This hatch was able to score more than 309 points based on the voting results, being 15 points ahead of its closest pursuer, the Volvo XC90 crossover. The top three in the Car of the Year competition in Europe was completed by the Mazda MX-5 roadster with 202 points.
The following also reached the final of this annual car competition in 2016: Audi A4, which scored 189 points, Jaguar XE with 163 credit points, Skoda Superb with 147 points, and BMW sedan New generation 7-Series - 143 points.
The main prize for the Opel Astra model was received by the head of the company, Karl-Thomas Neumann.
Let us remind you that according to the results of last year’s “Car of the Year” competition in Europe, the winner in the main category was Volkswagen Passat. Previously, this prestigious award was won by the Peugeot 308, Volkswagen Golf, as well as the Opel Ampera, Nissan Leaf and Volkswagen Polo.
Tags: What better than Opel Astra or Volkswagen Polo sedan which is better
It’s just a consumer approach to a car, I don’t go crazy for goodies and goodies, but I use it stupidly...
Tell me which is better and why: Volkswagen Polo or Opel Astra H? The cars are new. | Topic author: Lydia
Nikolay Comparing these cars is actually incorrect, since Polo belongs to class “B” Boris, and Astra belongs to class “C” Yaroslav. That is, in general, the Polo should be compared with the Corsa, and the Astra with the Golf, and in such a comparison the FV models win, since with equally high maintainability, the FV is more reliable and pays more attention to issues of comfort. Accordingly, FV will be more expensive.
If you still compare Polo and Astra, I would advise, firstly, that you personally take both cars for a test drive. Secondly, look at the Astra with a 1.6 engine - it is better suited for this model. Well, thirdly, if you plan to drive mostly alone, then you can take the Polo, and if with a company/family, then the Astra rules.
Victor monopenesuale, IMHO!
Lyudmila is, of course, an aster - a higher class, and a proven one...
Inna Astra.... for sale
Elena Taste and color, as they say... Both cars are Economy class. My friend has a new one now Polo Sedan- I know about his shortcomings. It seems to me that there is not much difference, it’s a matter of taste.
Kirill Oh, of course Astra.
Olga Personally, I didn’t like Astra - I looked at a lot of different ones in the salon...
In addition to the Polo, I really liked the Cerato and Lancer 10, but that’s different money...
Artem is a Volkswagen, of course, even though they are both German, but Volkswagen has a higher reputation on the market in Russia, and they are more reliable
Anna Astra is 100 times more beautiful in appearance)
I don’t understand anything about “internal”)
Ruslan I want to take the Astra myself... just not H, but G. H is a great car
Egor Given the current promotion - the cost of these cars, the Astra Family is definitely better. It’s already better, and considering that with similar configurations for the same money, the Astra sedan also has a more powerful 140 hp engine. With. against 105 and, moreover, large salon and trunk.
Comparison: Astra and Polo - logbook Opel Astra COSMO+ 1.8 ...
Opel Astra sedan 1.8 automatic, luxury equipment, new price - 770 thousand. ... The Astra has a noticeably better audio system - 7 speakers versus 4 in the Polo.
The biological world is governed by the “law of the jungle”: the strongest wins. How is strength determined? First of all, in terms of build - whoever is bigger is stronger! It seems that this principle also works in the world of cars.
In our “flock” the largest one is Corsa. Its length in the three-door version is almost 3.82 meters, which is only a centimeter less than the Fiesta, but the Corsa is taller and wider. The “length” of the Clio is only 3.77 m, and the Polo with its 3.74 meters is a clear outsider.
However, length is not the most important thing. Internal volume is the parameter by which today the palm is given to one or another car. Here again the Corsa is ahead of the pack.
Let's start with the fact that it can easily accommodate luggage with a volume of 260 or 1060 (with the rear seats folded) liters. Here the Corsa surpassed even the Clio, which had long been considered the undisputed leader. Polo and Fiesta remain within the traditional framework of the compact class - their cargo capacity, even with the rear seat folded, does not exceed 1000 liters (975 and 930, respectively).
Okay, luggage is an inanimate object. How do those who have proper names and are able to move autonomously in space feel in cars?
Passengers in the rear seats compact cars usually they experience a lot of torment: cramped, shaking, knocking... The most tiring thing is the “fetal position”, in which you have to spend a lot of time getting to the notorious “point B”.
The VW Polo turned out to be the most unfriendly to rear passengers, for which it received the lowest score in this category. Things are better in Renault, but not much. Opel and Ford shared first and second places with a “3+” rating. Getting pleasure from riding in the back seat of these small cars is also not easy, but surviving and remaining a full-fledged member of society is quite possible.
Manufacturers took more care of those sitting in front. In terms of comfort, Polo takes the lead. Moreover, it is indisputable: the most comfortable chairs with well-developed lateral support, the largest and most well-formed space. 5 points. The Corsa is forced to settle for second place - due to not the most comfortable seats and lack of space (compared to the Polo). The Clio and its hospitality extended to the front occupants can be rated a C: it’s cramped, and you constantly slide off the flat seats. Last, with a C-minus rating, is the Fiesta: even more cramped and uncomfortable, especially if you're taller than average. But what do you want from a model that has remained virtually unchanged since the early 90s?
