2006 Volkswagen Polo vs. 2012 Holden Epica
To start off, 2012 Holden Epica is newer by 6 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2006 Volkswagen Polo. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2006 Volkswagen Polo would be higher. At 1,991 cc (4 cylinders), 2012 Holden Epica is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2012 Holden Epica (148 HP) has 69 more horse power than 2006 Volkswagen Polo. (79 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2012 Holden Epica should accelerate faster than 2006 Volkswagen Polo.
Both vehicles are front wheel drive (FWD). Which offers better traction when its slippery than rear wheel drive vehicles. 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. Let's talk about torque, 2012 Holden Epica (320 Nm) has 125 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 Volkswagen Polo. (195 Nm). This means 2012 Holden Epica will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2006 Volkswagen Polo.
Compare all specifications:
2006 Volkswagen Polo | 2012 Holden Epica | |
Make | Volkswagen | Holden |
Model | Polo | Epica |
Year Released | 2006 | 2012 |
Body Type | Hatchback | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1420 cc | 1991 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 3 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 79 HP | 148 HP |
Torque | 195 Nm | 320 Nm |
Fuel Type | Diesel | Diesel |
Drive Type | Front | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 3 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Length | 3920 mm | 4805 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1660 mm | 1810 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1470 mm | 1450 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2470 mm | 2700 mm |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 4.4 L/100km | 7.5 L/100km |