VW Polo vs Honda Jazz

[RichardA]

Some months back I had a 63plate VW Polo as a courtesy car for two weeks and I though I'd write a quick review of the car in relation to the Jazz.

Polo 1.2 60 Match Edition 5dr - £12,665*
Three cylinder, 12 valve petrol.
59bhp, 80 Ib ft torque, 15.6 secs to 62mph.
51mpg, 128 g/km CO2

Honda Jazz 1.2 i-VTEC SE (Start Stop) - £13,050*
Four cylinder, 16 valve petrol.
88bhp, 84 Ib ft torque, 12.1 secs to 62mph.
52mpg, 125 g/km CO2

*New price as of late 2013. Sourced from Parkers.co.uk.

I've used the Honda website to find the equipment list of the Jazz SE, hopefully it's the same now as it was at the end of last year.

One issue to note is VW offered a 70bhp version of the Polo for £875 more than the 59bhp version. It is the same engine but with more bhp.

Please note that VW have now discontinued the 1.2 litre three cylinder engine and replaced it with the 1.0-litre engine (also a three cylinder) from the Up city car.

Advantages of the Polo:
Better quality interior plastics, best in class after Audi A1.
Much less road noise
Ride and handling – flatter cornering and significantly smoother ride.
Lower driving position.

Advantages of the Jazz:
Superior engine refinement – the difference is as clear as night and day.
Performance
Brake pedal feel.
Seat flexibility – say no more.
Gearchange
Looks – more dynamic.
Interior space

Evens:
Steering: Jazz's steering is better weighted, the Polo's sharper, more responsive.
Visibility – good on both cars.
Equipment – Jazz has automatic climate control and curtain airbags, but Polo has USB, Bluetooth, alloy wheels, electric rear windows and DAB Digital radio. What matters more to you?

Based on this trim and engine combination I'd go for the Jazz over the Polo, the Polo's engine would drive me nuts over a longer period. It could be a different story if it was a choice between VW's 1.2 Tsi four cylinder turbocharged engine and Honda's 1.4-litre i-VTEC engine.

[monkeydave]

you forgot the amount of problems you get with vw, ive had two and will never have another the jazz is far superior to the polo and do you really want a 3 cylinder car ??

and the se jazz is 120 co2 as it gets 30 quid tax disc i got the s a/c and it is 123 co2 so just misses out on the cheap tax disc and i got it before the 1.2 se came out

[guest582]

My wife has a three cylinder Polo and I have a 1.4 GE jazz. I agree with the comments made by RichardA and would add the following:

 - overall the polo seems more solidly built
 - the polo's paintwork is far superior to that of the jazz, one thing that nearly put me off the jazz was the absence of gloss (lacquer?) on the inside of the doors i.e. the bits you can not see from inside when the door is shut, this seems to me to be cost cutting to a ridiculous degree
 - while the polo's engine is adequate for our needs there is a lot of vibration at idle which I suppose comes from it being three cylinder.

Generally the jazz has a far sweeter engine and is much nicer to drive.

[peteo48]

VW have lost their once enviable reputation for reliability and are, these days, average at best. You can look at any number of sources for this information from Which, JD Power and also Warranty Direct (this latter is based on warranty work authorised by them so gives a pretty accurate picture of what, and how often, things go wrong).

Having said all that, the VW does have a more solid feel and the paintwork is vastly superior to Honda's notoriously  soft paint.

But, overall, the Jazz is a better package and the 1.2 Polo is dramatically underpowered.

PS

Meant to add I drove a 1.2 and a 1.4 Polo last year before opting for my jazz.

[SuperCNJ]

Thank you for the review, this is really useful info.

My parents are looking for a small car to replace their old mk4 golf. They've been driving around in my sister's 1.2 GE for a little while and have been quite impressed.

I've personally had a Civic before and my wife has a 1.4 GD Jazz but had the last square headlight shape polo before, so we're quite used to VWs and Hondas in our family.

I chose the 1.2 GE for my sister as it was the perfect car for her needs at the time but I have to say there are a few downsides that I don't like which may be a factor in chosing a replacement for my parents.

I really don't like the thin body panels of Hondas, they attract dents like no other car. It's a similar story for other Japanese cars, but Hondas seem to have the thinnest panels of all. The slightest knock from the door of the car parked next to you and you will see a dent. This is where german cars are so good, the panels are much thicker and don't dent as easily.

The other downside to hondas are they have no torque at low revs. They are mostly tuned to give torque higher up in the rev range which sometimes is annoying driving around town.

Also, Honda don't galvanise their chassis and panels whereas VW do. This is a big plus for VW as it really does make a difference to rust. My parent's old Golf was galvanised and is now a 14 year old car and if you look under the bonnet/car it is like new. Whereas our hondas do develop signs of rust underneath as I found out with my Civic.

But there are advantages - the thinner panels are also lighter, so they are generally more economical in the real world (ignoring figures and going by personal experience). This is something at the top of my parent's requirements list. They want something that is cheap to run.

One question I would like to ask about the Polo is the subject of practically and space. The current Polo does look a bit bigger than the old one from the outside, but is it any bigger inside? The GE is quite spacious for a supermini, how does the Polo compare?




 

[RichardA]

The Polo is nowhere as spacious as the Jazz, but the Polo feels more spacious then say the Fiesta or Mazda2.

I can't comment on the previous Polo.

[guest1232]

I had a Polo some time ago and it kept cutting out randomly for 30 minutes at a time, nobody, even VW could tell me what was causing it. I traded it for a Fiat Punto TD which was very reliable but I had to replace the swing arms and all of the shockers when it was 6 years old.

The Honda Jazz is far better built than either of the above and even if it isn't galvanised, have you ever seen badly rusted Honda? I haven't.

[guest4871]

Interestingly, I did a quick comparison on What Car of a similarly equipped Polo and Jazz. Not a particularly accurate study but.....

The similarly equipped Polo seems £1,000 more to buy (so the Jazz is less expensive to buy - because more equipment is included in the Jazz whereas to achieve the same equipment in the Polo needs more - a lot more - options) but the Polo seems to have running costs over three years £2,700 less (so the Jazz thus is more expensive to run).

I think it is really up to what you want to use the car for, what suits the user and how much it is used. That's always going to be a personal choice. The beauty is in the eye of the beholder.