In terms of handling and visibility from the driver's seat, all four babies are approximately the same. The only let down was the Clio, which has suffered from some handling problems since its birth. The passive safety of the “old man” Fiesta and the “ascetic” Polo are insufficient, although they showed relatively good results during the crash test.
Polo has the most elastic suspension, which holds the car well on the road and does not make any extraneous sounds when driving over obstacles. It is also not prone to roll when changing lanes at high speed. However, due to some excessive rigidity, the suspension transmits through its mechanism the noise produced by the rubber, especially when the road surface under the wheels is not very smooth (crushed stone, for example).
Corsa and Clio in this regard leave a more pleasant impression, which, however, is spoiled by too much roll during sharp maneuvers and suspension breakdowns when fully loaded.
The Fiesta crew suffers mainly from excessive noise produced by the interior trim parts, not only when driving over small obstacles, but also when driving on rough asphalt surfaces. The reason is in the finishing materials, and not in the design and settings of the suspension. An “empty barrel effect” occurs, which hard plastic has difficulty coping with. We think that more than one owner of a front-wheel drive station wagon born before the mid-80s knows about this scourge firsthand.
Despite the fact that the kids are equipped with diesel engines, in this case they cannot be called a source of increased noise: all engines are of a new generation, even in the Fiesta, which received a 1.8 DI at the end of last year.
The dynamics of our “quartet” are not impressive. But it doesn’t upset me either. For their class, the cars accelerate quite well, even better than their gasoline counterparts with an engine displacement of less than 1.2 liters.
Maximum speed, in principle, is not bad, but in Fiesta and Polo it is achieved with great damage to the driver’s nerves - the noise and not very smooth operation of the engine in some modes are sometimes unbearable. And if for VW the excuse can be the presence of only three cylinders, then for Ford this “excuse” does not exist.
The Renault Clio engine, which has a more substantial displacement, also suffers from increased noise at high speed, but works softer. Opel has reconsidered its attitude towards the nervous behavior of the 1.7-liter diesel engine of previous years of production. The fine-tuning of the engine ensured fairly smooth operation throughout the entire speed range; The suspicious sounds he had made before also disappeared.
With a maximum torque value lower than that of Volkswagen, the power Renault units and Opel are more flexible and feel like they have smoother traction.
In the “average fuel consumption” category, VW is slightly ahead of Opel. It seems that the designers from Wolfsburg were primarily focused on the efficiency of the engine rather than on the culture of its operation. Renault and Ford consume a little more diesel fuel, but do not cross the line of five and a half liters per 100 kilometers.
In the end, who is “well done” and who is “sheep”? First place, according to the “law of the jungle” mentioned at the beginning of the material, goes to the Opel Corsa, which is larger than its rivals, transports cargo better, behaves well in the city and on the highway, has good motor and relatively cheap.
The second is the Volkswagen Polo, which lost the tournament due to the nervousness of the power unit, the cramped back seat, and most importantly, the high starting price - on average a thousand dollars more than its competitors.
Renault Clio received third place in our comparison test - due to chronic problems with handling and front suspension, as well as the peculiar operation of the power unit.
The outsider, as expected, was the Ford Fiesta. The years take their toll. It’s not without reason that people in Cologne have long been talking about the fact that it’s time to modernize the model. They are rumored, apparently, not in vain: information has already leaked to the press that in soon there should be a successor to the Fiesta, significantly different from the current one. Of course, for the better.
Golf's polished perfectionism looks provocative: the prospect of beating a benchmark on its own course is extremely motivating! And yet, perhaps you shouldn’t try to surpass the ideal in all respects? What if we simply offer a reasonable alternative, playing on the protest sentiments of those who do not want to think in stereotypes?
Sworn friends
Already the sixth Golf, it gives the impression of a car devoid of any shortcomings. Some people are attracted to such refinement, but others may find it boring. And indeed, from generation to generation, “Golf” carefully carries the valuable genetic code, improving it both successfully and carefully. He would rather force himself to be respected in the process of getting to know each other than to arouse love at first sight: producing spontaneous emotions at a distance is clearly not his path. Volkswagen is hampered by its innate restraint and pedantry, bordering on tediousness. He is not very interesting in appearance, but he is able to surprise with his intelligence and skills, which you would not immediately suspect in him.
“Astra” clearly relies on appearance: if we awarded for design, “Opel” would immediately snatch valuable points for itself. However, taste is an individual category: some people love the priest, while others love the priest’s daughter. And yet, I’m sure, unlike the Golf with its deliberately neutral appearance, the Astra tries to make eyes at the very moment of acquaintance, promising unforgettable moments of passion. Even the 5-door hatchback looks very seductive, showing off the impressive plastic sidewalls, and the three-door GTC tries to openly seduce with its appetizing shapes. Beauty is a terrible force!
