Face à face technique entre : Fiat Tipo 1.4 95 et Volkswagen Golf GTI Clubsport. Qui va remporter le comparateur automobile ? Les réponses sont ici ! Practicality. Measuring 3915mm long (with a 2310mm wheelbase), 1735mm wide and 1230-1235mm tall, the MX-5 is a petite sports car, so needless to say, practicality is not one of its strengths. For example, the Roadster version's boot has a tiny cargo capacity of 130L, while its RF sibling has 127L. Seat Leon vs Volkswagen Golf : comparatif. La Seat Leon et la Volkswagen Golf sont deux modèles d’exception. En fait, il est possible d’affirmer que la Leon est une cousine de la Golf. Premièrement, la première Leon a été fabriquée sous le patronage de Volkswagen, Seat étant une filiale du géant allemand. Fiat Tipo 5-door Hatchback 2015-2020 vs. Volkswagen Golf 5-door Hatchback 2019-present. Compare car dimensions (length, width and height) vs. street perspective. Gallery: 2021 Fiat Tipo facelift. 32 Photos. The Tipo Cross is about 7 cm (2.8 inches) taller than the regular hatchback and tries to mimic the crossover look with front and rear skid plates and kemampuan robot yang dapat berperilaku seperti manusia karena memanfaatkan. Dotychczasowi właściciele Volkswagena niechętnie kupią Fiata, ale być może klienci Fiata wybiorą VW. Czy warto zmieniać upodobania?Dotychczasowi właściciele Volkswagena niechętnie kupią Fiata, ale być może klienci Fiata wybiorą Volkswagena. Czy warto zmieniać upodobania?Fot. VW Golf ma nieco nowocześniejszą konstrukcję od nadwozia Fiat Stilo przypomina solidne auta niemieckie i to jest nowatorskie podejście włoskich stylistów. Niemcy niewiele zmieniają w wyglądzie, a nowego VW Golfa można rozpoznać od razu. Porównujemy pojazdy w wersji 5-drzwiowej - Golfa napędzanego silnikiem benzynowym z Fot. Fiat: Stylistyka nadwozia Fiata Stilo nawiązuje do wzorców bezpośrednim 1,6 l o mocy 115 KM ze Stilo 1,6 l/103 KM. Cechy szczególneWygląda na to, że w Golfie Volkswagen postawił na nowoczesność. Świadczy o tym nowa płyta podłogowa z wielowahaczowym zawieszeniem tylnym i stopniowe wprowadzanie silników benzynowych z bezpośrednim wtryskiem paliwa, do których inni producenci podchodzą z dużą rezerwą. Debiutujący w 2001 r. Fiat Stilo został opracowany według Fot. Golf napędzany silnikiem benzynowym z wtryskiem bezpośrednim 1,6 l/115 KM okazał się autem oszczędniejszym od Fiata, ale pod warunkiem, że jeździ się koncepcji auta kompaktowego, co nie jest jednak żadną wadą. Obaj konkurenci mają zbliżoną długość nadwozia i rozstaw osi, a przestronność wnętrza jest porównywalna. W każdym z tych aut nie jest ciasno również na tylnej kanapie. W bogatszym wyposażeniu Stilo otrzymać można przesuwaną wzdłuż nadwozia tylną kanapę z możliwością indywidualnego ustawiania kąta położenia dzielonych oparć. Tego bardzo praktycznego rozwiązania nie ma w Golfie. W obu pojazdach tablica przyrządów jest czytelna, a obsługiwanie przełączników nie sprawia kłopotu. Na pochwałę zasługują Fot. Fiat: Stilo napędzane benzynowym silnikiem 1,6 l/103 KM jest wystarczająco dynamicznym autem, jednak trzeba się liczyć z zużyciem paliwa w mieście na poziomie 10 l/100 przednie fotele z długimi siedziskami. Większy bagażnik ma Stilo - 370 l, Golf - 350 l. SilnikiNajwiększa różnica między pojazdami dotyczy jednostek napędowych. Golf napędzany jest benzynowym silnikiem z wtryskiem bezpośrednim o pojemności 1,6 l i mocy 115 KM. W Stilo wykorzystano tradycyjny silnik z wtryskiem Fot. VW: Tablica przyrządów oświetlona jest w nocy kolorem fioletowym, a wskazówki są czerwone. Dzięki takiemu zestawieniu kolorów wskaźniki są o pojemności 1,6 l mocy 103 KM. Teoretycznie silnik niemiecki powinien być oszczędniejszy, ze względu na rodzaj wtrysku. I tak jest, ale pod warunkiem, że delikatnie obchodzimy się z pedałem "gazu". Ostra jazda wyklucza oszczędności, a wręcz przeciwnie, silnik ma całkiem spory apetyt na paliwo. Podczas ostrożnej jazdy, różnica na korzyść Golfa podczas jazdy miejskiej wynosi ok. 1,5 l/100 km. Stilo zużywające w mieście ok. 10 l paliwa nie wydaje się zbyt oszczędne. Wrażenia z jazdyFot. Fiat: Z odczytywaniem wskazań przyrządów Fiata nie ma ma bardzo dobre własności jezdne, głównie z racji wielowahaczowego zawieszenia tylnego. Charakterystykę elementów tłumiących zawieszenia dobrano we właściwy sposób i pokonywanie nierówności drogi jest dość skuteczne. Również Stilo całkiem nieźle się prowadzi i tylko w ekstremalnych sytuacjach można zauważyć wyższość Golfa. We włoskim aucie wykorzystano z tyłu tradycyjną belkę Fot. Bagażnik Golfa ma objętość 350 l ( na zdjęciu), a Fiata – 305 łączącą wahacze wzdłużne, która przy właściwym opracowaniu nie jest taka zła. Układ kierowniczy Fiata ze wspomaganiem elektrycznym wydaje się mniej precyzyjny od układu Golfa, w którym zastosowano droższe rozwiązanie elektryczno-hydrauliczne. Podczas rozpędzania na wyższych biegach nieco szybszy jest Golf, jednak podczas normalnej jazdy różnica nie jest dostrzegalna. Wspólna cecha obu aut to Fot. Fiat: Wnętrze Stilo jest równie przestronne jak duże lewe lusterko zewnętrzne. Pojazd niemiecki ma bardziej skuteczny układ hamulcowy. Poziom hałasu u obu konkurentów nie męczy - nieco cichszy jest Golf. PodsumowanieGof i Stilo mają równie przestronne wnętrza i porównywalną dynamikę. Jednak Golf jest droższy od Stilo o 6440 zł i nie jest to mało. W wyposażeniu standardowym Golf ma więcej poduszek powietrznych i układ ASR, za to w Fiacie otrzymujemy klimatyzację i radio. Wydaje się, że różnica w cenie wynika z nowocześniejszych i niestety droższych rozwiązań konstrukcyjnych stosowanych w Golfie. Nabywcy ceniący nowoczesność i prestiż zapewne zdecydują się na Volkswagena, mniej wymagający kupując Fiata, mają możliwość przeznaczenia różnicy w cenie na prezenty, co przed świętami też się liczy. Nasza ocena (+ oznacza przewagę nad konkurentem) VW GolfFiat StiloPrzestronność wnętrzaRemisSilnikRemisPoziom hałasu+ Hamulce+ Dynamika+ Zużycie paliwa+ Nowoczesność konstrukcji+ WyposażenieRemisWybrane dane techniczne: VW GolfFiat StiloLiczba cylindrów/zaworów4/164/16Pojemność skokowa (cm3):15981596Moc maksymalna (KM/obr/min):115/6000103/5750Maks. moment obr. (Nm/obr/min):155/4500145/4000Przyspieszenie 0-100 km/h(s):10,810,5Przyspieszenie (IV b.) 60-100 km/h (s):11,213,5Prędkość maksymalna (km/h):192185Głośność (IV b.) przy 100 km/h (dB)*:6869Droga hamowania od 100 km/h (m):39,140,6Pojemność bagażnika (dm3):350370Pojemność zbiornika paliwa (dm3):5558Zużycie paliwa: trasa/miasto (dm3/100 km):5,3/8,55,7/10,1Długość x szerokość x wysokość (cm):421 x 176 x 149418 x 179 x 148Rozstaw osi (cm):258260Gwarancja mechaniczna/perforacyjna (lata)2/122/12Cena wersji 5-drzwiowej (zł):68 94062 500* - pomiar wg ADACWyposażenie seryjne: VW GolfTrendlineFiat StiloActivepoduszki powietrzne62układ ABSSSukład zapobiegający poślizgowi kół przy ruszaniu ASRS-elektryczne sterowanie szyb przednich/tylnychS/OS/OElektrycznie regulowane i podgrzewane lusterka SSklimatyzacja manualna/automatyczna OS/-radio CDOScentralny zamekSSwspomaganie układu kierowniczegoSSs - wyposażenie seryjneo - wyposażenie za dopłatąPolecane ofertyMateriały promocyjne partnera I pondered exactly the same questions before spending time in this car; now that I have, not so much. Despite its newly minimalist philosophy, the latest Golf’s interior works as well as any I can remember, once you’re used to operating it, and there are still ways in which it’s a cut above its opposition for solid, classy material look and feel. We’ll get to those. Introductions first. The particular Golf we picked for this first comparison exercise was chosen to represent the car at a pretty modest and broadly relevant level – and yet, even at that level, it’s anything but ordinary. Now that 48V mild-hybrid options have been added to a powertrain range that will eventually include at least one plug-in hybrid and several performance versions, you could say the Golf line-up is somewhat complicated. So we thought it best to keep things simple to begin with, hence the 129bhp four-cylinder turbocharged petrol engine and six-speed manual gearbox of our entry-level Life-trim test car. It also has standard passive suspension, a torsion-beam axle at the rear, the boggo 16in alloy wheels and cloth seats. The car the Golf sits next to in this test is the modern version of what has undoubtedly been its notionally and formatively key rival: the Ford Focus. For within £40 of the price of the Golf and in our Focus as tested (with the 123bhp three-cylinder turbo petrol engine), you get mid-level Titanium X rather than base spec, meaning part-leather electric seats and 17in alloys as standard. To run either of these as a company car would cost near enough exactly the same in benefit-in-kind tax, and they’re within £11 per month of each other on a three-year manufacturer PCP deal (at advertised prices). Even so, the Focus does without a host of technology that the Golf gets at no extra cost even as a bottom-rung model. Fully digital instruments, adaptive cruise control, wireless smartphone charging, all-LED headlights… and the Golf has a bigger and better touchscreen infotainment system, too. To top it all, this is a sub-£25,000 car with a fully networked ‘ wireless communication, which can communicate not just with other cars but, in theory, also street lights and dynamic road signs up to a