RE: VW Golf GTI: Marketwatch
Discussion
lamboman100 said:
The GTI is a typical 40yo -- bloated and slow. Will prolly get canned in the next decade and eventually be replaced by the R range.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tM4s37VIAlE&list=PL32917AB9DF8D1D9CStruggling to find the bit where Mr Catchpole uses the words "bloated" and "slow". I'd even go as far as to say he liked it. But what would he know, or for that matter Sutcliffe, Harris et al?
Edited by andrewparker on Friday 22 August 08:53
Hi Guys
For those that are interested, have a read through my thread where I have just completed a nut and bolt restoration of a MK1 Golf GTi.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
The Golf is to be auctioned at Brooklands (through Historics) on Saturday 30th August.
The on-line catalogue can be seen here, the Golf is on page 6:
http://www.historics.co.uk/buying/auctions/2014-08...
Cheers
For those that are interested, have a read through my thread where I have just completed a nut and bolt restoration of a MK1 Golf GTi.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
The Golf is to be auctioned at Brooklands (through Historics) on Saturday 30th August.
The on-line catalogue can be seen here, the Golf is on page 6:
http://www.historics.co.uk/buying/auctions/2014-08...
Cheers
My love for the Golf goes back a long way (summer 83 I think)
[/URL]
Had a 1989 Mk1 Cabrio as a daily driver for 14 years and it was running perfectly despite clocking up 265,000 miles on the same engine & gearbox. Would still have it had some oaf from a nearby Audi dealership not ploughed into it while taking a brand new Q7 for a spin. It's been repaired and is still on the road in the Bradford area I think.
[/URL]
Bought a lovely original late 16v Mk2 last year but couldn't really spare the time and expense on what was a third car that I had to garage at the in-laws. It was sold 8 months later for a little more than I paid for it. My brother bought an late 8V last year and is throwing money at it to keep it pristine and totally OEM, he loves it. Parked up in the Goodwood FoS carpark together.
[/URL]
When my daughter is a little older and onto booster seats I'll get another Mk2 without a doubt. The only thing I had reservations about was the relative lack of crash protection.
[/URL]Had a 1989 Mk1 Cabrio as a daily driver for 14 years and it was running perfectly despite clocking up 265,000 miles on the same engine & gearbox. Would still have it had some oaf from a nearby Audi dealership not ploughed into it while taking a brand new Q7 for a spin. It's been repaired and is still on the road in the Bradford area I think.
[/URL]Bought a lovely original late 16v Mk2 last year but couldn't really spare the time and expense on what was a third car that I had to garage at the in-laws. It was sold 8 months later for a little more than I paid for it. My brother bought an late 8V last year and is throwing money at it to keep it pristine and totally OEM, he loves it. Parked up in the Goodwood FoS carpark together.
[/URL]When my daughter is a little older and onto booster seats I'll get another Mk2 without a doubt. The only thing I had reservations about was the relative lack of crash protection.
Edited by Phil303 on Friday 22 August 10:13
Urban Sports said:
The mk4 was an absolute dog turd of a car in all forms, how they actually stuck a GTI badge on it is beyond me.
Absolute crap, they got some form back with the mk5 thankfully.
I know you're using hyperbole to make a point and I'd agree that the 205 tyre cars are average. However the 225 tyre cars grip far better and the suspension is a bit stiffer. On a track I guess they understeer but on the road I think they are decent you may get a tyre squealing into a corner if you like to drive like a loony.Absolute crap, they got some form back with the mk5 thankfully.
Sometimes comparisons with other hatches are a bit unfair for example the 306 gti-6. The 306 was really a competitor to the Mk3 Golf but it was sold for a long time. A fairer comparison would be Mk3 Golf Gti 16v vs 306 S16. A CTR EP3 is a fair comparison to a Golf Mk4 or cars based on that but then it's not as nice in other ways. It depends what you want from a car and what you're willing to compromise on to get it.
lamboman100 said:
The GTI is a typical 40yo -- bloated and slow. Will prolly get canned in the next decade and eventually be replaced by the R range.
