RE: SOTW: Volkswagen Golf GTI 16V
Discussion
richb77 said:
Er...I'll pass thanks.
Too lardy and too slow. Lost all the positives of the Mk1 & Mk2 and is a GTI in name only. I had a VR6 in this shape and even that was a bit lack luster.
Not my cup of tea at all but i am sure it will float someones boat.
They weigh about 1100kg. That is far from Lardy in modern car terms. Too lardy and too slow. Lost all the positives of the Mk1 & Mk2 and is a GTI in name only. I had a VR6 in this shape and even that was a bit lack luster.
Not my cup of tea at all but i am sure it will float someones boat.
I like the Mk3. A mate of mine had a 16v and it had a factory colour coding option, so it didn't have any black plastic trim. Looked quite nice at the time.
However, said car suffered a cam tensioner failure which required about £700 work of parts and he did the labour him self.
Ah, yes, the allegedly "lardy... too heavy... etc" Mk3 GTI 16V, which, IIRC, is actually 100kg lighter than the "nimble" 306 GTi.
FWIW, a few years ago I wanted either a used 306 GTi or Mk3 16V. All the FSH 306s I sampled had slack gearshifts, engines felt tired/down-on-power, interiors rattled like a skeleton having a tonk in a filing cabinet, missing/broken trim, with iffy windows and random remote locking/alarms.
Whereas the FSH 16Vs felt tight and solid all-round, cabins 'as-new', gearshifts still slick/precise, engines seemed barely run-in and felt eager. And, dare I say it, I preferred the 16V's steering - OK, so it's a wee bit less responsive than the 306's, but IMHO the 16V's has better feedback and consistency.
So, I bought a 16V. Had 3.5 years of 100% reliability; it cost now't but a routine service every 10k/year, with no 'nasty surprises'/big bills; engine had zero oil consumption and was always well within the MOT emissions test; during 'brisk' long-runs it still managed 38mpg and it was surprisingly entertaining on B-roads.
But, be aware that the coil - note singular; no f
ing coil packs on a Mk3 - will suddenly die at c. 90k, but it needs only a screwdriver and less than 5 mins to replace, and costs buttons. And make sure the cam belt/tensioner/pump job is done every 5 yrs/60k.
Great article about a fine car
FWIW, a few years ago I wanted either a used 306 GTi or Mk3 16V. All the FSH 306s I sampled had slack gearshifts, engines felt tired/down-on-power, interiors rattled like a skeleton having a tonk in a filing cabinet, missing/broken trim, with iffy windows and random remote locking/alarms.
Whereas the FSH 16Vs felt tight and solid all-round, cabins 'as-new', gearshifts still slick/precise, engines seemed barely run-in and felt eager. And, dare I say it, I preferred the 16V's steering - OK, so it's a wee bit less responsive than the 306's, but IMHO the 16V's has better feedback and consistency.
So, I bought a 16V. Had 3.5 years of 100% reliability; it cost now't but a routine service every 10k/year, with no 'nasty surprises'/big bills; engine had zero oil consumption and was always well within the MOT emissions test; during 'brisk' long-runs it still managed 38mpg and it was surprisingly entertaining on B-roads.
But, be aware that the coil - note singular; no f
ing coil packs on a Mk3 - will suddenly die at c. 90k, but it needs only a screwdriver and less than 5 mins to replace, and costs buttons. And make sure the cam belt/tensioner/pump job is done every 5 yrs/60k.Great article about a fine car
My coil suddenly died at 107k but I take the point. Despite changing the ignition barrel, mine also suffered a slow churning start, despite a new battery and the gearshift was terrible until I stripped it down and replaced the hardened grease on that weird rubber ball in the linkage.
I have some thoughts on post-Mk1/Mk2 Golf GTis in this blog post: http://www.roadpage.co.uk/post/48065886134/youve-b...
[I've clicked the 'Rules of Posting' and don't see any rules against linking to blog posts but apologies if I've broken etiquette!]
[I've clicked the 'Rules of Posting' and don't see any rules against linking to blog posts but apologies if I've broken etiquette!]
I currently own a mk3 Anniversary GTI with the 8v engine (I blame the wife as she's a learner and couldn't insure on my Passat 1.8t)
and it's not fast and the std handling if poor, but mine has being 100% reliable and much better built than the most other rivals from that period (if there's any left)
plus mine is 99.5% rust free (it has a couple of stone chips that will be dealt with when it's dry!)
and it's not fast and the std handling if poor, but mine has being 100% reliable and much better built than the most other rivals from that period (if there's any left)
plus mine is 99.5% rust free (it has a couple of stone chips that will be dealt with when it's dry!)
Spurtboy said:
I have some thoughts on post-Mk1/Mk2 Golf GTis in this blog post: http://www.roadpage.co.uk/post/48065886134/youve-b...
[I've clicked the 'Rules of Posting' and don't see any rules against linking to blog posts but apologies if I've broken etiquette!]
Quality Lurking. [I've clicked the 'Rules of Posting' and don't see any rules against linking to blog posts but apologies if I've broken etiquette!]
Spurtboy said:
I have some thoughts on post-Mk1/Mk2 Golf GTis in this blog post: http://www.roadpage.co.uk/post/48065886134/youve-b...
[I've clicked the 'Rules of Posting' and don't see any rules against linking to blog posts but apologies if I've broken etiquette!]
Wow, that's a lot of assumptions about someone you know nothing about, based on the colour of their car and the number of doors on it.[I've clicked the 'Rules of Posting' and don't see any rules against linking to blog posts but apologies if I've broken etiquette!]
Top Shed this week, PH, well done Sir!
A much-maligned car, is the MK3 Golf.... I had the GTI MK1 and then my son had the MK2 GTI. We also believed the "MK3 is rubbish" line; that is until Ian bought a 16V 3-door one for a very budget price as a cheap runabout for use in London EC1 and 2.
As you then do, it was "parked" out here with me in S Bucks for the 3 weeks that it takes to get a new on-street parking permit out of the bureaucracy in Tower Hamlets. As you also then do, I gave it a bit of a go a few times, "to keep the battery charged, son".
Was very pleasantly surprised; tight, drove well, surprisingly good performer. Got into a tussle with a new BMW M5 (the last model) down our local by-pass. Only two lanes, so the jobsworths who kept pulling out in front of him also kept pegging him back so I could reel him in. I remember thinking "who's having the most fun here, me in a £2.5K Golf or him in the £60K M5? It had Recaro front seats too; not sure if these were an optional extra when ordering new, but they were certainly the most comfortable seats I've ever been in and I've had cars that cost an awful lot more. Nice one - keep them coming...
A much-maligned car, is the MK3 Golf.... I had the GTI MK1 and then my son had the MK2 GTI. We also believed the "MK3 is rubbish" line; that is until Ian bought a 16V 3-door one for a very budget price as a cheap runabout for use in London EC1 and 2.
As you then do, it was "parked" out here with me in S Bucks for the 3 weeks that it takes to get a new on-street parking permit out of the bureaucracy in Tower Hamlets. As you also then do, I gave it a bit of a go a few times, "to keep the battery charged, son".
Was very pleasantly surprised; tight, drove well, surprisingly good performer. Got into a tussle with a new BMW M5 (the last model) down our local by-pass. Only two lanes, so the jobsworths who kept pulling out in front of him also kept pegging him back so I could reel him in. I remember thinking "who's having the most fun here, me in a £2.5K Golf or him in the £60K M5? It had Recaro front seats too; not sure if these were an optional extra when ordering new, but they were certainly the most comfortable seats I've ever been in and I've had cars that cost an awful lot more. Nice one - keep them coming...
I dont get the "lardy" comments, these are under 1100kg cars with 150bhp. Not many cars for sale today that are anywhere near that. Yes it's heavier than a mk2 golf but a mk2 doesn't have airbags, aircon or ABS. I have the same engine in my passat which is a smidge under 1200kg and it's not a slow car yet does 35mpg day to day average and over 40mpg on a run. The engine in these is probably one of the best lumps VW ever made, just before emissions regs killed N/A output and screwed over reliability. Mine has now done 242000 miles- doesn't use any oil, has no rattles and good compression. They just go on and on, only weak points are crank position sensors where the wiring gets hot and brittle, and the coils are a rubbish design.
That said, the mk3 Golf is an ugly old shed. They lost all of the sharpness of the previous generation (mk2 golf, mk3 passat, corrado) and the blobby styling hasn't aged as well.
That said, the mk3 Golf is an ugly old shed. They lost all of the sharpness of the previous generation (mk2 golf, mk3 passat, corrado) and the blobby styling hasn't aged as well.
I've never been a fan of mk3's because they look as dull as dishwater, (but there again didn't every hatch from the mid 90's?) although the one my housemate is trying to sell is pretty sweet!!
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1997-Volkswagen-GOLF-MK3...
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1997-Volkswagen-GOLF-MK3...
I think the MK1 is per over feted, "Personality goes a long way" and I have fond memories of the two I had but they were never perfect, the brakes were never much good with that awful bell crank linkage, the gear change soon went off and the K jet fuel injection meant that they all varied a lot.
I always thought the MK2 was much better in every way, the interior was way better, the brakes were better, didnt feel any slower, we got a 16 valve version, bigger wheels, decent fuel injection that didnt wander off tune and they looked pretty much as good.
MK3 was a dissapointment as it was so ugly in comparison, gone were the crisp lines and this blobby thing appeared, never got used to it, until, strangely now I think Ihave warmed to it a bit more.
I always thought the MK2 was much better in every way, the interior was way better, the brakes were better, didnt feel any slower, we got a 16 valve version, bigger wheels, decent fuel injection that didnt wander off tune and they looked pretty much as good.
MK3 was a dissapointment as it was so ugly in comparison, gone were the crisp lines and this blobby thing appeared, never got used to it, until, strangely now I think Ihave warmed to it a bit more.
Been in a MK3 8v GTI several times, I don't think I can think of a car any less deserving of the badge, with the exception of the MK4's without proper motors. I can see Skoda Felicia switchgear and steering wheel in the interior and cant help but feel that might be more fun to drive!
Nowt wrong with this car. I have driven a few of these and they were not bad (just not that exciting). Not very fast but with the crazy insurance that was around at the time it made sense.
Not the best GTI (and i am a former holy grail Mk1 owner), but a decent car and this example looks like decent value.
Not the best GTI (and i am a former holy grail Mk1 owner), but a decent car and this example looks like decent value.
Dimski said:
I remember reading that. A while ago now, so if anyone's got a copy and wishes to correct me on the following please feel free! 
Was it not in a supplement/feature which, if I'm remembering correctly, read like a VW advertorial? That's certainly my memory. There was not a bad word said about any of the GTIs, each one was a 'developement to suit their market...' and so on. If not an advertorial, my memory is that it was more a celebration of the Golf GTI, and not an impartial review.
Which leads me to my next thought... and where my memory could well be just (as) wrong. I can remember thinking at the time I read it that they'd chosen models that would give them the lap times they wanted... i.e. mk1 1.6 GTI, mk2 1.8 8v, mk3 2.0 16v, and finally mk4 1.8T.
Anyone got a copy of the original?
Decent shed though, I'm liking the variety we're seeing.
spot on,the only failing of the mk2 16v against the mk 3 was the brakes,utterly atrocious.if you were lucky you got two hard braking attempts in 2 miles then they faded completely,terrible on such a great carWas it not in a supplement/feature which, if I'm remembering correctly, read like a VW advertorial? That's certainly my memory. There was not a bad word said about any of the GTIs, each one was a 'developement to suit their market...' and so on. If not an advertorial, my memory is that it was more a celebration of the Golf GTI, and not an impartial review.
Which leads me to my next thought... and where my memory could well be just (as) wrong. I can remember thinking at the time I read it that they'd chosen models that would give them the lap times they wanted... i.e. mk1 1.6 GTI, mk2 1.8 8v, mk3 2.0 16v, and finally mk4 1.8T.
Anyone got a copy of the original?
Decent shed though, I'm liking the variety we're seeing.
.
as the cars aged they absolutely ate rear calipers as well(mk2). my wifes mk 3 went on fire twice,only small fires mind ! being an 8v it was gutless over 4500 rpm.mates 16v was far better but slower down a local b road.the mk3 lacked the solid build feel of the mk2
also owned a vr6 at the same time as the mk 2 16v.intended to let my wife use the mk2 16v while i got the vr6.never been so disappointed in a car in my life as i was in the vr.very heavy compared to the mk2 16v,but probably felt worse due to the high centre of gravity,which was rammed home (literally) when landing from a jump 20mph slower than i would have taken it in the mk2 (being cautious first time over it in the vr)as it landed nose first and looking what felt straight down as the black trim strip was ripped off the front bumper and i near soiled myself.
i swapped back to the mk2 the very next day and my wife got the vr.the vr was in standard trim on standard suspension and handled like a boat,very soft.to be fair to it the engine had a load of grunt (couldnt pull away from the mk2 til over 110 mph though)and was a real laugh in the wet.
my brother is 21 years younger than myself but loves mk 3 golfs,especially the vr.he is getting a 500hp car built at the moment ,i think he is off his head.personally i would still ave a mk2 over any other golf bar a mk5 r32,but thats an age thing.
I ran a 1996 Mk3 8v (the most maligned of the bunch) for eighteen months and 8000 miles between 07 and 08. During that time it used no oil or coolant, always got me where I wanted to go and back and basically just ran as a car should. Sold it with 149k on the clock and according to DVLA it's still taxed so will be on about 180k by now. The AGG engine in the 8v is virtually unburstable with correct servicing. As for the rust issues. mine had a bit around the tailgate badge, that was it.
Massively over-engineered cars in my opinion. If I needed a cheap car I'd start off by looking at Mk3 Golfs.
Massively over-engineered cars in my opinion. If I needed a cheap car I'd start off by looking at Mk3 Golfs.
Where does all this revisionist motoring press reviling of the GTI Mk3 come from? When it was new, Autocar gave the 8 valve 5 stars for handling and gave the 16 valve the nod against all its competitors, including the 306 S16, which was basically the GTi-6 minus the 167 BHP engine and 6 gears....it was faster than the mk4 GTI Turbo which followed it and quicker than the preceeding Mk2 16 valve according to my Road test book of Golfs...hitting 134 MPH top speed and 0-100 in 22.3 seconds, meaning it held the title of fastest Golf GTI tested by Autocar for 12 years until the MK5 appeared in 2005 (i'm ignoring the limited edition 180 BHP turbo mk4)....It weighed 1160 kgs, which was 151KG up on the Mk2, but 240 Kgs lighter than the Mk6 and actually lighter than the Fiesta ST road tested this week. All in all not so bad really...just a bit softer than the earlier models.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff