Skip navigation

carsguide.com.au

Suzuki Swift GLX vs VW Polo 77TSI

  • By Bruce McMahon and Mark Hinchliffe
  • Carsguide
  • image

Swift GLX and Polo 77TSI go head to head.

SUZUKI SWIFT GLX MANUAL HATCH

VW POLO 77TSI COMFORTLINE MANUAL HATCH

imageVALUE - from $18,990

At $18,990 it's not the cheapest Japanese light car on the market, but the GLX is packed with features that make it good value. Chief among these is the four-wheel disc brakes, which distinguishes this from the pack. The GLX also comes with keyless entry and start/stop button plus Bluetooth and a USB iPod connector. Swifts also have good resale value.

imageVALUE - from $19,850

Polos start at $16,990 for a three-door hatch but the more usable, more powerful Comfortline five-door from $19,850 is the best value of the bunch. This is Euro-chic at a great price. Features include air, stereo and power windows plus a raft of driver aids not often seen in this mini class.

imageSAFETY

Unlike most light cars, this one comes with brake discs all round and that is a big tick to safety. Add to that seven airbags, ABS and stability control and a five-star crash rating. In another small nod to safety, the new GLX model's steering wheel is telescopic, which means it can move forward and back so you can get just the right, comfortable driving position.

imageSAFETY

VW have crammed every last bit of safety gear into the Polo - from six airbags, to ABS, brake assist and brake force distribution system. There's traction control and stability program, all aiding a well-behaved chassis and excellent road dynamics with a well-deserved 5-star NCAP rating.

imageDESIGN

The new model has had a facelift and a rear tuck. The facelift hasn't dented the cute "Pikachu" cartoon nose, but the rear tailgate has been shortened which makes the rear look stubby. It also means the luggage lip is higher which makes loading more difficult. The interior has had a major overhaul and looks much better integrated. The controls also have have smoother and more sturdy feel.

imageDESIGN

This is a handsome, rather than cute, machine, inside and out. The Polo looks and feels refined from all corners with an ordered approach to instruments and controls. But it is also a small car inside and the driver's footwell is pretty cramped, pedals a tad small for larger and taller drivers. This is one area where other compacts, such as the Swift, win out.

imageTECHNOLOGY

The little 1.4-litre four-cylinder tries hard for its 70kW and you have to keep stirring the five-speed box to get good locomotion. (The $1700 four-speed auto option is a slug.) The engine is actually a few kilowatts down on power from the previous model, but it's lighter and only Mark Webber could feel the difference. The up side is that it's thrifty with 13 per cent better fuel economy than the old engine. Suzuki claims a very realistic 6.3 litres/100km.

imageTECHNOLOGY

It's hard to ignore a 1.2 litre engine, turbocharged of course, pushing out a frisky 77kW while returning 5.5 litres per 100km on the combined cycle. There's the choice of manual or seven-speed auto and little missing here from brake assist and electronic diff lock, through to audio controls on the steering wheel and electrically heated mirrors.

imageDRIVING

Drivers feel connected to the road thanks to a well-sorted steering and suspension set up with MacPherson strut front and torsion beam rear. Passengers - even five adults - won't feel too cramped on short journeys. And the cabin is relatively quiet at highway speeds.

imageDRIVING

The smallest of VWs is a spirited city runaround, able to mix it with the traffic with ease; a smart car for slotting into gaps in the traffic or the parking lot. Steering response and feel are fantastic, as is this engine and six-speed manual gearbox combination. (But the DSG auto can be an awkward option, a bit stop-start at parking speeds). And remember it is a small car, larger drivers are a bit squeezed.

OVERALL VERDICT

The Polo is Carsguide's Car of the Year for its engineering, design and technology. It's also a brilliant driver's car. But when it comes to spending the hard-earned, the thrifty Suzuki is an irresistable package with more interior comfort and space. It is also a far cuter car that begs for personalisation.

Polo: 19pts  Swift: 20pts

Comments on this story

Displaying 3 of 32 comments

  • When I was car shopping earlier this year I found VW dealers much less willing to do a deal, presumably because the Polo was getting more awards from the motoring press. I ended up getting a demo manual Swift GLX (with all the nice extras) for under $20k drive-away, and have been happy with it ever since. I am getting 5.2 or 5.3 l/100km city driving, and of course it’s less-expensive standard unleaded, not premium. I have owned a New Beetle and an earlier Swift, and my experience is that Suzuki beats VW hands down on reliability and servicing cost. The small boot isn’t an issue for me, my only complaint is that getting it into reverse is sometimes a bit tricky. Maybe it still needs to be worn in. Otherwise, it’s brilliant.

    Steve of Perth Posted on 30 November 2011 6:42pm
  • The manual Swift GLX is great. A bit more power would be nice and have a little turbo. Otherwise, nice for city driving, handles well in all terrain that I have put it through, especially in the rain. Highway driving is pushing the engine a little, you have to make it work. Boot space is a less than reasonable in the Swift, although I have been able to fit quite a lot in the boot space if I took my time packing it. There is more boot space if you fold the back seats down. Travelled to QLD in the Swift with a bicycle in the boot and my luggage. Fuel economy was 4.6L/100KM. Almost made it to QLD on one tank of fuel. Since the polo is made in Europe, cost you more to service them in the long run, especially with the turbo. Swift is cheaper anyway. VW owns 19% of Suzuki anyway, so you are kind of buying a VW.

