1987 Volkswagen Polo Reviews

1987 Volkswagen Polo C 1.05 from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1987
First year of ownership2003
Most recent year of ownership2004
Engine and transmission 1.05 Manual
Performance marks 9 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 6 / 10
Dealer Service marks 5 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 8 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.4 / 10
Distance when acquired120000 miles
Most recent distance131000 miles
Previous carFord Fiesta

Summary:

An underestimated little beast

Faults:

New fuel tank at 125000 due to leak from bad design.

Rear brakes rebuilt due to leak 125000.

Seat's changed from base Polo to Polo C (so I could have headrests) and seat covers added due to seat wear being uncomfortable.

New fuel pump 120000 due to o ring breaking and causing leak.

A few little things, easily replaced with parts available from scrap yards.

Stopped driving this car for a while due to clutch about to go.

General Comments:

I got the Polo off my girlfriend when she bought a new car and I knew at the time that the clutch was well worn, and the gearbox bearing's are very noisy.

I have now owned 3 1litre cars and of all of them the Polo has been the fastest, it has a good amount of torque and will generally leave bigger cars behind.

Handling is unbelievably good for a car of its size, even in the wet my Polo corners like its on rails and will let you get away with a lot!

Although a few things have gone wrong with this car it has never not started! The body work is not in great condition, (due to my girlfriend and her sister owning it before me) and the engine has seen some abuse, I found out my girlfriend had done 16,000 miles without a service (service intervals are supposed to be 5,000) and I have to admit although I have serviced the car and maintained it better I have also driven it harder. Having said this the car and engine have stood up to this use, at 131,000 it never gives a puff of smoke even on a cold morning.

The parts I have had to replace have all been easily available and have been very cheap, even the more expensive parts are available for less money than going to VW direct, i.e. the fuel tank I bought was £63, and I know with these new parts on it will be the last time I have to worry about them.

Now the clutch has finally started to give up I have switched cars until I have the spare cash to replace it (about £100-150) and then I hope to see many more happy hours of motoring from my little VW.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 20th January, 2004

1987 Volkswagen Polo c 1.0 petrol from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1987
First year of ownership2002
Most recent year of ownership2003
Engine and transmission 1.0 petrol Manual
Performance marks 4 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 10 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.5 / 10
Distance when acquired81000 miles
Most recent distance83600 miles

Summary:

Cheap reliable run around

Faults:

The car suffered from a poor engine idle when cold, this was rectified by adjusting the carburetor.

Had a small electrical fire caused by a poor earth strap connection, easy to repair with a soldering iron and some insulation tape.

General Comments:

If you are looking for a performance car then you don't want a polo.

Its quite nippy around town, but overtaking is hazardous unless you have a very long run up down a hill.

Handling is not too sharp as it leans very heavily when pushed into bends.

Very good build quality though, it won't fall to bits around you.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 14th March, 2003

1987 Volkswagen Polo C 1.05 from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1987
First year of ownership2001
Most recent year of ownership2002
Engine and transmission 1.05 Manual
Performance marks 2 / 10
Reliability marks 4 / 10
Comfort marks 4 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
4.3 / 10
Distance when acquired8500 miles
Most recent distance15000 miles

Summary:

A sluggish, unreliable road hazard!

Faults:

I had many problems with the carburettor of the car, I'm afraid I cannot remember specifically which parts of it, but a total cost of £300.

I've also had to have the carburettor flushed through a couple of times.

The earth wire of the carburettor had come lose, which resulted in the car not being able to run unless you constantly had your foot on the gas pedal! This took me and my Dad a couple of hours to realize it was the earth lead - think of how much a garage would have charged!!

General Comments:

I had this car given to me by my Nan - it was my Granddad's car before mine and he was the only previous owner. He hardly used it hence the incredibly low 8500 miles!

To be honest there were some good points about the car, but they certainly don't outweigh the bad!

Good:

Rear view vision - excellent for reversing.

Very cheap insurance, it's either group 2 or 3.

Bad:

Very poorly designed brakes - I almost had a fatal crash into the back of someone thanks to them instantly skidding under a slight pressure on damp road!

Road handling is very dangerous - I don't know how this car was let on the road!! You literally have to crawl round some corners to keep it on your side of the road!

Very sluggish - fair enough not much power being a 1.05 but still could be a little nippier for such a light car!

Overall I would have to recommend not to get this car - for the general safety of yourself on the road and it's awful reliability - only 8500 miles and that much work in 6 months!

I now have a 1995 Renault Clio 1.4 RT and lets just say I notice the difference!

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 6th November, 2002

12th Apr 2003, 12:36

I've been driving a 1.05 polo for a while now, and after 140,000 miles it drives a treat still. By no means is it a comfy car or TVR, but it does its job. The car is solid and as for the engine, it car handle a lot of right foot abuse. I can get 20 in 1st, 42 in 2nd, 70 in 3rd and just over 90 in 4th. For the age of the car, it can beat 1 litre corsa and also 1 litre fiesta's. They are the most reliable bangers on the planet as long as its serviced! Handling sucks and brakes are poor, but it has better build quality than a £400 fiesta popular.

20th Jan 2004, 08:48

My Polo had just completed 131,000 miles and although its had a few things go wrong it is 16 years old and these problems haven't been major, the bodywork has been knocked about by previous owners, but the engine has never let me down and it handles like a dream, cornering like its on rails!! I can get 30mph in 1st 55-60mph in 2nd and up to 85-90mph in 3rd and off the clock in 4th, this is with a 1.05ltr engine. It seems strange you found that yours didn't like a bit of lead boot.

Average review marks: 7.1 / 10, based on 12 reviews