VW polo "tough"?

colm_mcm

Volkswagen are currently running an advert on TV (and have been showing similar ads for a few years) illustrating how strong tough and safe the Polo is.

In reality it only has a 4 star passenger rating, and 1 star pedestrian rating. and as far as I can tell only has 4 airbags.

Compare that with similarly priced Yaris or Grande Punto with 9 and 8 respectively.

Goes to show how good their marketing is. People believe anything

Squirrel

Find the viral ad for the Polo with the suicide bomber, I'm not sure if I'm allowed post a link. That shows how tough they are. A girl in my club has a Polo and the battering it takes from all the gear, mightn't be the safest, but it's tough.

colm_mcm

I'm not convinced. it's also a fairly old design now

Saw the suicide bomber ad, very funny!

Spit62500

I've always believed that modern VWs are overrated in build quality terms.... That NCAP result was 'achieved' after VW modified the car after an initial poorer result and it also had the benefit of optional curtain airbags.
See: http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_ratings/details.php?id1=1&id2=114

Quote:
After an initial frontal test, Volkswagen improved protection for the driver's lower legs and the results for the modified car are given here. The Polo performed well and suffered only relatively minor deformation of the passenger cell after the frontal impact. Side impact protection was good. Volkswagen decided to fund an additional test to show the benefits of the car's optional head impact curtain airbag. The protection given by the child restraints varied across the tests and protection for pedestrians proved to be poor.

maidhc

I think the danger is when manufacturers get carried away with damped grab handles and rubber dashboards something else must suffer. It is funny actually reading What Car?; for "reliability" they normally only refer to how good the dashboard is put together and how clunky the doors are. Dont ask why.

colm_mcm

A lot of VW products are quite basic. but percieved quality seems to be the new reliability.

Squirrel

colm_mcm wrote:

I'm not convinced. it's also a fairly old design now

Saw the suicide bomber ad, very funny!

I love that ad. The way I see a car being tough is the abuse it stands up to. Go to a cross country athletics event for juveiles and you'll realise some of the abuse cars get. Some coaches have everything in their cars or vans. Take mine for example. A VW Caravelle (97), he has javelins, shot putts, runners and gear all over the place. It's in pieces on the outside but it's held together inside and has been reliable.

Safety and toughness are totally different things IMO. A Laguna is safe, but I don't see it being very tough in the way I see it

crosstownk

colm_mcm wrote:

I'm not convinced. it's also a fairly old design now

Saw the suicide bomber ad, very funny!

VW haven't had a proper upgrade since the 1997 Passat. I agree the Polo
is an old design but in reality they are reliable cars. They use their reputation to sell. The problem will arise if they don't improve on their reputation and allow others to surpass them. VW have a habit of standing still sometimes.

colm_mcm

statistically VWs aren't as reliable as Jap cars, or even Fords

maidhc

Squirrel wrote:

I love that ad. The way I see a car being tough is the abuse it stands up to. Go to a cross country athletics event for juveiles and you'll realise some of the abuse cars get. Some coaches have everything in their cars or vans. Take mine for example. A VW Caravelle (97), he has javelins, shot putts, runners and gear all over the place. It's in pieces on the outside but it's held together inside and has been reliable.

That isnt abuse.

We used our corolla for
- carrying calves.
- drawing cattleboxes (probably twice its rated towing capacity)
- rounding up cattle in the field
- as a mobile workshop

It also got rear ended three times, and didn't have an unbattered panel. A JCB reversed into it in 1999 and it wasnt worth repairing. It was still going fine though and had 162k up. It was used around the farm until 2 years ago when the battery died.

crosstownk

colm_mcm wrote:

statistically VWs aren't as reliable as Jap cars, or even Fords

Very true - but - most potential customers out there perceive VW as being reliable. It's the German thing plus the marque has been around for a long time.

maidhc

crosstownk wrote:

Very true - but - most potential customers out there perceive VW as being reliable. It's the German thing plus the marque has been around for a long time.

It will filter down fast though. Look at mercedes. Even the dog on the street now knows mercs are crap, and it will take a long time for that perception to change.

colm_mcm

I heard VW makes most of its money in China and developing countries

Litcagral

My wife rear-ended the no. 33 bus in her Polo a few years ago. The bus had to be towed back to Dublin while she drove home in the Polo.

exactiv

I'm a VW driver and I have no illusions about the supposed reliability of my '99 Golf. But at the end of the day, it's a nicer place to be than a '05 Corolla (which I have driven).

I know it'll break down before the toyota, but I don't care, that's not why I bought the car.

colm_mcm

Litcagral wrote:

My wife rear-ended the no. 33 bus in her Polo a few years ago. The bus had to be towed back to Dublin while she drove home in the Polo.

Uh-huh? whereabouts did she damage the bus?

crosstownk

maidhc wrote:

It will filter down fast though. Look at mercedes. Even the dog on the street now knows mercs are crap, and it will take a long time for that perception to change.

Nods - the C-class says it all. Junk.

Litcagral

colm_mcm wrote:

Uh-huh? whereabouts did she damage the bus?

The rear where the engine is - probably damaged some vital part. (or do you mean geographically - Lusk)

colm_mcm

So if she was driving a Micra she probably wouldn't've damaged the bus at all

Squirrel

colm_mcm wrote:

statistically VWs aren't as reliable as Jap cars, or even Fords

Yeah I know that. That's why outside in the drive we have a Toyota MR2 and a Nissan Micra (there's a Hyundai Sonata out there too but that's Korean, still from the Far-East though)

maidhc wrote:

That isnt abuse.

We used our corolla for
- carrying calves.
- drawing cattleboxes (probably twice its rated towing capacity)
- rounding up cattle in the field
- as a mobile workshop

It also got rear ended three times, and didn't have an unbattered panel. A JCB reversed into it in 1999 and it wasnt worth repairing. It was still going fine though and had 162k up. It was used around the farm until 2 years ago when the battery died.

That got abused.

[QUOTEcolm_mcm]So if she was driving a Micra she probably wouldn't've damaged the bus at all[/QUOTE]

Our old Micra went into the back of a Golf Mk3 a few years ago in slow traffic and was a write off, c.€750 damage to the Golf, and €4500 done to the Micra, and that was by a friend of my uncles who does it on the cheap for us. That's only one scenario though.

cargrouch

maidhc wrote:

It will filter down fast though. Look at mercedes. Even the dog on the street now knows mercs are crap, and it will take a long time for that perception to change.

I'd like to agree but I don't have as much faith in the general public! Car enthusiasts may know that quality has slipped at a certain manufacturer in the name of profit, but to a lot of people what you're seen to have in your driveway is a big thing. To 20somethings a golf is a status symbol. Likewise Merc's in their own target market. In my opinion it will take a long time for that perception to change!

Kermitt

I drove a 98 polo for 3 years and had two accidents with it. First one was a rear ender on a micra... i got a chip taken out of my number plate surround... the micra had squished bumper, broken bumper bar and shunted spare wheel well... polo kinda stood its ground there. Turned out to be micra mans fault..

Second was my fault with a 99 corolla hatch I hit the back corner of his car. again polo stood its ground - 1 broken headlight, bumper damage and slight bonnet crease - corolla had chassis damage. Nuff said.


Safety is one thing- but from my experience VWs are built like tanks and always have been. Migh not have 32 airbags but will hold together when most crumble.

colm_mcm

just wondering how you rear ending a Micra was the other drivers fault?

Kermitt

long story.. but basically he reversed out of a parallel parking space without looking.. bit of an unusual incident. I didn't have to shell out the €1100 it cost to fix his car anyway.

The basic point is that maybe a new micra gets an extra star in a crash test, but if you give it a kick something will fall off. Most of the hype around crash tests is unwarranted though, If you have a head on with VW passat or Honda Accord or the like, it wouldn't matter if your car had a fifty star rating, chances are you'd still be killed.

I have a golf now and regularly tow an 8x4 twin axle trailer with it. Tried the same in an almera once - Trailer practically drove the car!

colm_mcm

It's very iresponsable to tow a twin axle trailer with a car.

Anan1

Kermitt wrote:

Most of the hype around crash tests is unwarranted though, If you have a head on with VW passat or Honda Accord or the like, it wouldn't matter if your car had a fifty star rating, chances are you'd still be killed.

What absolute rubbish. The "hype around crash tests" has contributed to massively (and demonstrably so) safer cars.

colm_mcm

I've seen loads of cars that were in head on crashes, with all occupants alive to tell the tale.

You mustn't understand about passenger cells or crumple zones.

Kermitt

colm_mcm wrote:

It's very iresponsable to tow a twin axle trailer with a car.

Then I'm just one of many hundreds of irresponsible people on the road every day, horseboxes, transporters etc, Not trying to justify it, but not everyone who needs to tow such devices has, or can afford a 4x4 to do so.


Also I'm well aware that crash tests have undoubtedly contributed to safer cars, and modern cars are far safer than they were even 10 years ago, I didn't make myself clear that in certain situations the star rating of a car will make little difference to chances of survival. (i.e a small car hitting a much bigger one). Apologies if I appeared ignorant, but the thread was about toughness, not safety as such.

BrianD3

There's nothing irresponsible about towing a twin axle trailer with a car as long as the weight is not too high. The number of axles is pretty irrelevant. The main things to consider when towing are the weight (incl d.g. v.w) of the trailer, the towing capacity of the towing vehicle, does the trailer require its own brakes, does the driver require an EB licence.

As for toughness - I have seen numerous small crashes where one car took the brunt of the damage. I don't think it's correct to say that certain modern cars are tougher/weaker than others in low speed impacts. Sometimes one car will fare better than than other car, sometimes worse. A lot is due to the height and strength of the bumper of both cars, the angle of impact, whether there was braking before impact, how loaded was each car (the last two can affect the bumper height which can make a big difference.

Also, sometimes small cars seem to crumple LESS than large cars in a small impact. It might be that large cars are designed with weaker crumple zones as with longer bonnets there is more scope for deformation and reduction of deceleration loads on the passengers. An extreme example of this is would be shown by the Merc S Class vs Smart car crash tests where the much larger Merc crumples up far more than the Smart.