1997 Volkswagen Polo CL 1.6

Summary:

I've been very lucky to have a great little car

Faults:

Water pipe leaking. And body rust.

General Comments:

Love this car; it has been a great car since I bought it. OK it has some rust coming now on the body, but what do you expect in Scotland, the weather is killing my car.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 15th July, 2019

10th Feb 2022, 22:48

And the fact it is over 20 years old. Rust is going to be an issue on most cars at that age.

1997 Volkswagen Polo 1.0 litre petrol

Faults:

The car had a serious oil leak that we thought was the head gasket, but turned out to be a damaged oil filter; this has now been rectified.

The car has been cutting out every time I slowed down and changed down to 2nd or 1st gear. There was no warning, just a complete loss of power.

I took the car to an auto electrical garage who diagnosed a faulty throttle body, which I had replaced.

The car is now driving fine, albeit a little noisy as the revs are sitting a little high, but I'm told this should settle down.

General Comments:

Neat looking car, just temperamental.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Don't Know

Review Date: 2nd April, 2008

1997 Volkswagen Polo 16v 1.4 16v

Summary:

Nice car - stick with the 1.6

Faults:

Electric windows are not working.

Brake pads - twice!

General Comments:

It seemed a really great car, I went in with a 1.6CL and told the salesman I wanted something better, more exciting.

He showed me the 16v, metallic black, it looked lovely. Then I made a mistake, I never drove it, I just bought it!

Don't get me wrong, it is nice, it's typically Volkswagen, solid, no rattles, etc. I was disappointed with the windows electrics packing up - the dealer has been extremely helpful!

My main quibble is that considering it's a hatch-back with 100bhp, it's a slug. It's not that fast, and the gearing seems wrong, you can change gear and all you drop is about 1500rpm, then you need to change again and then you are at about 4500rpm doing 70mph. As most of my journey is on the motorway I get fairly poor fuel economy.

The other quibble is that the suspension and steering are dire - almost dangerous. The car just lunges about the road, the steering has absolutely no control over where the car is going! You can turn fast and it just points all over the road and that's in the dry - in the wet it's just not even worth trying a corner at anything less that dead slow!

In my opinion the 1.6 was almost as quick, cruised a lot more smoothly at speed and was much more economical.

Sorry VW - not this one!

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? No

Review Date: 4th June, 2001

20th Jun 2001, 09:45

My Polo TDI has the same handling problems - the chassis can't cope with 75bhp on dry twisty roads, let alone wet. The engine's a gem, just too good for old underpinnings I guess.

I also lost an electric window for 3 months and the central locking on the opposite door at the same time.

17th May 2004, 05:34

I have a Polo 16v and sluggish is not the word I would use to describe it.

It sounds like there's something wrong with it from the way you say it drives either that or you just can't drive.

Personally I think the length of the gears are great and that was before I had it tuned to 160bhp.

17th May 2004, 05:46

I have just bought the 16v and I think the handling is great I can't understand the previous reviews as mine handles a treat.

Maybe you just can't drive.

21st Jun 2006, 09:50

I believe you have received a lemon.

21st Jun 2006, 09:53

There is nothing wrong with the gearing - it's you.

The 16v has a close ratio gearbox, hence why it only drops 1,500RPM or so between gear changes.

And the handling is great.

4th Oct 2006, 12:29

The 16v has uprated handling as standard, incorporating lowered and stiffened oil filled struts with larger diameter anti roll bars, front and rear. So I fail to see how you can call the handling sloppy.

The handling and braking systems have been adjusted to cope with the extra power, and I find them more than adequate for a normally aspirated 1.4.

What are you comparing it to?

A 911?

9th Dec 2007, 10:40

The difference between the reviewer's Polo 16v and the Golf 1.6CL he traded in are vast. The Golf is a low-revving engine designed for torque, while the 16v is a higher powered, higher revving engine that doesn't wake up until 4000rpm. The Polo gearbox has close ratios to keep the engine in the power range. I agree about the handling; even the 16v needs lowering, as they roll in corners (because they're heavy cars for their size).