But fast enough for day to day real world driving plus a bit of fun which is what most of us do - i'm guessing you are capable of pushing it to its limit on a track to realise its slow ?? Theres more to most cars than just performance figures though imo.benwoodcock said:
These suggestions that some later Mk4 versions are hugely better than other Mk4s is interesting, anyone know more?
I'd have thought the opposite was true, given versions like the 2.0 115PS didn't come out till later and weren't very good! All that improved was mild interior/ spec revisions and different alloys.va1o said:
I'd have thought the opposite was true, given versions like the 2.0 115PS didn't come out till later and weren't very good! All that improved was mild interior/ spec revisions and different alloys.
I think he was talking about what I said which is that the later Golf Mk4 Anniversary and other Mk4 Golf based cars with 225 tyres grip much better than the 205 tyre standard Golf Gti Mk4.Also I think most sporty 225 tyre Golf Mk4 cars and cars based on it came with an E-diff unlike the 205 tyre cars. I could be wrong.
Worse Gti ever:
I agree with you that it's the Mk4 Golf Gti non-turbo with the reliable but low on power 1.8 or 2.0 engines. Like the non-turbo diesel they did it's hard to see the point of it really. I guess the alloys and seats are nicer than lower trim levels.
Mk5 Golf Gti:
I agree with the other guy that the Mk5 chassis is better to drive in every way. Even the interior isn't bad it's just that the plastics aren't as nice as they are in the Mk4 or Mk6.
My personal highlights are the mk1, mk2 and mk5.
Never driven a mk1 but the looks are both elegant and iconic and I've no doubt that at the time the drive was a revelation. It was a car designed by driving enthusiasts for driving enthusiasts.
The mk2 was esentially a better evolution of the mk1 (although I'm not sure exactly how much they have in common apart from the engine) but more refined, more space, better brakes, more performance with the 16v, better looking (personally I prefer the looks of the mk1 but the big-bumper mk2s still look pretty sharp) and the option of 5 doors for the first time, which broadened its appeal. I'm not sure if it was ever the fastest hot hatch (the 16v may have been at one stage) or had the most knife-edge handling (leave that to Peugeot and Renault) but it was undoubtably the best all-rounder. Not keen on these 20v turbo conversions though. Enjoy the car as VW intended I say, the engine is part of the character. I would be tempted to put a VR6 in a tatty mk2 though and go enjoy a bit of track driving.
I'm going to stick my neck out and say that the mk3 and mk4 weren't bad cars at the time they were launched, it was just that whereas the mk1 and 2 were ahead of the game and still near to if not the top of their class when they went out of production, the opposition caught up with and bettered the mk3 and 4 Golfs in some respects. I think the Astra mk3 was a match for the mk3 Golf in terms of a feeling of solidity and interior quality and the 306 came along not long after with better looks and handling and strong diesel engines for less money to buy and insure. The mk3 GTi models I think were more marketing than engineering led as previously. Some nice alloys, plastic wheelarches and a bigger engine basically. What I think some PHers forget though sometimes is that the GTi isn't a stand-alone model and has to move in line with the rest of the range. What do most people want from the new model? More space, more safety, more equipment, more refinement, better fuel economy and better environmental credentials. Performance and handling are probably down the bottom of the list of priorities for the majority of people. The mk3 GTi delivered on all these counts but clearly a bigger, safer car was bound to blunt the performance of the 8v model. Surely the 2.0 16v with 150bhp was as fast as the mk2 though (not driven one)? Bearing in mind the hot hatch bubble had burst at this time due to rising insurance premiums and most of the classic 80s/early 90s hot hatches had gone out of production, was the mk3 GTi really that outclassed? What were the alternatives? RS2000? Tipo 16v? 306 S16? None of them widely regarded as among the best hot hatches ever. The other thing to consider was the GTi's buyer demographic. At the time, a lot of people who bought GTis were downsizing from the traditional family favourites (Sierra/Mondeo/Cavalier/Vectra etc) and a VW Golf (with a GTi badge no less) for the price of a mid-range repmobile would have been a very appealing prospect. They may not have been as fun to drive as the mk1 and 2 but they were bigger, more practical and at least as good as the aforementioned repmobiles to drive, which was probably good enough. People bought 316is and 318is at this time for much the same reason.
