Producing 60 PS at 5200 rpm and a maximum torque of 108 Nm
(80 lb ft) at 3000 rpm, the official performance figures for our test car claim
acceleration from 0 to 62 mph in 16.1 seconds and a top speed of 98 mph, along
with a combined fuel consumption of 51.4 mpg and CO2 emissions of 128g/km. As
usual, our real-life performance figures bettered that, with 50 achieved in 9.9
seconds and 60 in 14.4, with 70 and 80 coming up in 22.3 and 30.2 seconds
respectively. Interestingly, these outright acceleration figures weren’t quite
as good as those we achieved for the 60 PS 1.2 Polo we tested in February 2011,
and there was quite a variation in the in-gear acceleration times. But that’s
not at all unusual when testing lower-powered vehicles like these, where
natural variations in engine performance and test conditions can result in what
seems like significant differences when in fact it’s only a small percentage
variation.
Producing 60 PS at
5200 rpm and a maximum torque of 108 Nm (80 lb ft) at 3000 rpm, the official
performance figures for our test car claim acceleration from 0 to 62 mph in
16.1 seconds and a top speed of 98 mph
It has to be said that achieving this performance wasn’t
easy; the Polo 1.2 feels quite responsive, almost lively, in the low-speed
urban environment, but out on the open road its performance withers and several
acceleration runs had to be aborted because we were running out of test track
just to reach a genuine 80 mph. Not really a problem when driving solo, but
with four adults and luggage on board it’ll need a lot of work with the
gearlever to deal with hills and headwinds. Once up to speed, though, it
cruises quite comfortably on the motorway and can keep up with the flow, right
in the middle of its peak torque at 3000 rpm with just enough response in
reserve to squirt in and out of lane-change opportunities without becoming
overwhelmed.
Bear in mind that this model is also available with the 70
PS version of the 1.2 12V engine, with a small performance advantage – knocking
two seconds off the 0-60 time, while still returning the same fuel economy –
but the premium is quite high, at $1,455 extra for the 70 PS engine.
We were able to
average 48 mpg overall, with a very best figure of 60 mpg achieved after a
concerted effort at cruising on the motorway between 55 and 65 mph.
There are no special fuel economy features on the R-Line
Style; no stop-start, energy recuperation or cruise control but, with the
multifunction trip computer to help keep track of the fuel consumption, we were
able to average 48 mpg overall, with a very best figure of 60 mpg achieved
after a concerted effort at cruising on the motorway between 55 and 65 mph.
That’s all on the cheaper 95 RON premium fuel, of course; there’s no advantage
in using high octane fuels on the non-turbo engines. With the 10-gallon tank
you’d be looking at a comfortable range of well over 400 miles before
refueling.
The digital fuel gauge, with a series of illuminated bars,
doesn’t have a red zone and that last increment never seems to last as long as
the previous ones; you’ll need to keep an eye on the level when the tank is
below a quarter full, but don’t panic when it lights up a refuel recommendation
as, driving gently, you’ll still have a good 40-50 miles or so left to play
with.
The Polo 1.2 feels
quite responsive, almost lively, in the low-speed urban environment
The suspension of the Polo retains the fairly simple recipe
of coil-spring MacPherson front struts along with a torsion beam rear axle, the
latter retained for its simplicity and because it doesn’t compromise boot
space. Although it’s not as sophisticated as the multi-link rear suspension of
a modern-day Golf or Beetle, the Polo still handles well enough, with its well
matched spring and damper rates and long suspension travel able to soak up
most lumps and bumps while still providing well-controlled handling.
The speed-sensitive electro-mechanical steering is light
enough to twirl around at low speeds and when parking, but maintains a good
weight and directional stability through fast bends and at motorway speeds, and
there’s enough body roll to feel your way through the corners without losing
control. Pushed a bit too fast into a tight bend it will understeer predictably
before backing off to regain your line, without kicking into oversteer.
Once up to speed,
though, it cruises quite comfortably on the motorway and can keep up with the
flow, right in the middle of its peak torque at 3000 rpm with just enough
response in reserve to squirt in and out of lane-change opportunities without
becoming overwhelmed
On a dry road, the roadholding is of a very high level,
undoubtedly aided by the R-Line’s wide 7.0 x 16-inch rims and 215/45 R16 tyres
– with Bridgestone’s Potenza ER 300 fitted on our test car. The rims
themselves, a broad five-spoke with ridges, are stylish enough to look special
but not so complex as to cause problems when cleaning. In this respect they’re
arguably a better choice than the more complicated 7 x 16 Mallory rims fitted
to the R-Line proper.
