172 or ............polo gti !!!!! ?? !! ??

[cornburn]

As if I don't already know what the answer would be off you lot

the 16v's going over winter and I'm struggling between these 2. I've never actually driven either so it's all purely on looks and quality at the mo. Anyone driven a polo gti? I know it's not as quick but you can get one same age for same money and I miss the build quality of my old golf. Don't know how that compares to the 172 either tho. Will obviously have a good drive in both before making my mind up but thought it wouldn't hurt to get (completely un-biased, obviously) opinions off you lot.Oooooooooooooova to you ................... :sleepy:

 

[badinvincible]

http://www.cliosport.net/forum/showthread.php?t=62462

 

[cornburn]

haha, that one's till not gone then? Thought someone would've had it by now

 

[Turkish]

In short.

Polo will have, better build, better residuals, better dealers.
172 will have, better spec, better performance, better handling.

make your choice, lol.

 

[badinvincible]

Sums it up really ^^^

Test drive them both though.

 

[Nebdingo]

Having just got my 182 (i know U want 172) I can tell you now that the fun factor and handling is superb. Tho the Polo GTi is a tidy car, for spec, performance, handling you can't beat the Renault.

AND you have this forum... I'm a noob here, but what I have found out over the last week or so that ive been user is that its FULL of people with good advice, friendly and always are willing to help.

 

[cornburn]

This silver one's nice:


http://atsearch.autotrader.co.uk/WWW/cars_search.asp?modelexact=1&lid=search_used_cars_full&make=VOLKSWAGEN&model=POLO&variant=gti&keywords=&min_pr=4000&max_pr=5000&mileage=&agerange=&postcode=st16+3hg&miles=40&max_records=50&source=0&photo=1&sort=3&ukcarsearch_full=SEARCH

I just miss driving down the road without water dripping on my head and everything rattling. It's the little things like having a windscreen that'll clear in winter etc. I'm just sick of having a car that needs something doing to it most of the time and worried a 172 would turn into another one of those.........

 

[badinvincible]

172s don't have sunroofs so you can forget about that leaking.

For that price, you can have mine.

 

[Dink]

i'd pick the polo gti tbh

 

[cornburn]

Dink > any reason why?

Can't see what I'd be missing spec wise with the gti to be honest, still got leather seats, air con & a modern dash, lights etc

 

[badinvincible]

It will be slower and won't handle as well as the 172.

 

[Donz144]

Cant actually believe you are having this conversation!!!!!!

The Clio is nearly a different league. SPec, Performance, dynamics, equipment.....its darn right dirty fun!!!

The polo is a VW though...so it will probabaly be fault free.......thats not the point though!!!!

 

[Turkish]

It really depends what he wants from the car i guess. if he wants something well built thats nippy and reliable and wont lose value then the polo is the best choice. If he wants a better performing more driver focused car then the 172 wins hands down.

 

[cornburn]

Yeah...... it's hard. It's almost like being fun vs being sensible. I'm positive the polo wouldn't make me grin nearly as much on the way to work but the polo would be comfy haha

It's too hard and I've been roped into doin dinner anyway so I'll check back in a bit. Thanks for the input guys

 

[Turkish]

I wouldnt say the 172 is uncomfortable, unless you have an issue with the driving position.

 

[182 sport]

My mate has a polo Gti and compared to the 172/182 its in a different league.It looks good in black with its bbs alloys,but take it out for a test drive thinking its a gti and you will be dissappointed.The brakes are poor compared to the clios and the performance? not a patch. it would get pasted my a vts/106 gti and the handling aint fun at all.Polo Gti is one car that really lets you down when you drive it.Clio every time.Better seats in the clio two and imo better interior.

 

[matt the cat]

i had a polo gti from new once - poor performance by the 172 satndards - had 3 of those too!!

the polo gti is slower than the 16v model. Plus they rattle too and handle not too good either.

 

[Nebdingo]

so in short...

172 = HOT hatch
Polo GTi = Luke Warm Hatch

 

[portland]

Forget VW quality on Lupos and Polos. All bets are off. A friend of mine has just traded his Polo GTI due to a seried of problems with it. Golf/A3 and above and you're laughing (my other half is still thrashing her MkII 16v Golf GTI at pushing 200000) but the cheap cars do not get that dub reliability. I test drove a Polo and Lupo GTI a couple of years back, the Polo door wouldn't shut properly, and the Lupo stalled at idle 3 times.