Kinesthetic or visual?
The interior of the Golf seems simple at first glance, but only compared to the background of the Astra. It would be more correct to call it laconic. However, visual contact does not complete the picture: the Volkswagen feels much richer to the touch than it looks. The space is organized flawlessly: mutual understanding with the machine occurs on an intuitive level. The steering wheel, upholstered in silky leather, fits perfectly in the hands, information from the instruments is read by peripheral vision, and climate control control does not raise any questions. Everything you touch seems perfect: buttons, keys, and knobs are placed in their rightful places and are in combat readiness. You haven’t yet thought about what exactly you want to adjust or configure, but everything has already been done.
Manipulations with the basic RCD-310 audio system do not require thoughtful study of the interface, and even the more complex “head” of the RCD-510 allows you to work with it without first studying the instructions - especially since it eliminates many questions touchscreen. The only thing I can find fault with is the sound stage: it seems that the music is coming from the left. However, this can be easily compensated for by adjusting the balance.
But the most noticeable step on the path to the ideal was driver's seat. Perhaps tall drivers will not experience problems, but for short me (170 cm), it seemed that the seat was too high even in the lowest position, forcing me to move closer to the steering wheel. This ergonomic feature is even more noticeable against the backdrop of the Astra, whose front seats seemed more hospitable. In addition to the standard set of adjustments, the seats are complemented by a movable cushion segment, which allows you to make it longer. An extremely useful bonus!
From a design point of view, the Opel's interior looks much more attractive and modern: it is easier to fall in love with the eyes than a Volkswagen. At first, the quality of the finish seems no worse than that of the Golf, but upon closer examination the intensity of delight weakens: in some places they still saved on materials. And ergonomics gives reasons for criticism: the devices are not so transparent for perception, the interface multimedia system more confused, and the flickering of buttons on the center console causes brain cancer. Finally, the Astra has noticeably worse visibility, which is considerably spoiled by stupid triangular windows near the front and rear pillars body and a small rear.
Beauty requires sacrifice
Obviously, the Golf was built not on design, but on function. It’s enough to look at both cars in profile to understand: the Volkswagen is much “squarer” than the Astra. Convenient access to the rear row of seats is provided by the rear doors of a more regular shape, which form a wide opening. The sofa is not hidden behind the pillar, and this minimizes the risk of hitting your head when boarding. You can arrange an armrest in the center of the back row by pulling it out from the back; and its kinematics are such that it stays quite high, without forcing you to reach for it with your elbow. But this is an option.
By default, the Astra does not have an armrest either. In terms of space on the sofa, the Opel resembles a Volkswagen, but is inferior to it in terms of space in the leg area. “Astra” also loses in terms of ease of landing: on the opening back door the low window line encroached, and the back of the sofa hid behind the massive pillar of the body.
Addition with subtraction
IN basic configuration“Golf” does not have a sofa divided into two unequal parts: it can only be folded entirely. But for an additional fee, it becomes what a practical hatchback should be, and also comes with a ski hatch. But if the rear row is left entirely at the disposal of passengers, then the Volkswagen truck will turn out to be mediocre: the trunk volume is very modest.
"Astra" copes better with the transportation of goods. Not only does she have more spacious trunk, but the back of the sofa also folds out even in the basic version. For an additional fee, you can get an armrest with a hatch - however, the ski hatch itself will be noticeably smaller than that of the Golf. But as an option, Opel offers the Flex-Flo organizer, which allows you to organize an underground space in the trunk, experimenting with the floor level. And this is good.
Blow harder!
Despite the fact that the price lists of both “Germans” include naturally aspirated power units, cars with turbo engines look the most attractive. The optimal Golf is the 1.4TSI modification, which can be equipped with either a manual or an automatic transmission. The engine was a great success: despite the modest 122 horsepower, it easily carries even the relatively heavy Passat and Tiguan, and even handles the light Golf with ease! “Volkswagen” picks up speed recklessly - and it doesn’t matter what gearbox the engine has to work with: controlling acceleration is equally pleasant both on cars with “mechanics” and on “automated” versions with a DSG “robot”. The engine's character is smooth, and the thrust is evenly spread over the entire speed range - just what you need in the city! I can’t recommend more modest units: the 105-horsepower 1.2TSI is not much cheaper, and with even weaker engines the Golf will significantly lose in dynamics.
“Astra” also starts with naturally aspirated engines, but flourishes only with a 1.4-liter turbo engine with 140 horsepower. True, having a horsepower advantage over the Volkswagen, such an Opel does not drive as fun: it pulls worse from the bottom, and begins to throw force only when it is no longer necessary. And the 6-speed automatic transmission charges a bribe for its services. Even the 180-horsepower 1.6-Turbo version feels no better than its 1.4-liter rival! “Mechanical” modifications accelerate faster, but the Volkswagen still leaves a more pleasant impression: it realizes its potential an order of magnitude higher.
Fewer doors - more fun
The Golf's chassis is one of the best (if not the best) in the class: the very first turns confirm this. The steering wheel is extremely informative, roll is moderate, and the tires stick to the asphalt so tenaciously that it seems as if the hatchback can easily drive up a steep wall. Confidence in the car grows in proportion to the speed. The larger the numbers the speedometer needle measures, the more you become inspired by the car’s capabilities: the Volkswagen firmly holds the straight line and is absolutely reliable in corners. The brakes are perfect: the pedal is sensitive, but hard; and the pressure in the system is controlled not by moving the pedal, but by pressing force. Super!
"Astra" leaves a less complete impression. The brake pedal is too flexible: compared to the Golf, its travel seems too long. However, this in no way affected the efficiency of the system - you just need to get used to the nature of the slowdown. But an overly light and empty steering wheel is a more serious drawback: when turning, you have to grope for the trajectory. The maximum capabilities of the Opel are no worse than those of the Volkswagen, but this can only be understood by thoroughly rolling into the car - while the Golf immediately reveals its charms. In any case, Astra does not so clearly strive to share the joy of driving with the driver.
But this is only true for the 5-door hatchback. The spectacular three-door GTC drives in a completely different way! The reason lies in the Hyper-Strat front suspension, in which the steering knuckles rotate separately from the swinging “candle”, allowing you to get rid of power steering. The GTC's steering wheel is also light, but much more accurate and informative than that of the regular Astra. And therefore the 3-door hatch handles no worse than the Golf.
Flying gait
The Volkswagen is assembled with precision care and does not make a single extraneous sound while driving. Even the voice of the engine, little by little breaking through the thickets of noise insulation, speaks exclusively to the point and does not irritate the ears. But only as long as there is smooth asphalt under the wheels. The road deteriorates and the car begins to get nervous, and the hard edges of the holes and tram rails come into the cabin through the plaintive clatter of the suspension, which is clearly not happy with deviations from the norm. The car goes through uneven surfaces harshly, forcing you to seriously slow down before potholes.
“Opel” behaves much more restrained: you won’t scare it with broken asphalt. The Astra rolls more gently over most road artifacts and does not bother you with comments from the suspension. A glamorous version of the GTC that comes with shoes bigger size, also very steadfastly accepts the hardships of our roads: even when shod in custom 19-inch “bast shoes”, the three-door demonstrates a better ride than the Golf on 17-inch wheels.
Assets and liabilities
In 2009, EuroNCAP experts successfully crashed both the Golf and Astra: both cars received five stars. However, in relation to our reality there are several important nuances. In any Golf you will find seven airbags: front, side, window, plus an airbag for the driver’s knees. In addition, Volkswagen can add a couple more side airbags for rear passengers.
“Astra” by default offers only four pillows (front and side), and inflatable “curtains” cost an additional 9,500 rubles - inexpensive, but still. But Opel even added a system to the basic versions dynamic stabilization, while Volkswagen requires 22,710 rubles for ESP.
It is also appropriate to mention here that EuroNCAP representatives twice awarded Opel for innovation, noting the Opel-I road sign recognition system and the AFL adaptive light, which can also be ordered in Russia.
The hum of turbines, snatches of sleep
This year, “people’s motorists” took the Golf with its stunted naturally aspirated 1.4-liter engine out of circulation; and now the price list for a three-door with a 1.6 engine (102 hp) in the “Trendline” configuration starts at 603,000 rubles - three thousand more expensive than the most affordable “Astra” in the “Essenshia” version with a 1.4-liter engine power 101 hp With. In addition to the above-mentioned safety features, this Golf has electric front windows, heated electric mirrors, central locking with remote control. By default, air conditioning is included only in versions with TSI and TDI engines, and separately costs 43,240 rubles. For a 5-door body you have to pay an additional 22,850 rubles. In general, due to poverty, such a car will be only a pale shadow of a real Golf.
Cars with turbo engines start at 616 thousand for 1.2TSI (85 hp), and with the optimal 1.4TSI engine, the Golf will cost 676 thousand on hand. For DSG you have to pay an additional 66,000 rubles, which is quite immodest. But you still have to select expensive options individually: rear doors (22,850), ESP (22,710), multifunction display(2000), audio system (7020), fog lights (6730), steering wheel with music control buttons (10,860) - this is the minimum. If we add everything up, we get “Golf-1.4TSI-DSG” for 814,170 rubles.
A similarly equipped Astra with a 140-horsepower turbo engine and an automatic transmission in the Engoy configuration will cost 763,900 rubles. Significant difference! And if you set yourself the goal of purchasing the cheapest car for 600 thousand, then it will be quite suitable for life: it will have air conditioning and “music”.
The spectacular GTC is 12,900 rubles cheaper than the five-door, and it can also be had with a 140-horsepower naturally aspirated 1.8-liter engine. In addition, the GTC has 1.4 (140 horsepower) and 1.6 (180 horsepower) turbo engines on hand, while on a regular hatchback an automatic transmission is required in addition to these power units.