The major flaw with the mk3 really was that its reputation was built on the quality engineering of the mk1 and 2 and although it felt superficially like a quality car, costs had been cut on the engineering that you couldn't see (such as poorer quality steel which was more rust-prone for example). Those who had previously owned a mk1 or 2 would have probably been quite disappointed with the quality and reliability of their mark 3 but coming from other manufacturer's I'm not so sure, although expectations may have been high of course. That being said, I have seen some mk3 Golfs racking up some fairly big mileages without too many issues and thinking about it, you probably still see more mk3s on the road than any of its contemporaries.
Wasn't the mk4 just a tarted up mk3 really? They did a good job on updating the styling (still looks contemporary to this day) and the new interior was very nice but not much else I think. More standard features and a more complicated car too I suppose, which was both good and bad. The 1.8 20v was actually a decent enough engine with more power and refinement than the 2.0 that replaced it. Not sure why they ditched it really. The turbo is a pretty decent engine too. Lots of torque for a petrol and good fuel economy (better than the 2.0), if a little lacking in character. I don't think a lack of pace was the issue with the GTi turbo though and if it was, the engine was easily tuneable but it was the chassis that was a bit flat-footed and when Ford brought out the mk1 Focus not long after, that really brought into focus (no pun intended) the chassis deficiencies. Volkswagen must have been kicking themselves for their complacency. I was unfortunate enough to own a 2000 mk4 2.0 Golf GTi and without a doubt it was the worse car that I have ever owned. I really wanted a mk4 Golf, as a "sensible" replacement for my Corrado VR6 but wasn't really keen on a 1.6 because I would either have to go for the base model or the SE with those horrid velour seats. My budget didn't stretch to a turbo or TDI sadly (which I should have got), so the 2.0 GTi with a bit more power than the 1.6 and the nicer interior seemed like a good compromise. It didn't take me long to regret my choice though. The engine was gutless and unrefined, burnt a lot of oil and was very thirsty (about 20-25mpg), less than my VR6 Corrado in fact and the first time I tried to drive it hard down my favourite B-road, it felt very unhappy and unsettled (not right in a GTi), whereas the Corrado loved to be driven hard. By contrast, even a humble 1.6 Focus would have been a joy to drive down the same road. At the end of the day, it looked quite nice, the interior was a nice place to be, it was a comfy motorway car and it was practical too but that was about it. I hated it and it suffered from no end of electrical niggles, so it only lasted a year with me. Had I bought a later turbo or TDI though (still excellent cars the TDIs), or even a mk3 16v, I don't think I would have felt so shortchanged. The mk4 was facelifted from 2002 (not that you would be able to tell the difference) but there were some small improvements made to the chassis apparently. Even so, when it came out, what did the mk4 turbo have to compete with? The only major threat was the Peugeot 306 GTi-6/Rallye which unquestionably was a better hot hatch from a performance and handling perspective but was by now a dated design without as much showroom appeal as the Golf. It was only really later in its life when it was bested by better value competitors inside its own stable (Leon Cupra, Octavia vRS) and then the Focus ST170 (better chassis but worse engine), EP3 Type-R or even the MG ZS 180 maybe that it became truly outclassed.
Despite the downer that PH have on the mk3 and 4 Golfs, I know the sales figures would show otherwise with the mk3 selling better than the mk2 and the mk4 selling better than the mk3. I bet GTi models aside that if we were looking at 1.6 petrol models say, that most of us would still rather have a mk4 to a mk3 and a mk3 to a mk2 too, as the non-GTi models are really showing their age now on the older generations. I don't think the mk3 and 4 GTis (with the possible exception of the Anniversary edition) will be remembered as fondly as the mk1s and 2s though.
I believe that the mk5 Golf was probably less popular than the mk4 for two reasons. Firstly, a much shorter production run: 4 years vs 6 years and some resistance to the new styling, particularly the new headlights. I was selling VWs just after the mk5 came out and the difference in the drive compared to the mk4 was a revelation thanks to the new Ford Focus-style suspension. You could even feel the night and day difference in the most humble 1.4 model. I was really keen for potential customers who had the old model to drive the new model and experience the drive for themselves but a lot of them bought without a test drive. It's a Golf, I don't need to drive it! The loyalty of Golf customers is staggering too. I can't remember any existing customer coming in with a Golf and going to buy another make of car. The GTI really was superb when it came out though. 33% more power, a safe yet more capable and involving chassis and I think the GTI enhancements although subtle, really lifted the exterior and interior ambiance of the car. Still probably the best all-rounder that I have driven too. Again, a lot of these customers weren't typical hot hatch customers. They were 30+ year olds with families or people in their 40s/50s who could have afforded an A4/3-Series/C-Class instead but chose to buy a VW hatchback instead. Not many other cars can make people happy to downsize (other than the MINI possibly). I couldn't have seen those same people buying a Focus, Astra or Type-R. Will it become a classic like the mk1 and 2 though? On ability, it deserves to be but honestly, I;m not so sure.
I have yet to drive a mk6 or mk7 but I doubt it will be as night and day as the difference between mk4 and mk5. Each iteration will be a little bit better than the last: a bit more power, a bit more refined and economical and have a few more standard features, so although it is a shame that the price isn't as competitive with the Focus ST as it perhaps once was, in real terms i.e. for the extra stuff you are getting, it probably hasn't gone up that much. I would seriously consider a Focus ST as an alternative to a Golf GTI due to the extra power and lower price but many I expect wouldn't and I can understand why. It probably is the only hot hatch that is classless and has universal appeal. It appeals to men and women, 17 to 70 year olds and yet you can turn up anywhere in it (the posh hotel/restaurant with the valet) and not look out of place. The more grown up current-model Fiesta and Focus STs are growing on me but other than them and the Golf, I think at 34, my wife and kids would laugh at me if I came home in another hot hatch like a VXR or RenaultSport.
The Golf GTi has never been about willy waving (i.e having the most power or the sharpest handling) but mk4 2.0 GTi excepted, it has always been a great all-rounder. If you're only interested in power and speed, it's probably not the car for you (although it can be tuned to make some pretty big figures). I'm certainly a fan!
Never driven a mk1 but the looks are both elegant and iconic and I've no doubt that at the time the drive was a revelation. It was a car designed by driving enthusiasts for driving enthusiasts.
The mk2 was esentially a better evolution of the mk1 (although I'm not sure exactly how much they have in common apart from the engine) but more refined, more space, better brakes, more performance with the 16v, better looking (personally I prefer the looks of the mk1 but the big-bumper mk2s still look pretty sharp) and the option of 5 doors for the first time, which broadened its appeal. I'm not sure if it was ever the fastest hot hatch (the 16v may have been at one stage) or had the most knife-edge handling (leave that to Peugeot and Renault) but it was undoubtably the best all-rounder. Not keen on these 20v turbo conversions though. Enjoy the car as VW intended I say, the engine is part of the character. I would be tempted to put a VR6 in a tatty mk2 though and go enjoy a bit of track driving.
