1992 Volkswagen Polo Reviews - Page 3 of 3

1992 Volkswagen Polo Fox Coupe 1.0 from Belgium

Year of manufacture1992
First year of ownership2000
Most recent year of ownership2003
Engine and transmission 1.0 Manual
Performance marks 6 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 6 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 10 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.0 / 10
Distance when acquired100000 kilometres
Most recent distance153000 kilometres
Previous carNissan Sunny

Summary:

Very reliable, enjoyable and cheap ride

Faults:

Absolutely nothing went wrong, until I crashed it.

General Comments:

The car is not the most comfortable and isn't made for racing.

However :

- although quite old, it never needed any repairs during the 3 years I owned it.

- small engine, cheap maintenance and insurance.

- When driven properly it only consumes 6.4 liter / 100 km (mpg = 36.6)

- not fast, but still somehow very powerful: last year we drove from Ghent to Dubrovnik and back (+-5000km), surviving flooding, the Alps and other mountain ridges (including the katschbergpass in Austria and the impossibly steep hills around Sarajevo), very hot temperatures (40C) and the traffic of former Yugoslavia

- incredibly reliable, although already sleeping outside for 10 years, it never gave any problems starting.

- it doesn't look cool, but its looks and feeling somehow grow on you

- I wouldn't recommend driving it faster then 120 km/h, I think it lasts forever if one treats it kindly

- I fell asleep in it and crashed it. although the car itself looked very messy, I was still in quite good shape.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 25th July, 2003

1992 Volkswagen Polo GT 75 hp from Germany

Year of manufacture1992
First year of ownership1992
Most recent year of ownership2000
Engine and transmission 75 hp Manual
Performance marks 7 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 8 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.0 / 10
Distance when acquired11 kilometres
Most recent distance162000 kilometres

Summary:

A reasonable car with a reasonable performance at a reasonable price

Faults:

The rear brakes had to be replaced twice and the alternator broke after 140000 km.

General Comments:

A very reasonable car, not really fast but sporty enough for everyday use. Very reliable.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 2nd July, 2000

11th Jun 2001, 04:08

I had a Polo GT for 5 years and it was as stated good fun. Quick enough but not stupid.

I am old enough to have cheaper insurance, but the Polo GT provides a good entry for younger HotHatch drivers.

Mine was in Alpine White '91 with a set of 14" Oz alloys, 185/55 Pirelli's, a Jetex Oval exhaust system and a Pioneer CD system.

Not too costly for a nice looking car. I replaced it at 140,000 miles and had no major problems with it.

11th Jun 2001, 13:14

I run the Polo GT Owners Club - it's a great little car that is cheap enough for the younger drivers to own, whilst being more than capable of embarrassing cars costing considerably more to buy...

1992 Volkswagen Polo Fox Coupe 1.0i petrol from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1992
Engine and transmission 1.0i petrol
Performance marks 3 / 10
Reliability marks 7 / 10
Comfort marks 5 / 10
Dealer Service marks 8 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
6.0 / 10

Faults:

There's a leak on the passenger side which on rainy days floods that well. I originally thought it was from the door (you can see a stream of water at the seal at the bottom) but now I think it's thru the vent intake. Dealer couldn't find it though.

In 1994 the passenger side window cable rusted (that's why I thought of the above) - replaced on a Sunday free as it was covered by warranty - that's service!

It got a rust patch just by the aerial mount & on the DS pillar.

Xmas '97 it was kept in the garage for about a month (so that I could run about in my 2CV for a bit - it needed a run) & in Jan on first time start it suffered from severe fuel starvation at the bottom of a hill in the middle of nowhere! Needed new fuel pump.

Needed new suspension arm early '97 (probably due to my driving).

General Comments:

Considering the size of engine & it being the bottom of the range at the time, the build quality was just as you'd expect for VW (it was my third after a Beetle 1303s & an 'S' polo), it was pretty good.

Not particularly exciting though (handled OK).

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 10th November, 1998

1992 Volkswagen Polo CL 1.1 petrol from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1992
Engine and transmission 1.1 petrol
Performance marks 7 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Dealer Service marks 4 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.2 / 10

Faults:

Nothing after 97,000 miles.

General Comments:

Good runner, and they last forever.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 19th October, 1997

Average review marks: 7.0 / 10, based on 12 reviews