WE DECIDED:
It’s not for nothing that “Golf” is considered the standard in the class. Everything about it is good: the interior, the driving characteristics, and the liquidity: both at three and ten years of age, Volkswagen will easily find a second, third, ... tenth owner. The most a big problem“Golf” is the price: even though it now looks much more affordable than before.
Compared to the magnificent Volkswagen, the current Astra leaves a more diffuse impression. However, we came to the conclusion that Opel did not yield a point to its sworn friend. The Astra does not handle as brilliantly and has a number of complaints regarding ergonomics, but it still has a very decent interior and a smoother ride. In addition, Opel more trunk, which is also important. At the same time, the Astra looks much more elegant than the annoying Golf, and the three-door GTC is completely unique car for their money.
Greetings to all)
Compare: VW Polo sedan 1.6 manual, basic equipment, new price - 450 thousand
Opel Astra sedan 1.8 automatic, luxury equipment, new price - 770 thousand.
I drove the Polo for almost a year, sold it with a mileage of 6500 km - I’ve been driving the Astra for 2 months and the mileage is 2000 km.
Dynamics: Polo up to 100 in 10.5 seconds - Astra up to 100 in 11.4 seconds.
But this is according to the passport, but in real life the Astra is noticeably faster from the start due to the electronic pedal on the Polo, which reacts with a delay. Although if the speed is above 150, then the Polo picks up faster.
Comfort: The Astra's suspension is softer and absorbs bumps/pits much better. The Astra's noise insulation is also better and it retains heat in the cabin longer. The space in the Astra in the front is more spacious and more comfortable, but in the Polo there is a little more space in the back, by the way, but the Astra has the largest wheelbase in class C-2703 mm. The quality of the interior trim in the Astra is much higher - high-quality plastic, the roof is soft, the instrument control buttons are more convenient. The seats in the Astra are leather + fabric with lateral support - more comfortable, but the Astra base does not have this... The basic seats are the same as on the Polo. The presence of pockets on the backs of the front seats of the Astra is useful, although the base Astra does not have them either. The Astra has a noticeably better audio system - 7 speakers versus 4 in the Polo. There is no rear courtesy light in the Polika, as well as a rear armrest, also in the base Polo The rear sofa folds completely, while in the Astra it folds up separately from the base.
In general, the Astra is superior to the Polo in terms of comfort, you can feel that it is still class C, and the Polik is class B, and in price the difference is almost like two Polos.
Consumption per hundred km: Polo city 7 liters, highway 5 liters. Astra city 12 liters, highway 8.5 liters.
The difference is noticeable!
Practicality: The Astra's ground clearance on 16-wheel drives was higher, the Polo had 14-wheel drives. The Astra's trunk volume was 490 liters, the Polo's was 460 liters - the difference is not noticeable.
Visibility is better in the Polo.
In general, Polo is one of the best in class B, and Astra is one of the best in class C. You can feel the difference in consumption, price and comfort. Both cars are good and neither makes any extraneous noise or causes problems.
The only thing I would like on the Astra is mechanics)
www.drive2.ru
Opel Astra III or Volkswagen Golf V – which is better?
Once upon a time, the Volkswagen Golf was the undisputed leader in its class, and rivals tried to imitate it in every possible way. But today the market situation is completely different. Modern Volkswagen models are not as reliable, and competitors are clearly approaching. This can be clearly seen from the comparison example.
Smooth start
Both cars are assembled quite carefully, but individual elements of the Golf are fitted more precisely. In addition, its innovative door allows the outer skin to be removed in case of damage to bodywork, which allows you to eliminate traces of serious impacts. However, such repairs are more expensive and complex. Later in new Volkswagen models moved away from this decision.
In crash tests, both cars earned five stars, but a detailed comparison of individual points indicates a minimal advantage for the Astra.
The Astra, like the Golf, is carefully protected against corrosion. Weakness Opel fragment of the rear trunk door under the chrome strip. In the Golf, traces of rust can sometimes be found on the doors around the windows and on the pillars, where the door seal touches.
In terms of interior space, the Golf fares slightly better - it provides more space for rear passengers. The cargo opening of the 5-door Astra is slightly smaller than that of the Golf, but the trunk is more capacious: 380 liters versus 350 liters for the VW.
Quality interior decoration is controversial. The front panel of the Astra is not very impressive in its appearance and, unfortunately, creaks in most copies. After a slight modernization in 2007, the quality has improved and the finish of the Elegance, Cosmo and Sport versions already deserves respect. At first glance, the inside of the Golf is exemplary: excellent build quality and good materials. But if you look closely, it is not perfect. On the power window control buttons and door handles the rubberized coating will peel off. Well-equipped Asters predominate in advertisements for sale. Golfs, as a rule, have more modest equipment, but are more expensive.
Taking into account all the pros and cons, it is difficult to determine a clear winner in the first round. Both cars deserved a draw.
