RE: New Golf GTI: too little, too late?

[excel monkey]

Unlight said:

I think a lot of people are stuck in the past, when a newly launched EP3 Civic Type R would cost around £15k. However, that was over a decade ago - its now 2013, and your absolute base model 1.4 Civic now costs £17k. Makes the range topping GTi look like its more value now..

No, it makes the new base Civic look shockingly overpriced.

[OJ80]

Would it be inappropriate to mention here that I have a Mk3 16v that looks exactly like that one for sale...?

[TameRacingDriver]

CBA to read the whole thread, but I have to comment on this:-

"this next stat will surprise you. The now-reviled Mk4 was a big hit, with a whopping 17,557 GTIs sold in 1999, or 29 per cent of the total. "

Hardly surprising since they stuck a GTI badge on pretty much every model on the Mk4

[Tomatogti]

Killboy said:

I think people are getting confused as to what constitutes a hatch now. Modern Golf's are more family sized cars than compact hatches. Thats why there are now two models of car smaller. They becoming more real competitors to C segment sedans, and in those terms the pricing is reflected a little better

+1

Up, Fox, Lupo, Polo, Golf

It's a great all round fast family car - but it's not the lightweight hatch it was in Mk 1 & 2 guise. Nothing wrong with that, just don't expect it to be.

[NGK210]

PH wrote:
"Or maybe it's time for a reassessment of the Mk4 - the 150bhp 1.8T rather than the 2.0 of course. This unmolested, low-mileage car from 2001 here is a tempting £2,850."

Not when a Mk1 Leon Cupra, which is also based on the Golf 4 platform, has a 180bhp 1.8T, a six-speed 'box and a sweeter chassis/steering set-up. (Albeit with a hybrid A3 dash/cabin that uses Airfix-grade plastics.)

[vsonix]

zabba said:

Not that surprising really, I suspect a large number of sales in past years were company cars. Most of these buyers now want 120d/320d/A3 TDI/Golf TDI etc etc. Decent performance without the fuel and co2 compromise.

Plus the fact the economy has been in complete disarray over the past god-knows-how-long must have something to do with it! It appears to me that vast proportions of 'average' Britons can't afford new cars unless they're Korean and scrappage schemes tempt them into giving up their perfectly reliable middle-aged car to buy it.

[Bitzer]

NGK210 said:

PH wrote:
"Or maybe it's time for a reassessment of the Mk4 - the 150bhp 1.8T rather than the 2.0 of course. This unmolested, low-mileage car from 2001 here is a tempting £2,850."

Not when a Mk1 Leon Cupra, which is also based on the Golf 4 platform, has a 180bhp 1.8T, a six-speed 'box and a sweeter chassis/steering set-up. (Albeit with a hybrid A3 dash/cabin that uses Airfix-grade plastics.)

I've just bought a 2003 SEAT Toledo - Leon with a boot - as a £1500 snotter as I'm now getting the train to work. It's got the 1.8T 180 6 speed box and goes pretty well for something that looks pretty dowdy. The dash plastics are from an early A3 but no worse than a mk4 Golf.

My previous car was a mk5 GTI that was an excellent car with more than enough go for every day use, decent fuel economy and inconspicuous (a plus for me, not necessarily for everyone).

When my current contract ends and if a car is needed, I'll definitely be looking at a mk7 GTI. I normally get the combined figures on most cars I've owned, so 47 mpg would be more than acceptable as a bonus.

[nixon1]

folos said:

That said the R does little for me, if a new one had a 300hp V6 then id have the perfect replacement for my mk5 r32 :-)

I had the same problem moving from my (leased R32). Tried a E46 330ci, missed the Golf. Got an Audi S4, love the power but it is a bit big/old man ... miss the Golf!

I remember the excitement of the R being delivered and no doubt its the same for any GTI or ED30 owners. The butterflies feeling is really important. The best bit about the GTI is to the wife it looks like a regular Golf, yet to your mates its a racy mistress !

[toppstuff]

Twincam16 said:

God I hope not. We have a whole fleet of cars at work including soft-roaders and I absolutely dread being lumbered with them. Too bulky, driving position too high, blatantly too heavy when you take it through the corners, you feel like a mobile obstruction, you can't see anything once it gets within a metre of your car and they're a right PITA to park. Horrid things. Can't for the life of me work out why anyone in their right mind would want one over a Golf or suchlike other than 'marketing told them to', in which case they're an impressionable prat.

I like em.

Primarily because of the driving position. Being high up has its advantages. Driving on B roads you can make decent progress because you can see over hedges. You can't do that in an Elise....

[octagon8]

in australia the GTI makes up something like 25% of all golf sales. Its certainly popular here

[Colonial]

octagon8 said:

in australia the GTI makes up something like 25% of all golf sales. Its certainly popular here

Yep. That's because it is very well priced in this market. So is the Golf R.

[nickfrog]

White Lightning said:

my old Focus ST-3 was only 21k and that was top of the range. Now the same money won't even get you a bottom of the range new Focus ST.

Yes it will. http://www.uk-car-discount.co.uk/results.php?make=...

And that's 5 doors.

And you'll even get metallic paint and cruise added for £21K.

And that's despite years of inflation and Sterling having lost 25% of its value so in real terms, the new Focus is quite a lot cheaper than the old one.

