SUVs may be the rage for most manufacturers, but the city-car segment hasn’t been left behind. We pit two of the newest contenders from MG and Suzuki against an old favourite from Volkswagen to find the best of the bunch.
City hatchbacks aren’t big business for car companies like they were five years ago.
Sales of ‘light cars’ have halved over that time, as Australians turn to in-vogue, high-riding SUVs – and prices rise to account for more advanced models with additional safety and convenience features.
But that doesn’t mean the category has fallen flat. In the past 12 months, the top two sellers in the class – the MG 3 and Suzuki Swift – have been redesigned with larger bodies, new interiors, and hybrid power.
To find out if they have what it takes, we’re putting them up against a segment favourite, the Volkswagen Polo, to find out.
Pricing and specifications
The cars on test showcase three different types of powertrains – conventional petrol-only power in the Polo, a mild-hybrid in the Swift, and a full hybrid in the MG.
All are priced around the $30,000 mark. Five years ago, that would have bought you a well-equipped car in the class above – a Volkswagen Golf or Toyota Corolla – but the cost of developing cars to modern safety standards and customer expectations means, in effect, $30,000 has become the new $20,000.
The VW Polo 85TSI Life is the cheapest model in the range. At the time of testing it was priced from $29,490 before on-road costs for Model Year 2024 stock, but has since risen to $30,790 plus on-road costs for MY25 with new technology as standard.
In 2024 it was sold for $31,990 drive-away nationwide as part of a special offer, but it has now reverted to state-by-state drive-away prices of between $32,400 to $33,600 for MY24, or $33,700 to $35,000 for MY25.
This car’s Pure White paint is included in the purchase price, and the $1700 Vision and Technology package offered for MY24 – but not MY25, as many of its features have become standard – has not been optioned here.
The Suzuki Swift Hybrid GLX is the top-of-the-range variant, priced from $29,490 drive-away in all regions of Australia except Queensland and the Northern Rivers region of NSW, where Suzuki cars are sold through a different distributor and the price is $29,990 drive-away.
This test vehicle is finished in Frontier Blue Pearl and Black two-tone paint, pushing its price to between $30,635 and $31,180 drive-away depending on where it is registered.
Finally, the MG 3 Hybrid+ Essence is also the flagship model in the line-up, priced from $29,990 before on-road costs, or about $31,500 to $32,300 drive-away depending on where it is registered – plus a further $500 for this Brighton Blue Metallic paint, and a no-cost white interior. In recent months, MG has offered the car on special for $30,990 drive-away nationwide.
While prices are similar across this trio, they head in different directions when it comes to equipment.
Standard features in all three include LED headlights, alloy wheels, touchscreens with Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, AM, FM and DAB digital radio, leather-trimmed steering wheels, partially or entirely fabric-trimmed seats, rear parking sensors, autonomous emergency braking, and lane-keep assist.
The Suzuki lacks rain-sensing wipers, a front-centre armrest, tyre pressure monitors, and a big digital driver’s display – with a 4.2-inch unit between two analogue dials, rather than the Polo’s 8.0-inch and MG’s 7.0-inch screen – but it’s the only car with wireless Apple CarPlay and heated seats.
The MG’s steering column lacks reach adjustment, and it misses out on wireless phone charging or split-folding rear seats, but it is the only car with a 360-degree camera, sunroof, and genuine rear air vents, with the largest touchscreen of the bunch, at 10.25 inches.
The Volkswagen arguably sits in third place on equipment, lacking blind-spot monitoring, rear cross-traffic alert, keyless entry and start, auto climate control, and 16-inch alloys (instead running on 15s). MY24 models also lack lane-centring assist.
But it has front parking sensors, an airbag between the front seats, and little conveniences like four one-touch up-down windows, a sliding front armrest, and auto-tilting side mirrors when you activate reverse gear.
| Key details | 2025 Volkswagen Polo 85TSI Life | 2025 Suzuki Swift Hybrid GLX | 2025 MG 3 Hybrid+ Essence |
| Price (MSRP) | $29,490 plus on-road costs (MY24) $30,790 plus on-road costs (MY25) |
$27,990 plus on-road costs | $29,990 plus on-road costs |
| Colour of test car | Pure White | Frontier Blue Pearl with Black roof | Brighton Blue Metallic |
| Options | None | Two-tone paint – $1145 | Premium paint – $500 White interior – no cost |
| Price as tested | $29,490 plus on-road costs (MY24) $30,790 plus on-road costs (MY25) |
$29,135 plus on-road costs | $30,490 plus on-road costs |
| Drive-away price | $32,398 (MY24, Sydney) $34,585 (MY25, Sydney) |
$30,635 (Sydney) | $32,460 (Sydney) |
Volkswagen Polo – what is it like inside?