Point for Astra
The Opel Astra has a very simple suspension: a MacPherson system on the front axle, and a MacPherson system on the rear axle. torsion beam. The ball and silent blocks in the front control arms can be changed separately. There is practically nothing to break in the rear beam. The big dots the i’s ground clearance. Thanks to all these advantages, Astra is ideal for our terrible roads. The service life of ball and other connecting elements is not very long, but replacing them is simple and cheap. The only exception is sports Asters with the IDS+ system, i.e. with shock absorbers of adjustable stiffness. There are no substitutes, and the cost of original spare parts is estimated at tens of thousands of rubles. But, fortunately, this is a headache only for the owners sports versions. The rest can sleep peacefully.
The front suspension of the Golf also does not provide any serious problems. Rear mounted multi-link suspension. Its design is quite strong, but used copies from the initial production period will most likely require putting the suspension in order, which may cost about 6,000 - 7,000 rubles.
Golf equipped electric amplifier steering, Astra - electrohydraulic. Both systems are quite reliable, but in case of unexpected malfunctions they can empty your wallet by 10,000 rubles.
In the chassis comparison, the Astra wins.
Motorized dilemma
Ruler power units Golf is impressive in its abundance. Unfortunately, the vast majority of available engines are modern and advanced designs that require increased maintenance costs. Maintenance and repairs. The FSI and TSI designations hide a direct gasoline injection system. For car enthusiasts who consider costs, we can recommend only three engines: the immortal 1.6-liter gasoline 8-valve unit, the 1.9 TDI diesel engine (though it is too loud) and, as a last resort, the 1.4-liter 16-valve gasoline engine (nothing particularly impressive, but it doesn’t bother you too much with problems).
The Astra engine range is also impressive, but here the vast majority of engines can be taken into account. A good choice would be a turbodiesel borrowed from Fiat - 1.9 CDTI: powerful, economical and quite reliable. The 1.7 CDTI developed by Isuzu is not ideal, but many owners are still happy with it. The 1.3 CDTI is also borrowed from Fiat: it consumes very little fuel, but copes much better with the lighter Corsa.
Note: most diesel Opel have a particulate filter. Its presence can be determined by a sticker on the center pillar on the passenger side. If the last line of characters displays the value 0.5, then the filter is present. If 1.2 or more, it means absent. Due to the fact that filters on Opel models create many problems during operation, some drivers remove them.
Gasoline engines Opel Astras are famous for their high fuel consumption, average performance and good oil appetite. However, they do not cause serious problems. Typical faults related to the EGR valve, throttle valve and oil leak. After restyling, the manufacturer abandoned the use of hydraulic valve compensators (applies to strong versions of 1.6 and 1.8 liters). You can check this by decrypting VIN number.
In this comparative stage, Astra wins, although it is worth recognizing that the two good engines for Golf (1.6 8V and 1.9 TDI) is quite enough.
Price issue
And now we come to the most important issue - price. Astra is definitely cheaper. Is it worth overpaying? In the end, best choice will become a more expensive Golf with an unpretentious and durable 8-valve 1.6-liter gasoline engine.
For those who prefer a diesel engine, it is better to step beyond stereotypes and choose an Astra 1.9 CDTI without a particulate filter. It will be a well-equipped car, usually in much better condition than a comparably priced Golf.
Opel Astra in technically less perfect than the Volkswagen Golf. However, she is declared the winner. Astra is cheaper and has lower operating costs. Drivers who often drive on rough roads will appreciate its durable suspension. In addition, during trips they will appreciate its economical, high-torque and not too noisy 1.9-liter diesel engine.
Volkswagen Golf V (2003-2008)
Model history
2003 – presentation
2004 – appearance of the 4Motion version
2005 – Golf Plus
2006 – CrossGolf
2007 – Golf Combi
Defects in cylinder heads and injectors in 2.0 TDI engines
Wear of the blade position control system in turbochargers with variable geometry
Problems with timing chain and coolant pump in 1.4 TSI
Problems with the EGR valve
Premature wear dual mass flywheel
Advantages:
Reliability
Slight loss of value
Availability of a wide variety of spare parts
High maintenance costs for FSI, TSI and 2.0 TDI PD versions
Poor basic equipment
Engines
The most preferred are old, time-tested engines - a 1.6 liter 8-valve petrol engine with a power of 102 hp. and diesel 1.9 TDI with pump injectors with a power of 105 hp. The 1.4-litre 16-valve petrol engine is too weak and the others require high maintenance costs. The version with 2.0 TDI PD is not recommended.
Technical Volkswagen characteristics Golf V (2003-2008)
| Engine | turbodiesel | turbodiesel |
||
| Working volume | ||||
| R4/8 or 16 |
||||
| Maximum torque | ||||
| Dynamics |
||||
| Maximum speed | ||||
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h | ||||
Opel Astra III (2004-2012)
Model history:
2004 – presentation
2006 – twinTop convertible
2008 – sedan version
Typical problems and malfunctions:
Wear of dampers during intake manifold diesel 1.9 CDTI. The cost of a new collector is about 9,000 rubles.
