Autotrader's view on the G40

[ben_91]

sorry if it's a repost

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/carreviews/grouptests/252481/volkswagen_polo_g40.html

[hardchargin40]

Never seen that before, good find! 

I found the reviewer sounded abit negative throughout as though he was ordered to review it against his will.  Constantly comparing it against its brand new successers. 

For what it stood for in the early nineties (uk wise), it held its own against its rivals (205 1.6 GTi and nova GTe).  In those days, it was all about driver involvement, semi good power output and lightweightness - and cheap to run.  Compare that of todays standards, modern technology being used to great effect but the safety bridage ensure hot hatches are the size of a bus, weight as much but thats ok as they just increase power levels - the downside is running costs, repair/maintenance (i suppose the same to an extent could of been said about our cars back then too, maintenance cost wise but still not inthe same league).   Lurid pattern seats - Reviewers preference i guess, Ive always liked them.

[AdzCM]

Such an irratating review and I agree that its unfair to be compared to modern cars. And that 0-60 time must be with an old man at the wheel.

[Alex]

Trouble is they're giving it to a motoring journo who probably spends most of their time hopping between new cars.

By comparison, the poverty spec G40 won't feel like much. And they're not that fast or well sorted out of the box either.

It's not that negative considering.

[Yoof]

'VW shifted only 616 in four years' - that'll be the limited run then... 

I'd not call the gearbox short ratio either...

[supercharged spaniel]

I think its a fair review actually.  I don't feel he's too negative.  Remember the majority of the people who'll read this need to have something to compare it to in order to understand where he's coming from.  Not everyone remembers or is as familiar with older cars as us lot.  Newer cars as a comparison helps the reader to understand and gives them perspective.