The Polo is the oldest car in the group – launched in 2017 and last updated in 2022 – so it doesn’t look quite as fresh as its peers, but it gives off a classy, European feel that many buyers will appreciate.
Volkswagen has sweat the details. The soft centre armrest extends for shorter arms, the leather on the steering wheel feels like it’s from a more expensive car, the buttons and stalks feel high quality, and there are handy features like side mirrors that dip automatically in reverse gear.
While there are hard plastics around the cabin, it all feels well screwed together – at least in this test vehicle.
The quality feel comes at the cost of equipment. Old-school air-conditioning dials and a turn-key start feel out of place in a new car these days, though some buyers will appreciate the simplicity of these features.
Testers preferred the Volkswagen’s firm but supportive seats, which are trimmed in a comfortable grey cloth, and offer manual adjustment, including height on both sides, and driver’s side lumbar. The steering wheel has tilt and reach adjustment too.
The 8.0-inch infotainment touchscreen is the smallest of the group, and it lacks the Swift and MG’s embedded satellite navigation, but the software is easy to use, the VW’s six-speaker stereo is the best of the three cars on test, and it’s the only car here with conventional volume and tuning dial (albeit augmented by touch-sensitive shortcuts).
Wired Apple CarPlay and Android Auto connect easily – though, oddly, the Polo is also equipped with a wireless phone charger – and there are two USB-C ports up front, a 12-volt socket, and AM, FM and digital DAB radio.
The 8.0-inch driver’s display is easy to read and offers more customisation than the MG’s 7.0-inch screen. Buyers wanting more could previously opt for a widescreen panel in the Vision and Technology pack, which also included wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, but for MY25 this has been discontinued.
Storage is well accounted for, with door pockets large enough for bottles, space around the wireless charger for keys, and the largest centre console box here, but the cupholders aren’t very big.
In the rear, there’s ample knee room and head room for taller six-foot (183cm-plus) occupants, as well as decent toe room under the front seats, but it’s not a limousine – as to be expected in this class.
Passengers stuck with the middle-rear seat will have a large tunnel to straddle, and there are no air vents or a fold-down centre armrest, but there are two USB-C ports, well-sized door pockets, and three top-tether plus two ISOFIX points for securing child seats.
The Polo’s boot is the largest on paper (351L) – and not far off the Golf in the class above – and it swallows a full-sized suitcase with ease.
The boot floor has two positions, and the Volkswagen is the only car on test with a (space-saver) spare wheel – very useful given the patchy state of some of Australia’s roads.
| 2025 Volkswagen Polo 85TSI Life | |
| Seats | Five |
| Boot volume | 351L seats up 1125L seats folded |
| Length | 4080mm |
| Width | 1751mm |
| Height | 1450mm |
| Wheelbase | 2564mm |
| Engine | 1.0-litre three-cylinder turbo petrol |
| Power | 85kW @ 5000–5500rpm |
| Torque | 200Nm @ 2000–3500rpm |
| Drive type | Front-wheel drive |
| Transmission | 7-speed dual-clutch automatic |
| Power-to-weight ratio | 72kW/t |
| Weight (tare) | 1181kg |
| Spare tyre type | Space-saver |
| Payload | 489kg |
| Tow rating | 1100kg braked 610kg unbraked |
| Turning circle | 10.6m |
What is the Volkswagen Polo like to drive?
The latest-generation Volkswagen Polo reset benchmarks in the city-car class for driving refinement when it arrived six years ago, and no competitor at the same price point has managed to match it since.
It has the feel of a bigger car on the road – it’s quiet, composed over bumpy terrain, and feels sturdy – without the size of one.
The 1.0-litre turbo petrol three-cylinder (85kW/200Nm) is a great engine, with enough go for a car of this size, including plenty in the middle of the RPM band, accompanied by a ‘thrummy’ off-beat sound associated with three-cylinders.
But its Achilles heel is the transmission. The seven-speed dual-clutch auto shifts smoothly on the move, but there is considerable lag from a standstill as the clutches engage, made worse by the auto engine stop-start tech that can take a second to fire into life.
