1998 Volkswagen Polo CL 1.6 petrol from UK and Ireland
Summary:
A troublesome, overrated car
Faults:
Heavy rust on all nuts and bolts, difficult to perform maintenance.
Power steering pump noisy and steering heavy.
Uses a lot of oil, from top of dipstick to bottom in 200 miles, no signs of leaks...
Stupid ignition key design makes you turn the wipers on whenever you turn the key (too close to one another).
Factory paintwork poor, runs and drips everywhere.
Electrical connections rust, causing malfunctioning lights etc..
General Comments:
An ugly cabin, black and dull, quality of materials reminds me of an old Lada Riva I had, creaky and cheap looking.
Performance good, but feels badly engineered, lack of smoothness and jerky throttle.
Feels solid and clunky, but not good quality (there is a difference!) factory radio crap and rear speakers placed in an absurd position, causing terrible sound quality.
Overall, a decent enough car, but not anywhere near as good as VW's reputation would imply!!
Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Don't Know
Review Date: 19th October, 2009
26th May 2009, 12:46
I am constantly amazed at how tatty and rusty the 95-98 Polos are when they were supposed to be a high quality product-only the Ford Ka rivals it for body rust and they were a lot cheaper new.
For example, compare the Polo to the same age and mileage Punto, 106, Clio and even the Skoda Felicia-all have better corrosion protection than the over-rated Polo.
In my experience, Polos are usually bought by people who know very little about cars and are trying to buy a "safe bet" after advice from "a friend who know about cars".
It comes to something when a Skoda Felicia outlasts its premium brother and gives better service over a longer period for a much cheaper price. This may be why they get so well rated on ownership satisfaction compared to VW.
If you want a cheap old hatchback, there are far better cars out there for the money than the Polo-which still sell, mistakenly, on the name.