension? Might make it a bit more composed through tight bends.

I'd rather have the Polo. Mine is never going to see a track day - I care more for approximately straight line acceleration for overtaking something on an A road or motorway.

video on youtube with a drag race and dyno run. Polo is faster on the straight which is perfect for me, don’t do the track days.

I just need better tyres for grip.

https://youtu.be/obtnIMqCzkE

green justin wrote:video on youtube with a drag race and dyno run. Polo is faster on the straight which is perfect for me, don’t do the track days.

That will be ok for all the chavs for the traffic light GP’s - until they come across a fast car that is [emoji3]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’ve owned the polo gti and now I have the fiesta st. There really is nothing in it really and being the same bhp you would expect that. I think the fiesta is possibly quicker in gear though, it just feels more urgent. Having said that though both aren’t that fast really. Yoj would have thought 200bhp hatchback should very fast but nowadays not so much. It really put it in to perspective when I went in my brothers bmw m2. Now that is a fast car!

green justin wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 5:41 pm video on youtube with a drag race and dyno run. Polo is faster on the straight which is perfect for me, don’t do the track days.

I just need better tyres for grip.

https://youtu.be/obtnIMqCzkE

There are some unexpected dyno results on that video:-

Polo is developing 205PS, peaking at 4479rpm. Max torque is a massive 374Nm, developed at 2306rpm (officially 200PS and 320Nm)
Fiesta is developing 215PS, peaking at 6022rpm. Max torque is 313Nm, developed at 2472rpm (officially 200ps and 290Nm)
Yaris is developing a massive 234PS, peaking at 6687rpm. Max torque is 261Nm, developed at 5333Nm (officially 212PS and 250Nm)

For the Yaris with peak torque (and the lowest torque figure by a mile) coming in so high up the rev range, it seems to perform like a naturally aspirated engine car, needing its neck wrung to do anything. That surprised me - It's supercharged, so it should act like a turboed car, but without any turbo lag.

I'm surprised at how much more power than official figures the Fiesta and Yaris have on test, with the Fiesta also getting a decent amount of torque.

It seems though that torque is king - 43% more torque overcomes the 12% deficit in peak power, despite being 18% heavier. The Polo's output is much more accessible.

That Yaris interior...wow! That has got to be one of the worst interiors of a top tier car manufacturer - it looked comparable to a Dacia Duster.

Looks like all 3 cars have torsion beam rear suspension, but the Ford having a proper LSD rather than Polo's electronic inside wheel braking must help a lot in a track situation, and also helps to cut down on tramping that we know from experience that the Polo does suffer from (worse on the Bridgestones).

cupracing wrote: Sat Oct 05, 2019 8:50 pm I’ve owned the polo gti and now I have the fiesta st. There really is nothing in it really and being the same bhp you would expect that. I think the fiesta is possibly quicker in gear though, it just feels more urgent. Having said that though both aren’t that fast really. You would have thought 200bhp hatchback should very fast but nowadays not so much. It really put it in to perspective when I went in my brothers bmw m2. Now that is a fast car!

A lot of those headline 0-62 times for fast cars are all about initial traction though. I had a Golf R before my GTI+ and once rolling in 2nd gear and above, the Polo doesn't feel much slower than the R, even thought the R has an extra 100PS (and is 200Kg heavier).

You can get a lot of Audi cars in both Quattro and 2WD with the same spec and engine - the quattro generally giving a 0.8s advantage over 2WD. My pre-facelift manual 300PS Golf R had a 0-62 time of 5.1s. Apply that 0.8s rule to my R, and you'd expect a 2WD variant (closest equivalent would be a Leon Cupra) 300PS VW to have a 0-62 time of around 5.9s - only 0.8s ahead of the Polo.

4WD flatters a lot of cars, but for me, it's in gear acceleration that counts and the Polo pulls strongly for its 200PS output. The Fiesta probably feels quicker due to it being a little less refined in delivery than the Polo. In much the same way, I think my Polo feels almost as quick as my Golf R once rolling, because the R was so much more composed at speed than the 2WD Polo GTI )or a Golf GTI) is. The R was so composed (even on 19" wheels, the damping was excellent on the standard static suspension), it really didn't feel quick at all unless you were taking it past 4500rpm where it seemed to have a second wind that the Golf GTI doesn't. When you start getting into silly amounts of BHP, it's more difficult to get a thrill driving it - even with the Polo GTI, 12s of hard acceleration from a standstill will get you into the kind of speeds that'll get you points on a motorway.

A jittery car that feels like it's going to kill you when you push it hard gives more of a thrill than a very fast but very composed car - as long as it doesn't actually kill you! My mate has an old MR2 that's not very powerful at all, but is fun to drive.

monkeyhanger wrote:

cupracing wrote: Sat Oct 05, 2019 8:50 pm I’ve owned the polo gti and now I have the fiesta st. There really is nothing in it really and being the same bhp you would expect that. I think the fiesta is possibly quicker in gear though, it just feels more urgent. Having said that though both aren’t that fast really. You would have thought 200bhp hatchback should very fast but nowadays not so much. It really put it in to perspective when I went in my brothers bmw m2. Now that is a fast car!