It can also be a touch slow to respond to a call for power in its standard D mode, though pushing the gear stick over into S sharpens its responses. We’ve found you learn to anticipate the transmission’s behaviour the more time you spend behind the wheel, but it shouldn’t be that way.
European cars tend to have a firmer feel over bumps than cars from other countries, yet it’s the Volkswagen that our testers found to have the most supple ride of the trio.
It is not a magic-carpet experience – it feels controlled and taut over bumps, rather than exceptionally soft – but the Polo’s chubbier tyres iron out imperfections well, while feeling composed over undulations at higher speeds.
It delivers the most confident handling, too, without much body roll, and unperturbed by mid-corner bumps on roads outside city limits. Around a country-road test loop we ran all three cars around, our testers found themselves relishing their time behind the Polo’s wheel.
The steering is light and easy at low speeds, but also direct and intuitively weighted, while tyre roar and wind noise are well suppressed.
In slow traffic at low speeds the brake pedal can feel a little grabby, but we found ourselves getting used to it over time.
In an emergency situation, quality Continental tyres helped the Polo pull up from 100km/h sooner than its rivals – in 38.2 metres, above average for a small hatchback – while acceleration (10.4 seconds from 0–100km/h) is class-average for a city car.
Suzuki Swift – what is it like inside?
The new Suzuki Swift is based on the DNA of its predecessor, rather than a ground-up new car, so its dimensions have changed little – and it remains one of the smaller cars in the class, nearly a school ruler shorter nose to tail than the MG.
The evolutionary theme continues inside, where the Swift feels old-school – for better and for worse – with analogue dials separated by a small screen, rather than high-tech digital instruments.
Despite its diminutive size, it feels the roomiest up front, with loads of head room and knee room thanks to the tallest roof line of the trio, and a windscreen that’s set quite far forward.
The front seats are soft, comfortable and supportive enough – with fabric upholstery, and unlike the other two cars here, seat heating – while the steering wheel is well sized with tilt and reach adjustment, a leather-like covering, and shift paddles.
The 9.0-inch touchscreen is bigger than the old Swift’s 7.0-inch display, but the software is primitive and not particularly snappy. It offers wireless Apple CarPlay and wired Android Auto – which worked well on test – plus embedded satellite navigation, and AM, FM and digital DAB radio.
Touch-sensitive volume and multimedia shortcuts under the touchscreen are the only controls in the car not handled by a conventional dial or button, and it’s all laid out simply and easily. There is, fortunately, a volume switch on the steering wheel.
More so than the other cars, the Swift can’t hide the fact it’s been built down to a price. While there are some white contrast elements to break up a sea of black, nearly every surface is hard to the touch, there’s no centre armrest, and the manual handbrake takes up much of the storage space on the centre console.
Occupants can store items in adequately sized door pockets and a glovebox, a pair of large cupholders, and space ahead of the gear shifter for a phone or wallet, but space is not class-leading.
Amenities are well catered for, with keyless entry and start, a wireless phone charger, single-zone climate control, two USB-A and one USB-C port, and a 12-volt socket.
Rear-seat space is the tightest of the three cars on test. Head room and toe room are reasonable for my 186cm (6ft 1in) frame, but I found my knees deeper in the front seatbacks than the other cars.
Amenities are spartan in the back of the Swift. There are no USB ports, no map pockets, no centre armrest, and the bottle holders in the doors are tiny.
There is ventilation for rear-seat passengers, but only ‘heating ducts’ under the seats not traditional air vents. Three top-tether and two ISOFIX anchors feature for child seats, but as we’ll discuss later, there are reasons why you may not want to transport kids in this car.
The boot is the smallest of the three (265L), with the least space for a full-sized suitcase – or anything of a similar size you’d like to carry around – and a tyre repair kit under the floor, despite there clearly being the space for a spare wheel. The rear seats fold 60:40 for more room.
| 2025 Suzuki Swift Hybrid GLX | |
| Seats | Five |
| Boot volume | 265L seats up 980L seats folded |
| Length | 3860mm |
| Width | 1735mm |
| Height | 1520mm |
| Wheelbase | 2450mm |
| Engine | 1.2-litre three-cylinder petrol, mild hybrid |
| Power | 61kW @ 5700rpm |
| Torque | 112Nm @ 4500rpm |
| Drive type | Front-wheel drive |
| Transmission | CVT automatic |
| Power-to-weight ratio | 63.7kW/t |
| Weight (kerb) | 957kg |
| Spare tyre type | Tyre repair kit |
| Payload | 408kg |
| Tow rating | 1000kg braked 400kg unbraked |
| Turning circle | 9.6m |
What is the Suzuki Swift hybrid like to drive?
The Swift’s 1.2-litre non-turbo four-cylinder engine is the least powerful of the bunch (61kW/112Nm), but the Suzuki has one thing on its side: weight.
With less than a tonne to pull – about 25 per cent less than the MG – the Suzuki can keep up with traffic, and in the city, the power on offer feels adequate.
Call on it for more acceleration, and you’ll find the Swift’s engine doesn’t have much to offer aside from a lot of noise. It can cruise at freeway speeds just fine, but overtakes are a challenge, and it needs to work hard to extract performance. Zero to 100km/h takes 11.6 seconds, slower than most new dual-cab utes.
The continuously variable automatic transmission (CVT) operates smoothly, and does not stand in the way of the meagre power on offer, but it causes the engine to drone under hard acceleration as it holds the RPM at the optimal point for maximum power.
Suzuki calls the new Swift a hybrid, but it doesn’t feel like one.
It is classified as a mild-hybrid, with a small (2.3kW/60Nm) electric motor intended to assist the engine, rather than propel the car on EV power – but even then, there’s little appreciable performance benefit from the electric motor.
It does enable an auto engine stop-start system at the traffic lights, which works smoothly, and there’s a battery icon on the dashboard to show when it’s charging – but otherwise, it drives like a normal petrol car.
The Swift’s low weight is evident in the way it translates to a nimble feel on the road, keen to turn into corners and delivering a sense of agility even at city speeds.
It is more comfortable to drive than the MG, but it tends to skip and bob over bumps rather than soaking them up with poise like the Volkswagen, and on country roads it does not feel as settled and ‘tied down’ as the others, particularly if the wheels hit a bump in the middle of a corner.
The steering is light and quick – translating to a tiny turning circle – and it’s fun to drive, again thanks to its low weight.
The brake pedal needs a hard push to pull the car up in a hurry, and despite its weight – which should make it easier to slow – the Swift took a poor 41.6 metres to stop from 100km/h on our timing gear, which is in the same league as many two-tonne utes on knobbly off-road tyres.
There is some tyre roar at higher speeds, but it can be drowned out by the stereo.
MG 3 – what is it like inside?
A new MG 3 was long overdue – the previous model dates back to 2011 – and as far as first impressions go, the latest model’s interior makes a strong one.
Two large, bright screens give it a modern feel, with an interesting pattern on the dash inlays, leather-like materials on the dashboard and armrests to offset the hard plastic in other places, and a sunroof – rare for a car at this price.
The front seats are reasonably soft and supportive, with manual adjustment and a mix of cloth and leather-look upholstery, but a frustrating lump where the seat base meets the backrest digs into your body after long stints behind the wheel.
While the white interior looks good in photos, the driver’s seat base in this near-new test car – with less than 4000km on the odometer – has already stained with the pants of journalists who tested this car before us. The black interior is a much safer bet.
Another frustration is the leather-wrapped steering wheel, which is big for a car so small, its buttons are not well marked – though we found ourselves getting our head around them after a while – and the steering column lacks reach adjustment, so tall drivers may struggle to find a comfortable position.
The electric parking brake feels more modern than the levers in the other cars, as does the rotary shift dial, which takes a bit of getting used to, and isn’t as intuitive as a regular stick.
The MG 3’s 10.25-inch infotainment touchscreen is the largest of the group, offering wired Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, in-built navigation, AM, FM and DAB radio, and unlike the other cars there’s support for a smartphone app with vehicle tracking, remote unlocking, and more.
The software looks slick, though it’s down with the Swift for response times, and some of the menus can be confusing to operate.
Unlike the other cars, the air-conditioning controls are built into the touchscreen. There is a physical shortcut button for opening the climate menu, but it doesn’t work in Apple CarPlay or Android Auto – so simple adjustments become a multi-tap process.
The joysticks on the steering wheel can also be mapped to the climate controls – up or down for temperature, and left or right for fan speed – but this feature also doesn’t work in CarPlay or Android Auto, which feels like an odd oversight given this isn’t the case in the MG 4 electric car.
The 7.0-inch instrument display ahead of the driver is clear and allows drivers to show information such as the hybrid battery charge, trip computer or even the current power output.
At first glance, cabin storage appears to be generous, with a decently sized glovebox and space under the armrest, but we found bottles were prone to falling over in the door pockets, and both the sliding tray over the centre console and the cupholder divider to feel flimsy.
The MG 3 does not lead its peers on connectivity – one 12-volt socket, one USB-C port and one USB-A socket, with only the lattermost supporting a CarPlay or Android Auto connection – but it offers a 360-degree camera, keyless entry and start, a sunroof, and single-zone climate control.
The rear door openings aren’t as accommodating as the Polo or Swift, but once in the back of the MG, taller passengers will find decent knee room and head room behind a 186cm-tall driver on par with the Polo, but there is limited toe room under the front seats.
It is the only car with rear air vents, included alongside a USB-A port, map pockets, bottle holders in the doors, and light headlining for an airy feel, but there’s no centre armrest.
The MG’s 293L boot capacity splits its rivals, but should you want more space, the car will be reduced to a two-seater as the rear seats fold in a single piece rather than a 60:40 split. There is also no spare wheel in this hybrid, just a tyre repair kit.
| 2025 MG 3 Hybrid+ Essence | |
| Seats | Five |
| Boot volume | 293L seats up 983L seats folded |
| Length | 4113mm |
| Width | 1797mm |
| Height | 1502mm |
| Wheelbase | 2570mm |
| Engine | 1.5-litre four-cylinder petrol hybrid |
| Power | 75kW @ 6000rpm petrol 100kW electric 155kW combined |
| Torque | 128Nm @ 4500rpm 425Nm combined |
| Drive type | Front-wheel drive |
| Transmission | 3-speed automatic |
| Power-to-weight ratio | 118.5kW/t |
| Weight (kerb) | 1308kg |
| Spare tyre type | Tyre repair kit |
| Payload | 458kg |
| Tow rating | 500kg braked 500kg unbraked |
| Turning circle | 10.4m |
What is the MG 3 hybrid like to drive?
The MG 3 Hybrid+ Essence is the fastest – and most complex – car in this test when the rubber hits the road.
The spec sheet shows a 75kW/128Nm 1.5-litre non-turbo four-cylinder engine combines with a 100kW electric motor and 1.83kWh battery for a combined output of 155kW, all sent to the front wheels through a three-speed, hybrid-specific automatic transmission.
When the battery is full, the MG is unexpectedly quick. More than 150kW is hot-hatch territory, and the electric motor’s instant torque makes zipping into gaps easy.
It stopped the clocks from zero to 100km/h on our satellite timing equipment in just 7.2 seconds – way faster than MG’s 8.0-second claim, and as quick as a turbo Suzuki Swift Sport.
But that’s where cracks in MG’s first ‘plug-less’ hybrid system for Australia start to appear.
Put your foot down and the car will not initially deliver maximum power. It will lean on electricity to begin with, before calling on the petrol engine a few seconds later for a second surge in power, much like activating nitrous in a car-racing video game.
The biggest issue is that, unlike hybrids from other brands – which rarely let their batteries run below 30 to 40 per cent charge, ensuring there’s enough energy left for an unexpected overtake – the MG will deplete its reserves below 15 per cent.
It means that should you call on maximum power in this state, the car has an asthma attack – and struggles to deliver more than about 45kW, well down on the spec sheet’s 155kW.
It’s easiest to replicate on a hilly country road, but we also experienced it in a 50km/h zone, as – two minutes from my home – the car used up all its electricity to climb a hill, before being asked for a burst of power to overtake a car, only to have little to give.
There’s no way of manually forcing charge into the battery, and unless the driver stares at the energy flow screen on the instrument display, no way of knowing when this loss of power occurs.
Fortunately, MG has announced a software update due later this year that’s intended to address this issue, which also affects the related MG ZS hybrid. We look forward to testing it when it arrives.
The rest of the MG 3 driving experience is acceptable, but not as polished as its rivals.
Comfort over bumps trails the Polo and Swift, with suspension that is firmer over city streets – yet not as well controlled at higher speeds – and inconsistent steering, which on the open road can feel heavy into one corner than unusually light into the next.