 

[B16DOE]

go for a test drive bet you go for a 172

 

[172 Dave]

polo GTi subject to huge recall problems - gearbox, clutch assembly plus pedal box stay WELL away

 

[milfordkong]

This is a silly question, I had a polo Gti before my 182 and whilst I liked it's subtle looks and impressive spec (had the full heated leather) it was very slow and the build quality was absolutely diabolical. My 182 is far better put together IMO, maybe I just got a good 182 and a bad polo but the difference is staggering. I had tons of ECU faults, the Remote central locking failed continuously and it just didn't live up to my hopes of 'vw' build quality.

Performance wise it's not a different league, it's a different sport!

A 172 or 182 is a proper bona fide hot hatch, as said above a polo gti would seriously struggle to keep up with the best in the luke-warm category.

 

[cliobon]

my brother recently jusct purchased a polo gti, but he only got it beacuse he couldnt afford the 172. the 172 is def the better choice. but having driven the gti myself, it doesnt disappoint, mind u i havent driven the 172 wish i had. when i sell my 1.2 im def gonna get a 172 or 182.

 

[Zorba_the_greek]

i had a polo GTi after chopping my 206 1.1LX. it felt like a rocket, but i then chopped that for the 172 mk2 and it was a different ball game!

i had written many times on the subject on the polo GTi but they seem to have all been lost through the change of the forums

TBH i would go with the Clio as i have owned one and seen how fun they are.

the polo is well built i.e. sound proofing but carries alot of weight as it also carries may toys i.e. xenons, climate etc…. your insurance will be alot lower with the polo GTi. MPG is good but not great for a 1.6. service will cost more then the clio and what ever you do dont go to Citygate Watford for your service unless you dont mind monkeys working on your car.

my polo GTi was bought from a VW dealership for £9000 / 18k miles which had "Approved checks" done on it and thank god 12 month warranty on it!

12 months later £4,500 and 2 months in work shops for warranty work it still had a few problems but managed to sell it for £6,300 just over one and a half years ago.

I really did think I had bought a Friday car because of all those problems. When it did run with no problems, I thought it was a great drive for someone who had not experienced anything over 1.1L however for yourself I think you might find it a bit bland.


I will try and get some pics of mine up. I have a black one which was 5 doors and had no leather.

 

[Zorba_the_greek]

This is a silly question, I had a polo Gti before my 182 and whilst I liked it's subtle looks and impressive spec (had the full heated leather) it was very slow and the build quality was absolutely diabolical. My 182 is far better put together IMO, maybe I just got a good 182 and a bad polo but the difference is staggering. I had tons of ECU faults, the Remote central locking failed continuously and it just didn't live up to my hopes of 'vw' build quality.

Performance wise it's not a different league, it's a different sport!

A 172 or 182 is a proper bona fide hot hatch, as said above a polo gti would seriously struggle to keep up with the best in the luke-warm category.

AAAAAAA join the club!!! i thought it would be amazing GERMAN build quality but other then the sound proofing the rest was as you say DIABOLICAL!!!

lucky i had 1 years warranty left!!! £4,500 worth of warranty work and 2 months in a work shop!!!

IN TOTAL I HAD 5 hire cars paid by VW to keep me on the move!

passat 2.0
polo 1.2
golf 1.4 !!!!!! SLOW AS HELL!!!!
polo 1.4
polo 1.2

 

[Weeman]

I had a polo gti for three years before the 172, and did 150,000 km's in it and the 172 has 115,000 so far so i can comment, haha. Polo had a great biuld quality much better than the clio, and held its own on the autobahn, i liked it, was a sweet little car, had to watch it in the wet on motorway slip roads and the like, but the clio is the same. as for fun of owning, i was bored of the polo after about 2 years was desperate for something else, still after 2 and a half years the clio still makes me smile when i go for a blast, shabby biuld but no substitute in the fun stakes, Clio everytime, u get a polo you'll be wishing you had just that little bit more poke. Get a lupo gti same engine and when yr bored, buy one of those new 170hp 1,4 blown and charged engines and drop it in no bother, lupo with 170 hp, yes please.