A lot of those headline 0-62 times for fast cars are all about initial traction though. I had a Golf R before my GTI+ and once rolling in 2nd gear and above, the Polo doesn't feel much slower than the R, even thought the R has an extra 100PS (and is 200Kg heavier).

You can get a lot of Audi cars in both Quattro and 2WD with the same spec and engine - the quattro generally giving a 0.8s advantage over 2WD. My pre-facelift manual 300PS Golf R had a 0-62 time of 5.1s. Apply that 0.8s rule to my R, and you'd expect a 2WD variant (closest equivalent would be a Leon Cupra) 300PS VW to have a 0-62 time of around 5.9s - only 0.8s ahead of the Polo.

4WD flatters a lot of cars, but for me, it's in gear acceleration that counts and the Polo pulls strongly for its 200PS output. The Fiesta probably feels quicker due to it being a little less refined in delivery than the Polo. In much the same way, I think my Polo feels almost as quick as my Golf R once rolling, because the R was so much more composed at speed than the 2WD Polo GTI )or a Golf GTI) is. The R was so composed (even on 19" wheels, the damping was excellent on the standard static suspension), it really didn't feel quick at all unless you were taking it past 4500rpm where it seemed to have a second wind that the Golf GTI doesn't. When you start getting into silly amounts of BHP, it's more difficult to get a thrill driving it - even with the Polo GTI, 12s of hard acceleration from a standstill will get you into the kind of speeds that'll get you points on a motorway.

A jittery car that feels like it's going to kill you when you push it hard gives more of a thrill than a very fast but very composed car - as long as it doesn't actually kill you! My mate has an old MR2 that's not very powerful at all, but is fun to drive.

Polo GTI vs Golf R = bye bye mr/s Polo driver.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Slider09 wrote: Sat Oct 05, 2019 9:26 pm
Polo GTI vs Golf R = bye bye mr/s Polo driver.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From a standing start, certainly - it'll be left for dead. In gear, the R will be away, but it's not as big a gap as you'd think. Below 4500rpm, the R doesn't feel appreciably quicker than a Golf GTI, above that 4500rpm, the R gets a second wind as the Golf GTI is starting to tail off. In the real world, not doing traffic light drag races, 30-70mph acceleration is what counts to most, and in that situation, that Golf R is going to be 2 or 3 car lengths ahead of the Polo.

I've a slightly crude test that I do for my cars. I have a sliproad onto a dual carriageway, and I maintain 25mph until I pass a certain sign and then floor it until I pass another sign, and see what speed i'm doing when I pass the sign, here are some figures from my recent car history (all done very early in the morning with nothing else on the road, in the dry, with warm oil):-

2009 Scirocco 140TDI Manual stock = 70mph
2011 Scirocco 170TDI Manual stock = 79mph
2013 MK7 Golf GTD Manual stock 184TDI = 81mph
2013 MK7 Golf GTD Manual 240TDI (DTUK tuning box) = 88mph
2015 MK7 Golf R Manual stock 300PS = 96mph
2018 MK6 Polo GTI+ AW 200PS DSG = 87mph

I must also add that my wife's 2019 GTI+ with GPF feels noticeably slower when pressing on than my 2018 GTI+ with no GPF, although I haven't tried my test in her car - would be good to know what the deficit is against mine.

monkeyhanger wrote:

Slider09 wrote: Sat Oct 05, 2019 9:26 pm
Polo GTI vs Golf R = bye bye mr/s Polo driver.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From a standing start, certainly - it'll be left for dead. In gear, the R will be away, but it's not as big a gap as you'd think. Below 4500rpm, the R doesn't feel appreciably quicker than a Golf GTI, above that 4500rpm, the R gets a second wind as the Golf GTI is starting to tail off. In the real world, not doing traffic light drag races, 30-70mph acceleration is what counts to most, and in that situation, that Golf R is going to be 2 or 3 car lengths ahead of the Polo.

I've a slightly crude test that I do for my cars. I have a sliproad onto a dual carriageway, and I maintain 25mph until I pass a certain sign and then floor it until I pass another sign, and see what speed i'm doing when I pass the sign, here are some figures from my recent car history (all done very early in the morning with nothing else on the road, in the dry, with warm oil):-

2009 Scirocco 140TDI Manual stock = 70mph
2011 Scirocco 170TDI Manual stock = 79mph
2013 MK7 Golf GTD Manual stock 184TDI = 81mph
2013 MK7 Golf GTD Manual 240TDI (DTUK tuning box) = 88mph
2015 MK7 Golf R Manual stock 300PS = 96mph
2018 MK6 Polo GTI+ AW 200PS DSG = 87mph

I must also add that my wife's 2019 GTI+ with GPF feels noticeably slower when pressing on than my 2018 GTI+ with no GPF, although I haven't tried my test in her car - would be good to know what the deficit is against mine.

I have a mk7 R, wife has a 7.5 GTI (both DSG). R is noticeably quicker than the GTI - especially lower in the rev range.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk