QUOTE(phas3r @ Jan 2 2011, 02:02 AM)
175 Nm @ 1550rpm, + DSG..... bmw 320i struggled to keep up.
I did some approximate calculations and here are the results of the power bands between the Polo 1.2 TSI and Civic 1.8S:
1,550rpm = Polo (38hp), Civic (31.57hp)
3,000rpm = Polo (73.7), Civic (68hp)
4,000rpm = Polo (98hp), Civic (95hp)
5,000rpm = Polo (105hp), Civic (119hp)
6,000rpm = Polo (102hp), Civic (139hp)
Calculations were based on torque output at the given rpms (converted from Nm to pound foot) x rpm, then divided by 5252.
So, this explains the "seat of the pants" feeling of driving a turbocharged Polo TSI at anything below 4,000rpm and in that sense I can concur that driving the Polo around town can be compared to a 2.0-litre NA car; however for acceleration and top speed you can see that the Civic is no slouch here. The main difference is not because of the turbocharging, but the fact that the Polo is just slightly over 1 tonne while the Civic is heavier at 1.24 tonnes. No need to mention about transmission loss, as the Civic's 5AT only robs approximately 20% of power to the wheels, which is very close to that of a manual tranny.
If you look at this vid, you'll see that the lack of low end torque doesn't impede the Civic, as the gears are designed to upshift at around its max torque output for flat out driving:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkdUURkcZ9c&feature=relatedNonetheless, that @$$-shoving low end torque of the Polo is more fun as a daily driver. If only the seats weren't so cramped lol...