mile away on the road to warn you of changing speed limits and potential hazards up ahead. As it may not surprise you to learn, the Focus can’t do that. As far as this tester is aware, nothing else in the class can either. Europe’s best-selling hatchback just got seriously clever. Get a feel for it Some things in the Golf remain recognisable: the nicely low, couched driving position (notably better than the one in the Focus), the general proportions of your surroundings (there’s still plenty of cabin width and room for adults to sit pretty comfortably in the back) and a few of the fittings. Yet the surprisingly clean-looking centre console and the eerily smooth, glossy-back, flight-console-like swathe of plastic that curves around behind the steering wheel and across the top of the centre stack are both new. The latter definitely owes plenty to the current Mercedes-Benz interior design playbook, but the way it’s shaped and angled towards the driver gives it a vibe all of its own. The 10in infotainment touchscreen is the first port of call to activate and adjust most of the Golf’s secondary systems, and there are a few capacitive shortcut ‘buttons’ underneath it to help you get to a particular function quickly, such as changing the air-con distribution or deactivating the parking sensors. But while it’s not actually a pain to navigate at all, you needn’t go through that central touch-sensitive monolith for absolutely everything. Most importantly, the buttons on the steering wheel spokes give you access to most of the systems and settings you’ll need while driving without taking your hands off the wheel, and you need only look at the instrument binnacle while you’re doing it. Volkswagen has also cleverly included good-sized heater controls just underneath the touchscreen, on which you can very simply swipe left and right to adjust the temperature of the cabin. There’s an audio volume control that works the same way. These are fixed in place, so you can learn to find them without taking your eyes off the road, and they’re simple enough to work well at arm’s length at the first time of asking. There you go: a genuinely simple and easy-to-use ‘touch-sensitive’ dashboard design has arrived. This is going to sound very much like I’ve drunk deep of the Volkswagen-brand Kool-Aid, but to get into the Focus and look around after using the Golf for a few days made me genuinely wonder why a car interior needed so many little knobs and switches just to rattle and squeak and gather dust. That was a first, I can tell you. I’ve always liked a button. The Focus’s interior isn’t that distantly separated from the Golf’s on perceived quality; it’s just that the latter car seems to deploy its richer materials better and make its cheaper ones slightly less shiny and conspicuous. And what about real build quality? Well, lean your left knee on the side of the transmission tunnel in the Focus and it deforms and creaks just a little; in the Golf, it does neither. That says it all, doesn’t it? Better and best Another sort of minimalism applies to what powers these two cars. Twenty years ago, we’d have needed a or petrol engine to produce around 130bhp; now we can get it from a turbo four-pot in the Golf’s case and a turbo three-pot in the Focus’s. What engines they are, by the way: very highly developed, lean-running operators. The Golf’s can run on the Miller cycle to boost efficiency, as well as deactivating half of its cylinders, while the Focus’s can run on just two cylinders under light loads. The upshot is that the Ecoboost engine can easily return 55mpg on a longer, 50-80mph variable-cruising-speed, UK-typical motorway run. The TSI (thanks to the Golf’s newly aerodynamic body design, I suspect) can top 60mpg. Ten years ago, the most frugal diesel engines in the predecessors of these two models would have struggled to better such figures. There’s still nothing like a potential death sentence to speed along the technical development process, clearly. Both engines have accessible torque and good drivability, but it’s the Golf’s that feels marginally the stronger through the mid-range and that has the better cruising manners and mechanical refinement. But while the Focus’s doesn’t pull the higher gears as easily, it’s much the sweeter to wring out – aided by a far slicker and more readily hurried manual gearbox. That’s the first route by which the Focus announces itself – still – as the natural choice for the keen driver. The second is the same way it always has: through a world-class chassis with which the Golf can’t really compete, even now that it has been slightly overhauled. This Golf’s ride is certainly