    Phil of Bankstown Posted on 15 November 2011 8:58am
  • I test drove both and liked them both. Both nice smooth, fun, drives. Both nicely styled inside and out -compared to just about everything else out there they are both miles ahead in the looks department. Swift definitely had more leg room (Polo was surprisingly squishy because of the centre console -just like the bigger Golf). If you’re a small person who carries a lot of stuff in the boot -go the Polo (Swift’s boot is teeny tiny!). The Swift’s inside plastic door part felt slightly flimsy when pushed, but both had similarly solid outside metal. Swift had a nice push button start (on GLX model). Both had a lot of options -this can really add up, so research carefully! Some options, particularly on the Polo came in set packs or were only available for certain models, which can be frustrating. Polo had nicer factory alloy options, but it can be cheaper and there’s plenty more after-market choices anyway. Swift had a couple of factory seat cover options, which I like because I like my covers to fit snugly. Polo had none -but you could just get a generic after market set and hope they fit ok. If leg/boot space doesn’t matter -pick the one that you think looks best!

    Pablo of Perth Posted on 13 November 2011 7:43am
  • Swift is far better than VW Tiguan, Polo & Passat. Want to spend +30k, go for Golf or Mini. If less than 20k it’s Suzuki Swift. I travel 300 km a week approx. spend $25 a week on petrol. Yes Swift is 91petrol not 95 petrol which is 10c/L extra.

    Vish Posted on 24 September 2011 12:09pm
  • Denis is biased cause he/she bought a POLO, not because he/she is a motoring enthusiast, don’t worry if your ‘little’, cause some people like a little one.

    Ahmed Mohammed of Bankstown Posted on 29 July 2011 12:45pm
  • I bought a Polo cause I?m a little-man, and I wouldn?t be able to fit into it if I was a ‘real’ man ... go the Polo!

    Hans Lackinger of Austria Posted on 29 July 2011 12:28pm
  • Hands down, the Polo is the nicer handling, looking and more exciting drive of the 2. The Suzuki is butt ugly (and has as much soul as Kia or Hyundai?). Sorry but even the interior, the Polo feels classy inside, where as the Swift is disgusting. I’m biased because I love motoring, and I’m happy to pay a little bit more when the difference is as tangible as it is. To me, the Polo, particularly the 1.2 5dr w/sports package and DSG, is in a different league altogether to the Suzuki. Wanna save $100 on servicing that comes around once/twice a year? Get the Suzuki then. Simple. But I think we know all that, don’t we.

    Dennis of Sydney -Shore Posted on 28 July 2011 9:51am
  • You really should include ownership costs and boot space in these comparisons. They are extremely important to owners!

    Jane Posted on 28 July 2011 1:09am
  • I’m so glad I didn’t buy a Mazda2 - made in Thailand, 6.4l/100.

    Ben Dover of Kings Cross Posted on 27 July 2011 1:12pm
  • Sorry SULLY, we are only testing the top 2 cars (Swift and Polo) on this review. As far as your Mazda2 goes, comparing it to a Hyundai Getz or Kia Rio might be the solution for you.

    Bob Arthurson of Winfield Posted on 27 July 2011 12:59pm
  • These are both WAYYYYYYYYYYY overpriced, might as well spend $2k or LESS and buy a vastly superior and safer Lancer, Corolla, i30 etc. Yeap, these are priced like the bigger next class of vehicles, they need a good $5k looped off the overprice.

    FrugalOne of AUS Posted on 27 July 2011 11:18am
  • One aspect of this review I find lacking is the cost of ownership issues, VW do design good, solid cars, but from experience their spare parts and servicing costs are a bit of a shocker. That?s why we bought the Swift.

    Simon Scott Posted on 27 July 2011 7:49am
  • The Mazda 2 will eat them both.

    SULLY of DIANELLA Posted on 26 July 2011 3:43pm
  • Hi Fred Elphick, we went to school with each other, I got a bit over excited when your name popped up ... from your old pal ... Wolfgang Manfredson.

    Wolfgang Manfredson of berlin, Germany Posted on 26 July 2011 2:10pm
  • Swift - made in Japan (awesome car makers). Polo - made in South Africa (awesome cricket players).

    Fernando Cox of australia Posted on 26 July 2011 1:52pm
  • Fredric, if u want a Swift, just trade your Polo in for one and tell them you made a mistake smile

    Geoff Jefferson of loungroom Posted on 26 July 2011 1:41pm
  • Fredo, don’t get upset cause you bought a Polo and you’re German. At the end of the day, Swift won and you lost. And the Swift uses 5.5l/100 not 6.3 (that was the previous model Swift). It seems Polo drivers aren’t very smart, and Fredo, you can always trade your Polo in for a Jimny, and I’m sure your Mum will help you pay for it, cause she loves you.

