• Jul 1, 2008

There are some vehicles which mainstream automakers sell overseas that we wish we could get in the United States. Faux-offroaders like the outgoing Volkswagen CrossPolo (pictured above) aren't among them. The previous CrossPolo (sold as the Polo Dune in the UK) is little more than a some body-cladding applied to the standard hatchback that is supposed to make it look more rugged. Thankfully, the new-generation CrossPolo will actually get the machinery to back up the image: Volkswagen has deemed to outfit the soft-roader with its 4Motion all-wheel-drive system, effectively making this an even smaller brother to the Tiguan crossover and a worthwhile competitor to the upcoming MINI Crossman.

What remains to be seen is whether the new model will carry the same appearance (and badge) as the model it replaces, upgrading the standard Polo with some body-cladding, or whether Volkswagen will give it an even more SUV-like body styled after the Tiguan. Engines options will include 1.2-liter inline-3s with 60-70 hp, a 1.4 liter unit producing 85hp and a range-topping 1.2-liter TSI pumping 105 horses through those four little wheels, while diesels will be offered along the same output range along with a Bluemotion powertrain option.

[Source: AutoExpress via paultan.org]



I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 12 Comments
      • 6 Years Ago
      I like it but will the little engines be able to make it up a Western Pa hill without slowing to a crawl? The TSi 105hp may be ok but I have doubts about the others. My sister had a Metro in HS with a 3cyl and that thing could barley make it ups some hills without flooring it and going 20 up the hill. Same with a friends '82 Merc 240D, man was that car slow, but it got really good MPG.
        • 6 Years Ago
        No - some 4cyl have no trouble getting up hills (My old 1.8T Jetta or Sentra SER for expample) but my wife has a Civic EX and that thing is a dog. I cant imagine a smaller less engine with less torque not being very raspy and loud and pulling very hard to get up a hill.

        I said 105bhp could be ok if not boring but able to merge on the highway and able to acceperate up a hill. I just doubt the smaller engines could do it. I would be very surprised unless the rest of the car is very light.
        • 6 Years Ago
        The going up a hill argument is rubbish but the merging on the freeway argument is absolutely ridiculous. YOu people think we in Europe don't have to merge onto the highway?

        105hp is a damn lot in a car like the Polo, 0-60 in under 10 seconds and go alll the way upto 120mph no problem.

        Then you say 70hp is just to slow. Well i've driven many cars with even less then that, or the same amount in heavier cars and even then i've never had a problem with anything.
        When you get on the on-ramp of the highway just drop it 3rd or 4th, give it the beans and you'll be up to 70 in no time.
      • 6 Years Ago
      If they keep it looking like that it'll look many times better than that ass ugly mini crossman.

      ...not that that is saying much
      • 6 Years Ago
      60bhp and 4wd? hmm that'll be worthwhile. whats the point, even with the 105bhp engine itll be so slow the added traction will be wasted.
        • 6 Years Ago
        well im glad my own car is phenomenal then, but with 4wd this is going to get worse fuel economy than a fwd 1.4 polo that looks the same i still think its pointless.
        • 6 Years Ago
        maybe but it's still going to be slow.
      • 6 Years Ago
      100 hp goes a long way in a 2,500 lb vehicle. Particularly if the driver can be arsed to shift for themselves.

      Those with woeful memories of U.S.-spec Metros should remember that--if they drove an automatic--they were driving a 70 hp car with a *three-speed* transmission.

      Add 30 horses and fatten them with two more gears, and you're making pretty brisk progress. Exhibit A: Honda Fit Sport.

      As for the Polo, VW needs that car Stateside ASAP.
        • 6 Years Ago
        I have no problem with the 105bhp engine, that would be ok but the 60-70hp and the 85hp? I doubt anyone woudl spring for one of those unless it is dirt cheap and gets 40+mpg. 70hp would be so slow.
          • 6 Years Ago
          BlackCanary - you haven't lived. Try a 1987 1116cc Fiat Uno with 61bhp as I had twenty years ago. That thing would cruise all day in 5th at 90mph, and only on the steepest of hills would you need to drop to second gear.

          You can't get a turbocharged 1800cc C-segment saloon up a hill? Now I know you're talking bollocks.

          Americans can't relate to the capabilities of modern small cars, because traditionally they have comparatively so few available to them. They've been so used to guzzling petrol by driving around at 25mph all day in fat lazy V6's and V8's over the years that they think anything under 150bhp is underpowered. Power-to-weight is the important factor, not merely horsepower.

          In a small B-segment hatch, 80-90bhp is quite sufficient given their extra weight these days. You might have to drop a gear or two on the steep grades, but that doesn't mean to say the car won't cope.
      • 6 Years Ago
      Suzuki SX4 ripoff..... or the other way around.