firmer than that of any basic Golf I’ve driven previously. It has good, close, upright body control that doesn’t start to get soggy and floaty when you tackle a tougher country road with a bit of speed, plus steering with a clearer sense of off-centre responsiveness than it used to, making shorter work of roundabouts and junctions. Sure enough, it feels just a little bit sporty. And yet the Focus remains in another dimension for driver appeal. Firmer still around town and at low speed, it needs to be challenged with speed and surface change to show its hand – and when it does, the handling precision and the sophistication of its damping really do leave you stuck for words. All of that and the Focus’s ride is also somehow better isolated than the Golf’s. There remain very few mainstream, common-or-garden passenger cars like this Ford, so very plainly dynamically superior. A hint of elasticity blunts the edge of the steering for outright feel, but it’s so much quicker and more incisive than that of the Golf that you handle the Focus in a markedly different way. Whereas the Golf requires bigger physical inputs, you steer the Ford from your wrists, getting around most corners without needing to move your hands on the rim at all, or your elbows from their respective rests. That intuitive sense of agility, of such little energy wasted in body roll and of chassis composure way beyond what an ordinary family hatchback really needs, is what characterises the Focus driving experience – as vividly now, although perhaps not quite as impactfully, as it ever has. And so the humble Focus remains a deeply special, not-so-humble thing after all. But it’s the greater breadth of appeal of this latest Golf, and the sense that it’s a car of even greater significance, that our verdict must recognise. In a family hatchback market in which interested drivers aren’t so common but active safety, connectivity and technological sophistication and usability rise ever higher among what actually sells, the Golf has managed to break new ground from its familiar position right at the notional centre. If that weren’t remarkable enough, it now offers more to enthusiasts than it used to, while retaining most of its maturity and roundedness and making the kind of strides on efficiency that ought to keep it relevant and put some money in your pocket. This is a different Golf, true enough, slightly less comfortably pipe-and-slippers in its character, and just a touch more dialled in and switched on, but the truth is that it’s probably a stronger real-world operator than ever. Used alternatives If you don’t want to fork out for a factory-fresh family hatchback, the long-standing popularity and dependable reputation of the Focus and Golf make previous-generation examples equally enticing propositions. To make things easier, both cars follow similar development cycles, so venturing back 10 years takes us back two generations to the comparable Mk6 Golf and Mk3 Focus. Think big. How about a 2010 Golf GTI, still an impressive hot hatch, for £7500? Or its lairy Focus ST contemporary for just £50 more? Both are exceedingly clean and wouldn’t embarrass themselves in a showdown with their modern descendants. More sensible versions of the Golf and Focus can be had for less money, even if you fancy a newer model. A frugal 2015 turbo petrol Focus can be snapped up for a hair under £6000, while a diesel Golf from the year after is an absolute bargain at £5395. And let’s not forget: these aren’t old models, so they come fitted with most of the bells and whistles of our shiny new test cars. 2015 Volkswagen Golf TSI GTE, £12,750: Not the cheapest Mk7 Golf in the classifieds, granted, but the GTE is often hailed as the sweet spot in the line-up. This one is five years old but appears to have aged well, with a full service history and niceties such as unmarked leather and a reversing camera. We’d expect it to still be capable of about 43mpg and more than 25 miles of electric driving in town. Compare two cars 2015. - C - Small family car sedan, 4 door front Badges Production Vehicle class Body style Wheel drive Safety 2015. - 2018. C - Small family car sedan, 4 door front Dimensons & Outlines Length Width Height Boot (min) Boot (max) Fuel tank 2015 FIAT Tipo 2015 Ford Focus © GAMA1 Solutions. Copying & distribution prohibited. Engine Diesel 4 - Inline, 4 valves per cylinder Turbo Engine Fuel Configuration Aspiration Displacement Power Torque Diesel 4 - Inline, 4 valves per cylinder Turbo Performance (manual gearbox) Gearbox type Vehicle weight Acc. 0-100 Top speed Cons. (urban) Cons. (highway) Cons. (average) CO2 emissions Performance (automatic gearbox) Gearbox type Vehicle weight Acc. 0-100 Top speed Cons. (urban) Cons. (highway) Cons. (average) CO2 emissions Expenses Virtual Adviser's™ opinion Overview Well, these are two pretty similar cars we have here! It's only details that could potentially make the difference. Considering they both belong to the small family car segment and utilize the same 4-door sedan body style and the front wheel drive system, it all comes up to the specific diesel engine choice they offer. The first one has a FIAT-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 120hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 120hp engine designed by Ford. Safety The fact that the Ford got tested by the European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP), while the other contender didn't, puts it sky-high safety-wise, in my eyes at least. Still, apart from the official crash test results there are other things we need to be aware of. Both vehicles belong to the small family car segment, which is generally classifying them somewhere in the middle safety-wise, but that fact doesn't break the tie between the two cars. Furthermore, when it comes to weight, a factor that most people underestimate, the Italian car offers a marginal difference of 2% more metal. Reliability Reliability is not the best thing to consider on the make level, but it is worth mentioning that both brands display similar results in faults and breakdowns, all the models observed together. That's the official data, while our visitors describe reliability of FIAT with an average rating of and models under the Ford badge with out of 5. Some independent research have also placed Tipo as average reliability-wise, and Focus is more or less at the same it all, drivers of cars with the same engine as the Italian car rank it on average as while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets out of 5. Performance & Fuel economy FIAT is a bit more agile, reaching 100km/h in seconds less than its competitor. In addition to that it accelerates all the way to 200 kilometers per hour, 9km/h more than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy things look pretty much the same for both cars, averaging around 4 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (71 mpg), in combined cycle. Verdict FIAT appears just a bit more reliable, although the difference is truly marginal. The most important thing when deciding between any two vehicles should always be safety, both passive and active. In my opinion, everything taken into account, the American car beats the other contender by far, making it the best choice without even considering other things. From there things take a different direction, with FIAT offering somewhat better performance, just enough to call it quicker. It does come at a cost though, and that's the fuel consumption... All together, there's not much more to say, in this case I wouldn't even consider anything but Ford. Nevertheless, let's not forget that people have different preferences and needs, so what really counts is your personal feel. I'm only here to help. In case you have two minutes to spare I invite you to define your needs, desires and budget and see which car would be chosen by the virtual adviser™, among more than different ones in our database. Check a car by its VIN number Допомагаємо відповісти на питання який автомобіль краще, надійніше і крутіше - Fiat Tipo або Volkswagen GolfЗагальна інформаціяЗмішана витрата6 л/100 кмЕкономніше на лПотужність двигуна122 Мощнее на Час розгону від 0 до 100 км/ч ХарактеристикиГабарити та маса Споряджена маса, кг 1280 1316 Максимально допустима маса, кг 1780 1850 Колісна база, мм 2637 2578 Об'єм паливного бака, л 45 55 Вантажопідйомність, кг 500 534 Об'єм багажника, л 520 350 Двигун Потужність, 110/5500 122/5000 Макс. обертальний момент, Н*м/ 152/4500 200/1500-4000 Витрата пального (приміський цикл) 5 5 Витрата пального (змішаний цикл) 6 Витрата пального (міський цикл) л/100км Норми токсичностi EURO VI IV Розташування циліндрів Послідовне Послідовне Трансмісія Коробка передач Автомат Роботизована Тип приводу Передній Передній Кермо Діаметр розвороту, м 10,9 Підсилювач керма Електропідсилювач Електрогідравлічний Динамічні характеристики Час розгону до 100 км/год, с Максимальна шв., км/год 192 200 Порівняння Fiat Tipo з іншими авто Порівняння Fiat Tipo з Renault Kangoo Fiat Tipo з Kia CeedПорівняння Fiat Tipo з Renault LoganПорівняння Fiat Tipo з Volkswagen PassatПорівняння Fiat Tipo з Ford FocusПорівняння Fiat Tipo з Hyundai AccentПорівняння Fiat Tipo з Citroen Jumpy Fiat Tipo з Renault LagunaПорівняння Fiat Tipo з Volkswagen Golf

fiat tipo vs vw golf