    Hector Lopez of sydney Posted on 26 July 2011 1:28pm
  • You have got to be joking! The Swift is a better car than the Polo? Ha ha ha. Think it?s safe because it has a telescopic steering wheel? The Polo is by far a better car than the cheaply built Swift. For a start it?s got 10% more power (that means a lot in a small car) and the Polo has bucket loads more torque. It is also far more economical using 5.5 l/100 when the Swift uses 6.3. Put the Swift through a few corners and you will soon find out which handles better-the Polo of course. The Swift is about the worst looking car there is today apart from the Suzuki Jimmy.

    Fred Elphick Posted on 24 July 2011 6:56pm
  • VW owns 20% of Suzuki, so in one sense the swift has potentially 20% input from VW. A bit funny comparing the two.

    Carrey of emu plains Posted on 23 July 2011 9:51pm
  • Unfortunately Fredo that is incorrect, you better recheck your GUIDE for all service intervals. Rather than cherry picking one or two examples.

    Mr A of D P Posted on 11 May 2011 9:40am
  • VW service will break your heart and you wallet. Ask for a service cost schedule to 60k for the polo.. You will be staggered. That is if they will give you the numbers. Dealers are well aware of the over priced service costs.

    dingomm of Ballarat Vic Posted on 08 May 2011 8:29am
  • @TR of Bris… About Service costs… Swift will actually cost more than the VW Polo, just look it up.. the Swift’s 105k service cab cost over $1200, and the 90k is between $6-800, if you look at the price guides from carservice Australia… you’d find it’s not THAT cheap to own a Swift.

    Fredo Posted on 08 May 2011 12:07am
  • Bruce and Mark - in Carsguide of today’s telegraph you have given the Polo 19pts the swift 20pts In this article the Polo gets 4 stars the Swift gets 3 1/2 . This is confusing. Obviously less is more somehow?

    ————————

    Well-spotted, Paul, At the website we accidentally mounted an incorrect set of scores, and have since amended them. Cheers, Karla Pincott

    Paul of NSW Posted on 07 May 2011 2:14pm
  • All of the small capacity turbo engines require premium fuel and all have higher service costs, and problems at resale because of potential ongoing costs.  These engines are all highly stressed.  So why bother to buy any vehicle with a small highly stressed engine.  It makes no sense.  It is ok for a motoring writer to recommend these car as they are enjoying the drive, but they are not the buyer, the person that will live with the car and hopefully have no problems with it.

    John Ralph Posted on 07 May 2011 1:45pm
  • From the onset this comparison, had a hint of bias towards the VW. I thought the purpose of presenting a review/comparison was to present the facts as they are rather than as they suite ur preconceived opinion. I am not sure how to rated the polo higher in design even though the comparison states the footwell is pretty crammed… same for safety, they r both 5 starts. As for Value… swift is cheaper, and yet it scores lesser than VW.

    alex of Melbourne Posted on 07 May 2011 1:41pm
  • Although VW produces a high level of reliability, Germany produces cars with annoying glitches, usually related to electrical systems.  ‘TR of Bris’ sums up buyer experience rather well.  The myth of better service and reliability is just that, a myth.  The Japanese built Suzuki will give a better after sales service and owner reliability experience than the VW product.  Wishful thinking to think the opposite.

    Colin Spencer of Kangaroo Ground Victoria Posted on 07 May 2011 1:08pm
  • Potential buyers of cars of this class would be more concerned with overall running costs than performance and engineering.  No doubt the Polo is far more superior in engineering than the Swift but Polo is expensive to own.

    Peter of Melbourne Posted on 07 May 2011 12:21am
  • In my personal experience with VW’s compared to a Japanese equivalent, buying the VW in the cheapest part, servicing them & paying for repairs under warranty when the company won’t stand behind their product will costs many times more. Oh, and then there’s the old line that the VW will have a higher resale value as its European. Been there, swallowed that cr#p!

    TR of Bris Posted on 06 May 2011 5:47pm
  • The Polo and the DSG would be the way to go for mine - a 4 speed automatic doesn’t cut it in the day and age.

    William Tell of NSW Posted on 06 May 2011 4:41pm
  • What about insurance? (Remember kids, its that extra charge you have to pay to save your ass when you hit someone?) Id like to see how the insurance companies treat each car.  Any guess on who would be dearer?  Im going with Polo.

    Adam of Tas Posted on 06 May 2011 3:14pm
  • Your picture of the Swift is the previous model. Surely it would make sense to include the right picture

    Dave Posted on 06 May 2011 12:38pm
  • How is the Polo safer than the Swift? They’re both 5-star NCAP; the Swift actually scores slightly higher.

    Chris Posted on 06 May 2011 12:03pm
Read all 32 comments

Add your comment on this story

Indicates required

We welcome your comments on this story. Comments are submitted for possible publication on the condition that they may be edited. Please provide your full name. We also require a working email address - not for publication, but for verification. The location field is optional.

Cars for sale

Sponsored Links