Real world performance difference between Polo GTI and Golf GTI

[Lemonskin]

Hey all,

It had been a pretty long time dream of mine to own a Golf GTI and when the time came to buy my own car after giving up a company car, I looked long and hard at it. I was pretty discouraged that I couldn't really afford it having a sub-30k budget and wanting a car that was fairly new. The only Mk6 Golf GTI's out there under $30k either had had monstrously high km's on them or were quite old (the first examples).

I'd read that the Polo was damn good and obviously saw that it won Motor's BFYB in 2011. Then when it won it again in 2012 beating the crap out of the Toyobaru 86/BRZ (and not having the slightest interest in getting a Fabia RS), I had a real hard think about the Polo. It never really was on my list until late. I test drove the Golf plenty of times and was pretty set on it, but after test driving the Polo I felt that in the short time you get on a test drive, the performance felt basically the same.

Obviously the Golf has a bigger engine (2.0 t/c vs 1.4 s/c +t/c), but the Polo is smaller and lighter, so the difference isn't that marked. I initally thought that the smaller-ness of the Polo would be an issue but after thinking about it, I don't have kids, most of the time its just myself and my girlfriend in the car. Obviously I've stepped down quite a few car sizes going from my old VE Commodore Sportwagon to a Polo but I don't really miss the extra space much (yet!).

The Polo is such a blast to drive but I wonder, what is missing compared to the Golf? Occasionally I wish the power would come on quicker but with the Golf's turbo lag, is there any real difference? I've never read any review directly comparing the two, are there any out there? The Little Polo can take on most cars at the lights, except for someone with an obviously more powerful car who's actually trying

- What is the power to weight ratio of both?
- What can the 2.0 do that the 1.4 can't?
- Any real difference in 0-100 times? (Both quoted 6.9 sec but we know that can vary)

Interested to know people's thoughts, especially anyone who has spent a lot of time in both cars.

Cheers
Michael

[LunchboxVRS]

I tested both. The golf had more punch higher in the revs but it spun the wheels a lot easier higher up so you lost time. Pulls harder up hills due to the extra torque. I set up a drag from the lights against another DSG golf and we could not be split. I was a fraction in front at the end but he had some more wheel spin then me. The boot is bigger for sure. But the one thing I noticed was even though it is longer the real difference between the rear leg room in both is nil. And you still struggle to get three full sized adults in the back dispite the extra width. Don't get me wrong it's still a good car but If I was in need of more space over the polo I'd go a Octavia vRS wagon (prefer the look of the hatch).

[Lucas_R]

Real world performance difference between Polo GTI and Golf GTI

The power to weight ratio is pretty much the same between the Golf GTI and Polo GTI. (Polo is 9.00kg per KW and Golf is 8.90kg per KW according to the weight and power figures listed in my Wheels magazine. Weights were for 3dr DSG models).

0-100kph is once again essentially identical between the two.

1/4 mile times identical too.

[Dutch77]

I'd disagree on the rear room.. the Golf definitely has a bit more room if I am in the back (yeah ok, this only happens when I vacuum it), and can seat three adults at a pinch. It also has a bit more boot space. Otherwise not a heap to separate the two, and while I may have considered the Polo GTI at the time I couldn't.. it wasn't available!

Budget didn't extend to the GTI when the Speaker of the House needed new wheels, but the sports pack with those nice Boavistas, slight suspension drop and front fogs still makes it look like a sweet sporty ride.

(I really need to get some pics up of Red Baron and Marco!)

[Dutch77]

0-100kph is once again essentially identical between the two.

1/4 mile times identical too.

Has a stock Polo ever recorded a 6.1 per Motors last Golf GTI run? (besides all the stars aligning for that particular run!)

[Lemonskin]

Has a stock Polo ever recorded a 6.1 per Motors last Golf GTI run? (besides all the stars aligning for that particular run!)

I think I've seen them quote 6.6 for the Polo in one of the comparo's... Was either Wheels or Motor but can't remember which one. May have to dig through a few mags to find that one!

[Hail22]

I think I've seen them quote 6.6 for the Polo in one of the comparo's... Was either Wheels or Motor but can't remember which one. May have to dig through a few mags to find that one!

Dig through a few mags? poor form Lemon...the mrs should give you a firm backhand to the head jokes mate.