EGR system failure - applies to gasoline and diesel engines
Malfunction of the CIM module under the steering wheel
Increased consumption oils for 1.6 and 1.8 l engines
Advantages:
Big choice cars on the market
Very attractive prices
Wide range of engines
Good availability of spare parts
Average reliability of gasoline engines
Slightly worse corrosion protection than the Volkswagen Golf
Quite a few cars from the corporate fleet
Engines
Gasoline engines do not impress with performance or fuel consumption. After restyling, the manufacturer abandoned hydraulic valve clearance compensators. Diesel engines are good, especially 1.9 CDTI. Note - among diesel versions there is a particulate filter.
Technical Opel characteristics Astra III (2004-2012)
| Engine | turbodiesel | turbodiesel |
||
| Working volume | ||||
| Cylinder/Valve Arrangement | ||||
| Maximum power | ||||
| Maximum torque | ||||
| Dynamics |
||||
| Maximum speed | ||||
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h | ||||
| Average consumption fuel in l/100 km |
We continue to consider cars from the “B” segment, and this time the guests of our column will be purebred cars that are very popular in Europe - Opel Corsa, VW Polo and Ford Fiesta. There they were sold in hundreds of thousands a year, and in Russia their market fate was successful
In 2008, Opel Corsa sold approximately 30 thousand cars, Ford Fiesta - 9500. As for VW, its result in this class was significantly lower; there were much fewer “kids” from the famous German manufacturer scattered across our cities. The fact is that in Russia the small VW turned out to be more expensive than all its competitors, including those discussed in this article, and significantly more expensive, not by 10-12%, as in Europe. Therefore, the number of offers among the three-year-old Corsa, Fiesta and Polo is corresponding. But you can find a car of any model in good condition. Which of these models is better is up to you to decide, and we will help you make a decision.
General information
Unlike us, Europeans do not understand a class B car with a sedan body. The concept of beauty and prestige there, west of Brest, is somewhat different. Therefore, all three cars were offered only as 3- and 5-door hatchbacks. Small, up to 4 m long, they are quite spacious inside, and the trunks of all three have a volume of 270-280 liters. This is enough for a young family without children or with one child, and for an elderly couple. And if you fold the rear seats in any of the cars in question, you get cargo platform approximately a cubic meter in volume. Small refrigerator or washing machine fits easily.
Another difference between us and Europe is the attitude towards diesel fuel. European trim levels, be it Corsa, Polo or Fiesta, have at least two offers of exceptionally economical and high-torque engines running on heavy fuel. We, Russians, have our own special pride, and we don’t seem to need urban consumption of 5-6 liters of diesel fuel per 100 km. Therefore, all three cars were delivered to Russia only with gasoline engines. By the way, they are not distinguished by “gluttony” either, this is due to their noble European origin, and there the appetite for gasoline, like that of the VAZ-21011 engine, is not welcome.
Fiesta was the first of the trio to hit our market - in 2002. Simple in design, comfortable and relatively inexpensive, it immediately became popular. Well equipped in terms of comfort and a solid “good girl” in terms of passive safety, this car also turned out to be quite reliable, which did not diminish interest in it, especially considering the offer of power units - from a budget 1.25 liter engine in the most affordable Fiesta to a 2-liter (150 hp) in a “combat” one. Fiesta ST. Gearboxes are 5-speed manual Durashift and “robots” Durashift SE.
Three and a half years after Fiesta, the VW Polo arrived in Russia. This car is “Mr. Impeccable” in everything except the price on the Russian market. Because he has no other shortcomings. The ergonomics of the driver’s workplace is standard, except for the “bluish” lighting dashboard, which the Germans stuck with for so long because “customers like it.” The interior space is beyond compare. Convenience of the trunk - no comments. Ride comfort is beyond praise. Stability and controllability - reliably, safely, “like on rails.” And so on. But the price of the new Polo, which was at least 20% higher than the price of competitors in comparable trim levels, cooled the buyer's fervor. And now, three years later, Polo is significantly more expensive than its classmates, but this difference in absolute numbers is not so frightening. Therefore, when choosing a “three-year old” in this class of cars, it would be unwise to ignore this most worthy car, in the configurations and components of which there are practically no flaws. True, the Polo offer on the secondary market cannot be called extensive.
Opel Corsa is the youngest of our trio and the most “fashionable” car in appearance. Having appeared in Russia two years after the Polo, accompanied by an active advertising campaign in the media and with prices “without fanaticism,” the little Opel exploded on the market of new foreign cars like a bomb, leaving behind a bunch of competitors in the sales rankings, including Fiesta. Options, engines - for every taste: from a liter 3-cylinder engine with a power of 60 hp. on the most affordable version up to equipped with a turbocharger high pressure 1.6-liter engine with a power of under 200 hp, which is truly “hot” hatchback Corsa Turbo OPC. Transmissions: 5-speed manual, robot and 5-speed automatic. In general, among the “three-year-old” Corsa models, both in terms of the number of offers and quality, that is, trim levels, there is something to choose from.
