Renault Clio vs Volkswagen Polo

What's the difference?

I'm going to reveal something of myself here - I used to be a RenaultSport Clio owner. This is what the purists call what we now know as Clio RS, and I find myself constantly corrected yet unrepentant. It was a 172 - a nuggety three-door with wheels that looked too small, a weird seating position and a 2.0-litre naturally aspirated engine that was big on torque as long as you belted it.

It was a classic and you could still see the links back to the epoch-making Renault Clio Williams, that blue and gold Mk 1 Clio we never saw in Australia that redefined the genre. The current Clio has been around for four years now and I even drove this current RS Clio at its launch in 2013, memorable for the sudden bucketing rain that drenched the circuit and made things very interesting indeed.

This Clio was a big change from the cars that went before - slimmer-hipped, less aggressive-looking and with a 1.6-litre turbo engine, five-door-only body and (gasp!) no manual, just Renault's twin-clutch EDC transmission. It was a hit, at least with enthusiasts. Back then it was the dawn of a golden age in small hot hatches. But that was then, this is now. With a small power bump and a couple of features thrown in, is the ageing RS still at the pointy end?

The Volkswagen Polo is about to turn 30 in Australia but, by 1996, it was already 21-years and three generations old in Europe.

As the least-expensive jumping-on point for the brand here today (RIP VW Up!), the Polo has deftly juggled affordability with the premium pricing that its German engineering demands.

But, at nine-years old, and in an era of newer, hybrid and electric vehicle (EV) and often cheaper alternatives from China and elsewhere, is the ageing Polo as convincing?

We test the mid-spec CityLife to find out.