Thing is though I could keep up with an Elise on these roads

If the driver wasn't trying

Thing is though I could keep up with an Elise on these roads

If the driver wasn't trying

whilst he was eating a maccy d's and rummaging on the passenger footwell for a cd he dropped???

Dunno, that's normally me

But anyone could keep up with anyone if the other person isn't trying. I don't think you can say the Clio doesn't handle well either - then again, anything with ditchfinders is fighting a losing battle.

an exige handles very well......an M3 is fast

a polo is "nippy" and the handling is usually driver dependant

Very well said Tomo, Id say I prefered the handling of the Polo against the Clio, just due to the fact that the steering on the Clio is electric hence has no feeling to it, fidgity too. The Polo had a bit of weight to it. The wing colour thing I find is a myth, its the way there shaped, saying that I'm going to have a peak tommorrow!

Edited 19 December, 200718 yr by dipsy_d

Clio handling isn't that brilliant imo.

Pretty much going against anything ever written about them in the motoring press. EVO rate them very highly. They aren't even the same class of car...as said somewhere in the thread previously the 172/182 is a hot hatch...the Polo is just a badged up Mk5 with a little more poke, warm at best.

I want one...

I'm not sure the 172/182 has electric steering... certainly the 197 may.

Edited 19 December, 200718 yr by Tav

see this is the problem i had when buying my new car was a polo gti ,clio cup or what i did buy i.e toyota corolla t sport. but they have probs like most cars do but it was voted the most reliable car on the market to. but at 23 years old my insurance was 500 fully comp with 1 years no claims and it was 400 for the 1.0 polo and i have around 210bhp now with some very small mods and car worked out cheaper to buy as i thought buy second hand and spend the money saved to upgrade some bits and i would do it all again never looked back . but thats only my point of veiw.

the Polo is just a badged up Mk5 with a little more poke, warm at best.

Just like a G40 being a badged up Mk3 eh Tav

the Polo is just a badged up Mk5 with a little more poke, warm at best.

Just like a G40 being a badged up Mk3 eh Tav

difference being its hot not luke warm.

the Polo is just a badged up Mk5 with a little more poke, warm at best.

Just like a G40 being a badged up Mk3 eh Tav

No Mouse a G40 actually has a supercharger attached to the front of it....

I think it's the only hot Polo made when you compare it to the other cars available at the time. Even the new 1.8T GTi is warm as standard.

In standard form they are both warm as they do 0-60 in above 8 seconds

In standard form a G40 will manage low-to-mid 7's as tested by various car magazines back in 1991. It was faster (and more expensive) than the Mk2 GTi, which was one of the hot-hatches of the day. It's also 16 years old...so I'd have expected VW to have evolved the performance over that time...not gone backwards.

Just remember though the GTI still has all that weight to carry round, and it still manages to handle decent and go well. The 1.6 is a good engine for its size. It's no Honda engine but then it doesn't have a VTEC and is pretty powerful compared to your average N/A 1.6

Just remember though the GTI still has all that weight to carry round, and it still manages to handle decent and go well. The 1.6 is a good engine for its size. It's no Honda engine but then it doesn't have a VTEC and is pretty powerful compared to your average N/A 1.6

I'm not so sure, Toyota were running 130 bhp in the AE86 without the help of variable valve timing etc. all the way back in the mid-80's.

G40 manages to handle decent as well, just a little soft for some peoples taste. I think I could drive it as quickly as many other cars I have driven on a winding country road.

Volkswagen always trail the competition on power as they offer different benefits...but we're speaking performance so not really bothered to what they are.

Just remember though the GTI still has all that weight to carry round, and it still manages to handle decent and go well. The 1.6 is a good engine for its size. It's no Honda engine but then it doesn't have a VTEC and is pretty powerful compared to your average N/A 1.6

I'm not so sure, Toyota were running 130 bhp in the AE86 without the help of variable valve timing etc. all the way back in the mid-80's.

But that's just one car

GTI doesn't mean what it used.

It was cheap thrills for a practical daily car.

How expensive are Golf GTIs these days? Fucking fortunes!

All the oldies I know who were into cars back in the day could afford Golf GTIs even though they only really had average paid jobs. Now you need a well paid job to be able to afford a Golf GTI. If you have an average paid job you are left with a luke warm cup of Polo GTI.

well said

especially with the new polo gti....who is is aimed at? with a 1.8T its no easily insurable and most definatly isnt that affordable. why would you want a polo gti when for near enough the same money you can get a gold gti

Edited 19 December, 200718 yr by tomo87

well said

especially with the new polo gti....who is is aimed at? with a 1.8T its no easily insurable and most definatly isnt that affordable. why would you want a polo gti when for near enough the same money you can get a gold gti

Still a cheaper car to run than the Golf and it comes in about £4k cheaper to buy? Is it not £15k and the Golf is closer to £19k? I am sure it'll have lower emissions, lower tax band, cheaper insurance etc. etc.

GTi's have never been easy to insure, at the end of the 80's anything that was hatched shaped and performance orientated was apprently a night mare to get insurance for.

Just remember though the GTI still has all that weight to carry round, and it still manages to handle decent and go well. The 1.6 is a good engine for its size. It's no Honda engine but then it doesn't have a VTEC and is pretty powerful compared to your average N/A 1.6

I'm not so sure, Toyota were running 130 bhp in the AE86 without the help of variable valve timing etc. all the way back in the mid-80's.

But that's just one car

Same engine appeared in a number of cars... MR2 etc. infact they are still using the same basic engine today only with 190bhp some more cc's and VVTL-i.

I think the 1.6 Corolla in the very late-eighties/early-nineties had 136bhp on tap. You're not going to win this argument Mousey

Edited 19 December, 200718 yr by Tav

but u can pick up a nice golf gti for under £15k

Yeah surely you are speaking about a used car for £15k? If that was the case I could prob. pick up a Polo cheaper as well...taking into account same/age mileage. Golf has been out longer.

Edited 19 December, 200718 yr by Tav

Just remember though the GTI still has all that weight to carry round, and it still manages to handle decent and go well. The 1.6 is a good engine for its size. It's no Honda engine but then it doesn't have a VTEC and is pretty powerful compared to your average N/A 1.6

I'm not so sure, Toyota were running 130 bhp in the AE86 without the help of variable valve timing etc. all the way back in the mid-80's.

But that's just one car

Same engine appeared in a number of cars... MR2 etc. infact they are still using the same basic engine today only with 190bhp some more cc's and VVTL-i.

I think the 1.6 Corolla in the very late-eighties/early-nineties had 136bhp on tap. You're not going to win this argument Mousey

I'm talking about everyday cars though like Focus's, Astra's, Golfs etc

Aye Corolla's are every day cars Mouse?

No they ain't, they are old man cars

My mates girlfriend has a Corolla, we named it the spackerolla