2003 Jaguar XF vs. 2006 Volkswagen Polo
To start off, 2006 Volkswagen Polo is newer by 3 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2003 Jaguar XF. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2003 Jaguar XF would be higher. At 7,000 cc (10 cylinders), 2003 Jaguar XF is equipped with a bigger engine.
Because 2003 Jaguar XF is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 2003 Jaguar XF. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2006 Volkswagen Polo, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control.
Compare all specifications:
2003 Jaguar XF | 2006 Volkswagen Polo | |
Make | Jaguar | Volkswagen |
Model | XF | Polo |
Year Released | 2003 | 2006 |
Body Type | Sedan | Hatchback |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 7000 cc | 1984 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 10 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
Horse Power | 0 HP | 114 HP |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4560 mm | 3920 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1990 mm | 1660 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1240 mm | 1470 mm |