I'm going to stick my neck out and say that the mk3 and mk4 weren't bad cars at the time they were launched, it was just that whereas the mk1 and 2 were ahead of the game and still near to if not the top of their class when they went out of production, the opposition caught up with and bettered the mk3 and 4 Golfs in some respects. I think the Astra mk3 was a match for the mk3 Golf in terms of a feeling of solidity and interior quality and the 306 came along not long after with better looks and handling and strong diesel engines for less money to buy and insure. The mk3 GTi models I think were more marketing than engineering led as previously. Some nice alloys, plastic wheelarches and a bigger engine basically. What I think some PHers forget though sometimes is that the GTi isn't a stand-alone model and has to move in line with the rest of the range. What do most people want from the new model? More space, more safety, more equipment, more refinement, better fuel economy and better environmental credentials. Performance and handling are probably down the bottom of the list of priorities for the majority of people. The mk3 GTi delivered on all these counts but clearly a bigger, safer car was bound to blunt the performance of the 8v model. Surely the 2.0 16v with 150bhp was as fast as the mk2 though (not driven one)? Bearing in mind the hot hatch bubble had burst at this time due to rising insurance premiums and most of the classic 80s/early 90s hot hatches had gone out of production, was the mk3 GTi really that outclassed? What were the alternatives? RS2000? Tipo 16v? 306 S16? None of them widely regarded as among the best hot hatches ever. The other thing to consider was the GTi's buyer demographic. At the time, a lot of people who bought GTis were downsizing from the traditional family favourites (Sierra/Mondeo/Cavalier/Vectra etc) and a VW Golf (with a GTi badge no less) for the price of a mid-range repmobile would have been a very appealing prospect. They may not have been as fun to drive as the mk1 and 2 but they were bigger, more practical and at least as good as the aforementioned repmobiles to drive, which was probably good enough. People bought 316is and 318is at this time for much the same reason.
The major flaw with the mk3 really was that its reputation was built on the quality engineering of the mk1 and 2 and although it felt superficially like a quality car, costs had been cut on the engineering that you couldn't see (such as poorer quality steel which was more rust-prone for example). Those who had previously owned a mk1 or 2 would have probably been quite disappointed with the quality and reliability of their mark 3 but coming from other manufacturer's I'm not so sure, although expectations may have been high of course. That being said, I have seen some mk3 Golfs racking up some fairly big mileages without too many issues and thinking about it, you probably still see more mk3s on the road than any of its contemporaries.
Wasn't the mk4 just a tarted up mk3 really? They did a good job on updating the styling (still looks contemporary to this day) and the new interior was very nice but not much else I think. More standard features and a more complicated car too I suppose, which was both good and bad. The 1.8 20v was actually a decent enough engine with more power and refinement than the 2.0 that replaced it. Not sure why they ditched it really. The turbo is a pretty decent engine too. Lots of torque for a petrol and good fuel economy (better than the 2.0), if a little lacking in character. I don't think a lack of pace was the issue with the GTi turbo though and if it was, the engine was easily tuneable but it was the chassis that was a bit flat-footed and when Ford brought out the mk1 Focus not long after, that really brought into focus (no pun intended) the chassis deficiencies. Volkswagen must have been kicking themselves for their complacency. I was unfortunate enough to own a 2000 mk4 2.0 Golf GTi and without a doubt it was the worse car that I have ever owned. I really wanted a mk4 Golf, as a "sensible" replacement for my Corrado VR6 but wasn't really keen on a 1.6 because I would either have to go for the base model or the SE with those horrid velour seats. My budget didn't stretch to a turbo or TDI sadly (which I should have got), so the 2.0 GTi with a bit more power than the 1.6 and the nicer interior seemed like a good compromise. It didn't take me long to regret my choice though. The engine was gutless and unrefined, burnt a lot of oil and was very thirsty (about 20-25mpg), less than my VR6 Corrado in fact and the first time I tried to drive it hard down my favourite B-road, it felt very unhappy and unsettled (not right in a GTi), whereas the Corrado loved to be driven hard. By contrast, even a humble 1.6 Focus would have been a joy to drive down the same road. At the end of the day, it looked quite nice, the interior was a nice place to be, it was a comfy motorway car and it was practical too but that was about it. I hated it and it suffered from no end of electrical niggles, so it only lasted a year with me. Had I bought a later turbo or TDI though (still excellent cars the TDIs), or even a mk3 16v, I don't think I would have felt so shortchanged. The mk4 was facelifted from 2002 (not that you would be able to tell the difference) but there were some small improvements made to the chassis apparently. Even so, when it came out, what did the mk4 turbo have to compete with? The only major threat was the Peugeot 306 GTi-6/Rallye which unquestionably was a better hot hatch from a performance and handling perspective but was by now a dated design without as much showroom appeal as the Golf. It was only really later in its life when it was bested by better value competitors inside its own stable (Leon Cupra, Octavia vRS) and then the Focus ST170 (better chassis but worse engine), EP3 Type-R or even the MG ZS 180 maybe that it became truly outclassed.