The Kumho tyres can also struggle with the power on offer – even in the dry, prone to wheelspin and below-average braking performance (stopping in 40.1m from 100km/h) – and there’s more body roll than you might expect for a little hatch.
Tyre roar and wind noise are reasonably well isolated, and the transition between the electric motor’s regenerative braking – available in three intensities – and the ‘friction’ disc brakes is well judged.
Overall, the MG 3 does not disgrace itself on the road, with agreeable manners and surprising straight-line performance – but it is not a match for the Polo and Swift, and the inconsistent hybrid system is arguably its biggest weakness (for now, at least).
Which is the safest car?
Safety is an important factor in most new-car purchases, but especially so for city cars, which may be a buyer’s first car – or their last new vehicle.
And it is here where the comparison was, for one car, lost.
All three vehicles are fitted with autonomous emergency braking, lane-keep assist, rear-view cameras and rear parking sensors, as well as at least six airbags.
The Polo is the only car with seven airbags – featuring one between the front seats to prevent occupants’ heads clashing in a side impact – but it misses out on the blind-spot monitoring, rear cross-traffic alert, and traffic sign recognition of the other cars.
MY24 versions also miss out on adaptive cruise control and lane-centring assist, something that has been added as standard for MY25 (albeit for a price).
The systems it does have are the best calibrated of the three cars. The lane-keep assist system is not intrusive, regular cruise control on this test car is easy to use, and no traffic sign recognition means no annoying beeps and bongs if the car thinks the speed limit has been exceeded.
The MG’s safety systems are in need of the most refinement.
The lane-keep assist is not too pushy, though it could be better, the lane-centring assist tech tends to wander between the markings – or simply not recognising them at all – and the traffic sign monitor can misread signs, beeping at the driver for speeding when it is the car that has picked up a lower, incorrect limit.
It is the only car with a 360-degree camera, but like the Suzuki it has rear parking sensors only – lacking the Polo’s front sensors.
The Suzuki’s adaptive cruise-control system is on the primitive side – it can only bring the car to a full stop, not set off again automatically when the car ahead moves away – though its lane-centring technology works well, and while it has an overspeed warning that can misread signs, it is not as loud as the one in the MG.
While the Polo misses out on some technology fitted to the MG and Swift, it is the only car here with a five-star ANCAP safety rating, based on 2022 testing.
The MG 3 earned just three stars, and the Swift was slapped with just one star in Australia, losing marks across both how it protects occupants in a crash, and how well its technology can prevent one.
That one-star score for the Australian market Swift is down from three stars for the European version against the same criteria, and performed worse in physical crash tests, indicating the Australian model is not as safe in a crash as its overseas counterpart.
The Swift earned category scores of 47 per cent for adult occupant protection, 59 per cent for child occupant protection, 76 per cent for vulnerable road user protection, and 54 per cent for safety assist technology.
Translation: even if it earned top marks in the other three categories, the Swift’s adult crash protection score would have limited it to a one-star overall rating regardless.
The MG 3 earned 72 per cent for adult occupant protection, 74 per cent for child occupant protection, and 76 per cent for vulnerable road user protection.
Those results would have been enough for four stars had the 58 per cent safety assist score not just fallen short of the 60 per cent minimum needed for that rating – a vehicle’s ANCAP score is determined by its lowest-performing category – limiting it to three stars.
Meanwhile, the Polo earned 94 per cent for adult occupant protection, 80 per cent for child occupant protection, 70 per cent for vulnerable road user protection, and 70 per cent for safety assist technology.
It must be said the Polo was tested to 2022 ANCAP criteria, rather than the newer and more stringent 2024 standards of the other two, so there is no guarantee it would earn five stars if tested again today.
However, it must be said its result in the adult occupant protection category, which is what matters most to many buyers, is well into five-star territory – it scored 94 per cent against a minimum for top marks of 80 per cent – and the test criteria in this area have not changed much since 2022.
| At a glance | 2025 Volkswagen Polo 85TSI Life | 2025 Suzuki Swift Hybrid GLX | 2025 MG 3 Hybrid+ Essence |
| ANCAP rating & year tested | Five stars (tested 2022) | One star (tested 2024) | Three stars (tested 2024) |
| Safety report | ANCAP report | ANCAP report | ANCAP report |
Which is the cheapest city car to run and own?
The Volkswagen Polo and Suzuki Swift are covered by a five-year/unlimited-kilometre warranty – the industry standard – but for buyers who plan to keep their car for more than five years, neither rival can match the MG 3’s 10-year/250,000km assurance.
Nissan and Mitsubishi also offer 10-year warranties – with kilometre caps of 300,000km and 200,000km respectively – but those brands require customers to exclusively service their vehicle within each brand’s dealer network, whereas MG does not.
For owners who intend to use their vehicle for ‘commercial purposes’, such as rideshare services, the warranty periods are capped at five years/160,000km for the Swift, five years/150,000km for the Polo and seven years/160,000km for the MG, all whichever comes first.
The high-voltage battery in the MG is covered under the same warranty period as the vehicle itself.
Servicing costs over five years amount to $1955 for the Swift, $2008 for the MG 3 and a dear $3514 for the Polo, though intervals are set at 12 months/15,000km for the Suzuki and Volkswagen, but only 12 months/10,000km for the MG.
Fuel consumption tells a similar story. None of these cars are what you’d call thirsty on fuel, but there was a surprising difference in fuel use in our testing.
Over a mix of city, highway and country-road driving, we saw consumption – measured at the bowser – of 4.6 litres per 100 kilometres in the MG, 5.2L/100km in the Swift, and 7.0L/100km in the Polo.
Those compare to manufacturer claims of 4.3L/100km for the MG, 4.0L/100km for the Swift, and 5.4L/100km in the Polo.
In other words: the Suzuki is the most frugal on paper, but the MG used the least petrol in reality.
We found the MG to be thirstiest in exclusively highway driving – whereas the Swift and Polo were surprisingly close – while it’s more frugal around town, where its hybrid system can recoup energy under braking.
All three vehicles need 95 or 98-octane premium unleaded, which will add to running costs.
| At a glance | 2025 Volkswagen Polo 85TSI Life | 2025 Suzuki Swift Hybrid GLX | 2025 MG 3 Hybrid+ Essence |
| Warranty | Five years, unlimited km | Five years, unlimited km | 10 years, 250,000km |
| Battery warranty | N/A | N/A | 10 years, 250,000km |
| Service intervals | 12 months or 15,000km | 12 months or 15,000km | 12 months or 10,000km |
| Servicing costs | $1749 (3 years) $3514 (5 years) |
$1157 (3 years) $1955 (5 years) |
$922 (3 years) $2008 (5 years) |
| Fuel cons. (claimed) | 5.4L/100km | 4.0L/100km | 4.3L/100km |
| Fuel cons. (on test) | 7.0L/100km | 5.2L/100km | 4.6L/100km |
| Fuel type | 95-octane premium unleaded | 95-octane premium unleaded | 95-octane premium unleaded |
| Fuel tank size | 40L | 37L | 36L |
Which city car should I buy?
All three of these city cars have their share of positives and negatives, and as such will appeal to different buyers. This comparison proved to be a closer fight than our testers anticipated, but there can only be one winner.
One car must also come third, and here it’s the Suzuki Swift.
This car really surprised our judges. It has a charming character, it’s one of the more frugal options, it’s the cheapest to buy, and it’s refreshingly simple and light in today’s age of complex modern cars.
However, it lacks the space, technology or performance to compete with the best, and it is ultimately the disappointing one-star safety rating – and that Australian cars are not as safe as their European counterparts – that makes the Swift difficult to recommend.
Second place goes to the MG 3.
If you plan to keep your car for more than five years, this is the one to buy. It has the longest feature list, the most technology, plenty of space inside, and it’s the quickest on paper.
But the three-star safety rating is sub-par, and the driving experience isn’t as polished as we’d like. While there is a non-hybrid available, it’s not as frugal as this – and not all of our complaints behind the wheel are related to the hybrid tech.
There are also a few corners cut in terms of ergonomics and the operation of the technology inside.
That means our winner is the Volkswagen Polo Life.
Whereas the other cars feel like cheaper vehicles with luxury features thrown at them to justify the price, this feels like a more expensive, more refined car, just with a slimmer equipment list.
It’s not cheap to buy or run, nor is it as well equipped on interior features or safety as the others, but it is the roomiest inside, it’s the easiest to drive, the most comfortable, and the technology on offer is the easiest to use.
It lacks a few of the others’ mod-cons, but its combination of space, pace and polish on the road hands it the win in this test.
The post Best city car in Australia: 2025 MG 3 vs Suzuki Swift vs Volkswagen Polo comparison review appeared first on Drive.