[gavs]

Real world performance difference between Polo GTI and Golf GTI

I got one perfect launch once and stuffed if I know how I did it or if I can replicate it but I got 0-100 in 6.5 secs, probably on a slight downhill run.

With the tune etc my goal is a 1 sec drop of the factory time so would be interested I know....

After driving both I would love that extra boot space and seats in the golf as well as the multi link rear suspension over torsion beam (less crashy over irregular surfaces, especially mid corner, nothing kw couldn't sort though...) but not until you are well over the speed limit is there any real accelerator difference. In the right gear, the polo will power out of corners better due to the instant torque however if the golf is in its torque meatiness, it will always win.

[readerr0r]

With the $6-10K you can save (Mk6 GTI is cheaper now with all the run-out deals). You could tune up the Polo quite a bit.

2K gets you the engine tune and the intercooler. You should be packing more kW than a stock Golf GTI then.

VW didn't really 'gimp' the Polo GTI much, other than the dry clutch DSG...

Things would've been interesting if there was no XDS though.

[Martin]

I got 0-100 in 6.5 secs

With the tune etc my goal is a 1 sec drop of the factory time so would be interested I know....

Unlikely to be achieved I'm afraid

If you have a stock turbo car doing ~7.5 sec 0 to 100 you can knock 1 second off with a ECU remap

If your car is already at 6.5 seconds it's going to take a lot more power/traction to take another second away
(You are likely to spend a lot of money and make the car somewhat uncomfortable for general usage)

Take the Ford G6E Turbo - 0 to 100 in 5.9 seconds, 270kw, 533nm (and yeah, it's heavy)

The Hyundai Veloster Turbo has 150kw and is only doing ~6.9 seconds

[Melon Head]

some guy on youtube does sub 6 seconds with stage 1 tune

[Dutch77]

Unlikely to be achieved I'm afraid

If you have a stock turbo car doing ~7.5 sec 0 to 100 you can knock 1 second off with a ECU remap

If your car is already at 6.5 seconds it's going to take a lot more power/traction to take another second away
(You are likely to spend a lot of money and make the car somewhat uncomfortable for general usage)

Take the Ford G6E Turbo - 0 to 100 in 5.9 seconds, 270kw, 533nm (and yeah, it's heavy)

The Hyundai Veloster Turbo has 150kw and is only doing ~6.9 seconds

Golf R gets listed in Motor at 5.4, the Viezu R at Hot Tuner was at 4.7 with just the ECU tune.. not quite a second but pretty good bang for buck (although maybe a stock R would have bettered the 5.4 under HT conditions).

Interestingly Hyundai don't quote times officially for the Veloster, some Car Advice article suggests local testing got a 6.9 but their original preview had it at 7.5 to 7.8 - which is lineball with Motor's 7.7 in the same test where they (somehow) got that GTI to record the 6.1.

[DkN]

Golf R gets listed in Motor at 5.4, the Viezu R at Hot Tuner was at 4.7 with just the ECU tune.. not quite a second but pretty good bang for buck (although maybe a stock R would have bettered the 5.4 under HT conditions.

Custom Code ECU + DSG Phase 1, 0-100 in 4.13, no hardware mods

Different case for a Polo though, 6.5 to 5.5 should be possible without spending too much, but anything less than that will cost you.

[gavs]

Real world performance difference between Polo GTI and Golf GTI

5.9 is my target, that's with tune, intake, intercooler and tbe hopefully soon, then federal 595 rsr tyres to aid traction. Hurdy in the uk ran a loba motorsports turbo and meth injection and got under 5 until his Revo tune shat itself and couldn't handle things properly.

[Martin]

Golf R gets listed in Motor at 5.4, the Viezu R at Hot Tuner was at 4.7 with just the ECU tune..

4WD/AWD is a different story all together

FWD Polo/Golf won't benefit from power increases to the same degree on standing start times
(I have a StageII Octavia VRS - can't use all the power on standing starts)

The Golf R with DSG is rated at 5.5 seconds but the AU version is a little detuned (compared to EU) to handle local climate

Interestingly Hyundai don't quote times officially for the Veloster, some Car Advice article suggests local testing got a 6.9 but their original preview had it at 7.5 to 7.8 - which is lineball with Motor's 7.7 in the same test where they (somehow) got that GTI to record the 6.1.

Yes - I have mixed feelings about this car