Despite the downer that PH have on the mk3 and 4 Golfs, I know the sales figures would show otherwise with the mk3 selling better than the mk2 and the mk4 selling better than the mk3. I bet GTi models aside that if we were looking at 1.6 petrol models say, that most of us would still rather have a mk4 to a mk3 and a mk3 to a mk2 too, as the non-GTi models are really showing their age now on the older generations. I don't think the mk3 and 4 GTis (with the possible exception of the Anniversary edition) will be remembered as fondly as the mk1s and 2s though.
I believe that the mk5 Golf was probably less popular than the mk4 for two reasons. Firstly, a much shorter production run: 4 years vs 6 years and some resistance to the new styling, particularly the new headlights. I was selling VWs just after the mk5 came out and the difference in the drive compared to the mk4 was a revelation thanks to the new Ford Focus-style suspension. You could even feel the night and day difference in the most humble 1.4 model. I was really keen for potential customers who had the old model to drive the new model and experience the drive for themselves but a lot of them bought without a test drive. It's a Golf, I don't need to drive it! The loyalty of Golf customers is staggering too. I can't remember any existing customer coming in with a Golf and going to buy another make of car. The GTI really was superb when it came out though. 33% more power, a safe yet more capable and involving chassis and I think the GTI enhancements although subtle, really lifted the exterior and interior ambiance of the car. Still probably the best all-rounder that I have driven too. Again, a lot of these customers weren't typical hot hatch customers. They were 30+ year olds with families or people in their 40s/50s who could have afforded an A4/3-Series/C-Class instead but chose to buy a VW hatchback instead. Not many other cars can make people happy to downsize (other than the MINI possibly). I couldn't have seen those same people buying a Focus, Astra or Type-R. Will it become a classic like the mk1 and 2 though? On ability, it deserves to be but honestly, I;m not so sure.
I have yet to drive a mk6 or mk7 but I doubt it will be as night and day as the difference between mk4 and mk5. Each iteration will be a little bit better than the last: a bit more power, a bit more refined and economical and have a few more standard features, so although it is a shame that the price isn't as competitive with the Focus ST as it perhaps once was, in real terms i.e. for the extra stuff you are getting, it probably hasn't gone up that much. I would seriously consider a Focus ST as an alternative to a Golf GTI due to the extra power and lower price but many I expect wouldn't and I can understand why. It probably is the only hot hatch that is classless and has universal appeal. It appeals to men and women, 17 to 70 year olds and yet you can turn up anywhere in it (the posh hotel/restaurant with the valet) and not look out of place. The more grown up current-model Fiesta and Focus STs are growing on me but other than them and the Golf, I think at 34, my wife and kids would laugh at me if I came home in another hot hatch like a VXR or RenaultSport.
The Golf GTi has never been about willy waving (i.e having the most power or the sharpest handling) but mk4 2.0 GTi excepted, it has always been a great all-rounder. If you're only interested in power and speed, it's probably not the car for you (although it can be tuned to make some pretty big figures). I'm certainly a fan!
white_goodman said:
My personal highlights are the mk1, mk2 and mk5.
Never driven a mk1 but the looks are both elegant and iconic and I've no doubt that at the time the drive was a revelation. It was a car designed by driving enthusiasts for driving enthusiasts.