[shoestring7]

BBS-LM said:

I just don't class the GTI Golf as a Hot Hatch anymore, [/footnote]

The solo blast I had across quiet but slippery Hants/Sussex roads and lanes yesterday morning in a mk5 Gti DSG tells me you're wrong. It was a hoot; lots of movement inspite of ESP, plenty of acceleration to deal with the odd dawdler, enough performance for bigger speeds on the open stuff, great body control to deal with frost battered surfaces, but still enough compliance to allow my fillings to remain in place. After lunch, a relaxing mooch back down the motorway followed by taking the two SS Juniors plus their kit to various sports activities. The day before I'd used it to deliver a 911 gearbox to the other end of the county. Average consumption for each day; 38mpg and 27.5mpg.

This ability to combine performance, fun and practicality is what makes a hot hatch for me, and why I keep coming back to one as a daily driver. BTW previously I have owned or been the keeper of:
Golf Mk2 Gti
Golf Mk3 Gti
Golf Mk3 VR6
Golf Mk4 GT Tdi
Ford Escort XR3i
Ford Escort RS turbo
Renault 5 turbo
Fiat Uno turbo
Lancia Delta turbo
Lance Integrale Evo1

SS7

[Twincam16]

toppstuff said:

Twincam16 said:

God I hope not. We have a whole fleet of cars at work including soft-roaders and I absolutely dread being lumbered with them. Too bulky, driving position too high, blatantly too heavy when you take it through the corners, you feel like a mobile obstruction, you can't see anything once it gets within a metre of your car and they're a right PITA to park. Horrid things. Can't for the life of me work out why anyone in their right mind would want one over a Golf or suchlike other than 'marketing told them to', in which case they're an impressionable prat.

I like em.

Primarily because of the driving position. Being high up has its advantages. Driving on B roads you can make decent progress because you can see over hedges. You can't do that in an Elise....

How does being able to see into farmers' fields make a car go round corners faster?

I've taken a lot of long cross-country routes over the years and the ones I've least enjoyed have been behind the wheels of soft-roaders. There are MPVs out there that drive better than the vast majority of them. The only exceptions have been Land Rovers, but then again they're not 'soft', but rather massively capable everywhere.

[356Speedster]

Unlight said:

Although the equivalent GTi is priced a little above the likes of the Focus ST and Megane Renaultsport, it will also retain a much better residual value.

A quick look at the PH classifieds says this isn't true....... looking for 2005/6 Golf GTIs and Focus STs under £6K, shows that there are more Golfs available (10 I think I counted) and there's only 3 STs (which were closer to 6K, vs some Golfs down at 4.7-5K). Given the cost difference of these cars new, this says the Golf is not as good residually as people might think.

I am a long term VW fan having been a long term MK2 G60 owner, however, the game changed with the Focus ST & Megane in the mid-noughties. I compared all hot hatch products and went with the Focus and I'm very glad I did. By comparison, the Golf was more expensive & less engaging than the competition. When I ordered my Focus RS in 2009 (for 2010 delivery), again, VW lost out majorly with their R32/R products.

As I said earlier, I don't think this really bothers VW tho', they're not looking to compete with other hot hatches, they appear happy to hold onto buyers who just want the badge on the bonnet, rather than competing with the car's hardware / price.

[Bitzer]

356Speedster said:

A quick look at the PH classifieds says this isn't true....... looking for 2005/6 Golf GTIs and Focus STs under £6K, shows that there are more Golfs available (10 I think I counted) and there's only 3 STs (which were closer to 6K, vs some Golfs down at 4.7-5K). Given the cost difference of these cars new, this says the Golf is not as good residually as people might think.

May have something to do with higher mileage

Only guessing.

[nickfrog]

Very true. The % depreciation difference between cars perceived as having strong residuals and those as having poor residuals are actually tiny. 1 or 2 percentage points, they're all around the usual 50% off list after 3 years. And then those with stronger residuals usually attract less discounts when new...

Does is really matter if a Golf is worth 55% off list after 3 years when the equivalent Focus is only worth 50% then? That's about £1,500 when the Focus has been bought for £3,000 less in the first place.

[356Speedster]

nickfrog said:

Very true. The % depreciation difference between cars perceived as having strong residuals and those as having poor residuals are actually tiny. 1 or 2 percentage points, they're all around the usual 50% off list after 3 years. And then those with stronger residuals usually attract less discounts when new...

Does is really matter if a Golf is worth 55% off list after 3 years when the equivalent Focus is only worth 50% then? That's about £1,500 when the Focus has been bought for £3,000 less in the first place.

Indeed. The price gap is really quite wide at new and as time goes by, it comes down to next to nothing. Retained value percentage is the more important figure....

I've just checked the purchase price of my (now my wife's) ST-2, that we've had since new.... based on it's approx retained value (looking at similar cars in the classifieds, it's retained 39% of it's original value. Brilliant! Even better, it would appear my Focus RS has retained 84% of it's value after 3 yrs! The GTI / R can not match those figures.

[jimjim150]

currybum said:

A £7K MK1 in 1980 would cost about £27K today (£27.5 adjusted for VAT increase), a £8k Mk2 would cost about £21k today.

Given how much more you get I would suggest that this GTI is the best value GTI ever.

Yes but factor in the different position many people are in these days due to the economy problems, people aren't as rich as they once were in the UK.

Also the MKV and VI have terrible fuel economy.

[Bitzer]

jimjim150 said:

Yes but factor in the different position many people are in these days due to the economy problems, people aren't as rich as they once were in the UK.

Also the MKV and VI have terrible fuel economy.

No they don't.

My MK5 averaged 34-35 in the 22k that I owned it for in 18 months. I don't consider that terrible.