Volkswagen Polo 81 TSI Comfortline 2014 Review

Volkswagen's light segment hatchback, the Polo, is a car of real substance. Five-star NCAP-tested safety, sub-5.0L/100km fuel economy, affordable pricing and enough kit in even base-grade form to sink a battleship are all points in the VW's favour. And the Polo is a car that doesn't define its driver by type, meaning anyone can get behind the wheel without feeling emasculated or retro-teenaged. But how does it compare with the larger, very accomplished Golf? The new Volkswagen Polo is priced from $16,290 (plus on-road costs).

It's official, the young 'uns are now too big for the rear of a Volkswagen Polo. The teenager and the 12-year old have both fallen asleep in the back of a Golf 7 in the past, such was that car's roominess, ride comfort and NVH suppression.

That was never likely to happen in the smaller Polo, however, in either 66kW Trendline form, or the more powerful 81kW Comfortline variant. But the light hatch remains a strong contender for younger families in the market for a car that is safe but frugal, and comfortable but dynamically capable.

The more expensive Polo Comfortline came to us with the optional Sports Package, which was a $1500 impost I would think long and hard about ordering. A combination of 17-inch alloys and lowered suspension sharpened the ride, in conflict with the compliance buyers typically want from a light hatch. Want to 'track' a Polo? Get the GTI.

Nevertheless, the level of body control exhibited by the up-spec Polo Comfortline was exemplary; the Polo handled flatly and turned in to corners adeptly. Get the line right and the little VW would nose right over to the inside of the bend – and stay there with the power applied. The Polo offered surefooted grip and poise changing direction. And while the steering was initially very light, it was also quite communicative.

The 66kW Trendline tested the following week – without the Sports Package – would be my choice, however. On its 15-inch tyres the Polo Trendline still handled neutrally on a trailing throttle and front-end grip was commendable with power applied. It's just that the car's dynamics paled somewhat in comparison with the optioned-up Polo Comfortline.

In a straight line the Polo Trendline gave away little in performance, despite its 15kW power deficit. Where the difference in performance was noticed came higher in the rev range. While the 81kW engine would spin freely and reach its redline quickly – forcing an upshift mid-corner, for example – the 66kW engine would take a while to spool up the last 1000rpm on the way to its 6500rpm maximum. Furthermore, the lesser engine sounded strained and didn't encourage being flogged as hard.

For a 1.2-litre turbocharged four-cylinder, the Polo's 81kW powerplant was a lot more charismatic than expected. At low revs and under light loads it emitted a nice little burble, but then let loose an angry wail with throttle opened up and the tacho needle climbing past 6000rpm. The 66kW engine was slightly more pedestrian by comparison, but was still refined around-town and sounded sportier than many light hatches.

The lower-priced Polo Trendline was noisier at open-road speeds, but it wasn't a deal breaker against other, similarly-priced light hatches. The turbo can be occasionally heard working on the overrun, and the patter of rain on the roof was obvious.

Fuel consumption around town was usually below 7.0L/100km – during school holidays, admittedly. According to the Polo Comfortline's trip computer, the long-term average was 7.3L/100km, which I have no doubt could be improved by owners, as opposed to those speed-crazed fiends of the fourth estate.

Both engines were coupled to the optional seven-speed dual-clutch transmission (DSG), which changed gear smoothly and promptly, but with very distinct steps between changes – more like a manual box in character, than an epicyclic auto. Unlike DSG boxes of the past, this one didn't thump, thud or clunk. There was a brief moment in the Polo Trendline when the car sat for what felt like an extra second gathering its thoughts before releasing torque to the drive wheels for a standing start.

At times the DSG on both cars would make up its own mind when to shift a gear, but the transmission was also intelligent enough to recognise that when you tip the lever forward as the engine approaches redline that you only need one upshift... not two.

A hill-hold facility ensured the Polo wouldn't roll back from a standing start, even if the engine was 'auto-stopped'. One problem with the system was that the brakes were slow to release at the lights. There was a sensation of drag and snatch as the brakes eased off with the engine powered up.

It was worse still in the Polo Trendline tested a week later. And unfortunately, the hill-hold facility doesn't work in reverse. Backing across the crown of a road into a driveway, the Polo would roll forward into the gutter on the other side if the driver wasn't quick enough on the accelerator.

From a packaging standpoint, the driving position was fine in both cars. Moderately firm seat cushioning was complemented by the shape of the seat itself. In the rear, adults or teens of average size or taller will need to adjust the headrests up away from their shoulders for the sake of comfort. Otherwise the headroom there was good, and kneeroom was adequate. Given the Polo is a light car, it would be wrong to expect much more than 'adequate' in that context.

The fully-lined boot would accommodate a weekly load of grocery shopping for a nuclear family, and the loading lip was nice and low for target buyers. Volkswagen, following decades of design practice worked out for the larger Golf, has set up the open tailgate to be within easy reach of shorter users also. The Polo was well put together and the doors closed securely and solidly, but without any need for slamming.

Volkswagen's interior designers have delivered a generally sensible layout for instruments and controls, although there were a few ergonomically unsound items. The knob to adjust mirrors operated in a horizontal plane for vertical movement of the mirror, and vice versa. In other words, push forward for the mirror to tilt up, or push down to pan inboard.

The footrest was too narrow to fit my entire left foot, and I found that to start the car, the ignition key needed to be turned further around in the barrel than was entirely comfortable for the wrist.

Other than those niggles, the Polo's design was functional and easy to use. Instruments were legible, although there was no temperature gauge in the Polo Trendline's instrument binnacle.

What was also missed in the Polo Trendline was the multi-function steering wheel, with its audio controls, and the optional Driving Comfort Package that cost $1500 extra in the Polo Comfortline. This pack included climate control, adaptive cruise control (with AEB), reversing camera and automatic headlights.

Since that pack can't be ordered with the Polo Trendline, opt for the Polo Comfortline, if the budget stretches that far. Don't spend the extra $1500 on the Sports package, however, as mentioned before. In addition to the 17-inch alloys and the lowered suspension, it includes static-cornering front fog lights.

Polo Comfortline's climate control kept the cabin comfortable, but the fan simply didn't provide enough air flow unless cranked up to the max. The manual air conditioning in the Polo Trendline was easier to adjust and delivered enough cooling or heating without the fan being turned past the second speed.

From having driven both cars now, I found the Polo didn't seem to be the game-changer the superseded model was on release back in 2009. But it's still a car you should have on your shopping list.

Also consider:
>> Ford Fiesta (from $15,825)
>> Honda Jazz (from $14,990)
>> Mazda Mazda2 (from $15,790)