The mk2 was esentially a better evolution of the mk1 (although I'm not sure exactly how much they have in common apart from the engine) but more refined, more space, better brakes, more performance with the 16v, better looking (personally I prefer the looks of the mk1 but the big-bumper mk2s still look pretty sharp) and the option of 5 doors for the first time, which broadened its appeal. I'm not sure if it was ever the fastest hot hatch (the 16v may have been at one stage) or had the most knife-edge handling (leave that to Peugeot and Renault) but it was undoubtably the best all-rounder. Not keen on these 20v turbo conversions though. Enjoy the car as VW intended I say, the engine is part of the character. I would be tempted to put a VR6 in a tatty mk2 though and go enjoy a bit of track driving.
I'm going to stick my neck out and say that the mk3 and mk4 weren't bad cars at the time they were launched, it was just that whereas the mk1 and 2 were ahead of the game and still near to if not the top of their class when they went out of production, the opposition caught up with and bettered the mk3 and 4 Golfs in some respects. I think the Astra mk3 was a match for the mk3 Golf in terms of a feeling of solidity and interior quality and the 306 came along not long after with better looks and handling and strong diesel engines for less money to buy and insure. The mk3 GTi models I think were more marketing than engineering led as previously. Some nice alloys, plastic wheelarches and a bigger engine basically. What I think some PHers forget though sometimes is that the GTi isn't a stand-alone model and has to move in line with the rest of the range. What do most people want from the new model? More space, more safety, more equipment, more refinement, better fuel economy and better environmental credentials. Performance and handling are probably down the bottom of the list of priorities for the majority of people. The mk3 GTi delivered on all these counts but clearly a bigger, safer car was bound to blunt the performance of the 8v model. Surely the 2.0 16v with 150bhp was as fast as the mk2 though (not driven one)? Bearing in mind the hot hatch bubble had burst at this time due to rising insurance premiums and most of the classic 80s/early 90s hot hatches had gone out of production, was the mk3 GTi really that outclassed? What were the alternatives? RS2000? Tipo 16v? 306 S16? None of them widely regarded as among the best hot hatches ever. The other thing to consider was the GTi's buyer demographic. At the time, a lot of people who bought GTis were downsizing from the traditional family favourites (Sierra/Mondeo/Cavalier/Vectra etc) and a VW Golf (with a GTi badge no less) for the price of a mid-range repmobile would have been a very appealing prospect. They may not have been as fun to drive as the mk1 and 2 but they were bigger, more practical and at least as good as the aforementioned repmobiles to drive, which was probably good enough. People bought 316is and 318is at this time for much the same reason.
The major flaw with the mk3 really was that its reputation was built on the quality engineering of the mk1 and 2 and although it felt superficially like a quality car, costs had been cut on the engineering that you couldn't see (such as poorer quality steel which was more rust-prone for example). Those who had previously owned a mk1 or 2 would have probably been quite disappointed with the quality and reliability of their mark 3 but coming from other manufacturer's I'm not so sure, although expectations may have been high of course. That being said, I have seen some mk3 Golfs racking up some fairly big mileages without too many issues and thinking about it, you probably still see more mk3s on the road than any of its contemporaries.