From the point of view of the driver and passengers
VW, Opel and Ford have been competing in this class of cars for more than 30 years and have “competed” to the point that there are simply no cars from other brands that are as comfortable and practical at the same time as the “babies” from VW, Opel and Ford. There is “designer” technology from the French like the Peugeot 207, there is a mega-practical car from the Japanese Honda Jazz, there is cheap technology from the Koreans, but such knights of many qualities as Polo, Corsa and Fiesta - alas! And if for you the passengers’ point of view on convenience and comfort and the capabilities of the trunk are one of the main factors when choosing a car, then I don’t envy you, and I won’t give you any advice. I don’t envy you, because it will be difficult to decide in this regard. But I won’t tell you, because I myself can’t decide which of these cars will be better. All three are great!
But there will be no problems determining the driver’s point of view. Ford Fiesta! It’s as if Marcus Grönholm himself tuned the chassis of this car, it can drive so recklessly and sportily, responding not to the driver’s actions, but to his thoughts. The steering wheel is an extension of the hands. Pedals, brake, accelerator are an extension of the legs. The manual gearbox lever has the precision of a rifle bolt! If you want and know how, ride along the lines. If you love and have fun - glide in turns, tucking the “face” of the car to exit the maneuver. Bravo! And so - with any engine. But the robotic manual transmission is not very suitable for piloting purposes; it does not have a control program that provides piloting modes. But there is a manual control mode, and if you use it, then no problems! And in normal, everyday driving modes, Fiesta knows how to be a good boy, calmly ride around the metropolis, maneuver and crawl into any crevice.
As for the Polo, this car is the embodiment of true German order on four wheels. Including from the driver's point of view. Do you want to drive calmly, comfortably and measuredly? Cheers! Do you want to “explode” on a bend? So this is without question! But Polo performs any maneuver, both in quiet and active mode, smoothly, with dignity and restraint, reliably. It’s as if he condescends to the driver from the height of his Teutonic pedestal, allowing him to do whatever he wants with himself, and with any gearbox. Five-speed manual transmission or 6-speed Tiptronic - everything works without problems and in any mode.
The Opel Corsa is not born for high-speed maneuvering. Chassis this car is configured primarily for safety and even in the most lively version OPC Corsa shows a tendency to slide the front end in a sharp turn, demonstrating understeer. In quiet driving modes - no complaints. Neither to the suspension, nor to the steering, nor to the operation of the aggregate part.
In terms of cost of ownership: efficiency, maintenance, repairs
The VW Polo holds its original value best. This brand is generally a champion in this discipline, and by paying more when buying a Volkswagen car, you will earn more when selling it later. This applies to almost any model German concern, including Polo, and this nuance is useful to keep in mind when buying a car of any class. For example, if you buy a three-year-old Ford Fiesta, you are more likely to lose on a subsequent sale compared to both the price-holding champion VW Polo and the Opel Corsa, which is quoted quite well on the secondary market.
As for fuel costs, if you compare Corsa, Polo and Fiesta, equipped with the most popular 1.4 liter engines on the market, you will not find a noticeable difference in fuel consumption. IN mixed cycle(city plus highway) the whole trio consumes from 6 to 6.5 liters of fuel, and all three cars are recommended to use AI-95 gasoline, although if you don’t rev the engine regularly, they will also “eat” 92 without any consequences. If only it was of high quality.
When comparing the cost indicators of maintenance and repair, several nuances arise. No, the cost of a standard hour and the corresponding sets of spare parts for carrying out maintenance and current repairs does not apply to them, they are approximately the same. It’s just that according to Ford regulations, scheduled maintenance is carried out every 20 thousand km or 12 months (whichever comes first), for VW and Opel - every 15 thousand km or 12 months. That is, if you drive a lot, the conclusion that Ford is preferable seems obvious. But again nuances, nuances, nuances... If the timing drive has Ford engines costs toothed belt, which is supposed to be changed according to the regulations (except for the rare 1.3 Zetec Rocam), in VW it is similar, then all Opel Corsa engines, except for the 1.6 turbocharged one, are chain. And if you apply quality oils like GM Genuine Motor Oil, then before 250 thousand km you won’t have to get into the timing drive. As you can see, there are points in favor of Opel, including for long mileage. The VW Polo also has positive aspects. Although there is a timing belt in the timing drive, its replacement interval is very long, far beyond 100 thousand kilometers. And from all these nuances, a surprisingly simple conclusion follows: none of the representatives of our trio has convincing arguments that could make the consumer lean in his favor regarding the cost of maintenance and repairs. Therefore, when choosing between Corsa, Fiesta and Polo, do not “bother yourself” with this issue. It is much more important to find a car in good technical condition, with a known and good operating history and, as a result, a large residual life. Then you won’t have to fork out money for unscheduled work and spare parts - for Opel, Ford, and VW.
Bottom line
VW Polo, which can do everything (from 11,000 to 20,000 dollars), the “ruzy” Ford Fiesta (from 10,000 to 17,000 dollars) or the nice Opel Corsa (from 11,000 to 25,000 dollars for OPC version)? You decide! This choice is not easy. But we have given enough clues. Have a good hunting!