Wasn't the mk4 just a tarted up mk3 really? They did a good job on updating the styling (still looks contemporary to this day) and the new interior was very nice but not much else I think. More standard features and a more complicated car too I suppose, which was both good and bad. The 1.8 20v was actually a decent enough engine with more power and refinement than the 2.0 that replaced it. Not sure why they ditched it really. The turbo is a pretty decent engine too. Lots of torque for a petrol and good fuel economy (better than the 2.0), if a little lacking in character. I don't think a lack of pace was the issue with the GTi turbo though and if it was, the engine was easily tuneable but it was the chassis that was a bit flat-footed and when Ford brought out the mk1 Focus not long after, that really brought into focus (no pun intended) the chassis deficiencies. Volkswagen must have been kicking themselves for their complacency. I was unfortunate enough to own a 2000 mk4 2.0 Golf GTi and without a doubt it was the worse car that I have ever owned. I really wanted a mk4 Golf, as a "sensible" replacement for my Corrado VR6 but wasn't really keen on a 1.6 because I would either have to go for the base model or the SE with those horrid velour seats. My budget didn't stretch to a turbo or TDI sadly (which I should have got), so the 2.0 GTi with a bit more power than the 1.6 and the nicer interior seemed like a good compromise. It didn't take me long to regret my choice though. The engine was gutless and unrefined, burnt a lot of oil and was very thirsty (about 20-25mpg), less than my VR6 Corrado in fact and the first time I tried to drive it hard down my favourite B-road, it felt very unhappy and unsettled (not right in a GTi), whereas the Corrado loved to be driven hard. By contrast, even a humble 1.6 Focus would have been a joy to drive down the same road. At the end of the day, it looked quite nice, the interior was a nice place to be, it was a comfy motorway car and it was practical too but that was about it. I hated it and it suffered from no end of electrical niggles, so it only lasted a year with me. Had I bought a later turbo or TDI though (still excellent cars the TDIs), or even a mk3 16v, I don't think I would have felt so shortchanged. The mk4 was facelifted from 2002 (not that you would be able to tell the difference) but there were some small improvements made to the chassis apparently. Even so, when it came out, what did the mk4 turbo have to compete with? The only major threat was the Peugeot 306 GTi-6/Rallye which unquestionably was a better hot hatch from a performance and handling perspective but was by now a dated design without as much showroom appeal as the Golf. It was only really later in its life when it was bested by better value competitors inside its own stable (Leon Cupra, Octavia vRS) and then the Focus ST170 (better chassis but worse engine), EP3 Type-R or even the MG ZS 180 maybe that it became truly outclassed.
Despite the downer that PH have on the mk3 and 4 Golfs, I know the sales figures would show otherwise with the mk3 selling better than the mk2 and the mk4 selling better than the mk3. I bet GTi models aside that if we were looking at 1.6 petrol models say, that most of us would still rather have a mk4 to a mk3 and a mk3 to a mk2 too, as the non-GTi models are really showing their age now on the older generations. I don't think the mk3 and 4 GTis (with the possible exception of the Anniversary edition) will be remembered as fondly as the mk1s and 2s though.
I believe that the mk5 Golf was probably less popular than the mk4 for two reasons. Firstly, a much shorter production run: 4 years vs 6 years and some resistance to the new styling, particularly the new headlights. I was selling VWs just after the mk5 came out and the difference in the drive compared to the mk4 was a revelation thanks to the new Ford Focus-style suspension. You could even feel the night and day difference in the most humble 1.4 model. I was really keen for potential customers who had the old model to drive the new model and experience the drive for themselves but a lot of them bought without a test drive. It's a Golf, I don't need to drive it! The loyalty of Golf customers is staggering too. I can't remember any existing customer coming in with a Golf and going to buy another make of car. The GTI really was superb when it came out though. 33% more power, a safe yet more capable and involving chassis and I think the GTI enhancements although subtle, really lifted the exterior and interior ambiance of the car. Still probably the best all-rounder that I have driven too. Again, a lot of these customers weren't typical hot hatch customers. They were 30+ year olds with families or people in their 40s/50s who could have afforded an A4/3-Series/C-Class instead but chose to buy a VW hatchback instead. Not many other cars can make people happy to downsize (other than the MINI possibly). I couldn't have seen those same people buying a Focus, Astra or Type-R. Will it become a classic like the mk1 and 2 though? On ability, it deserves to be but honestly, I;m not so sure.
I have yet to drive a mk6 or mk7 but I doubt it will be as night and day as the difference between mk4 and mk5. Each iteration will be a little bit better than the last: a bit more power, a bit more refined and economical and have a few more standard features, so although it is a shame that the price isn't as competitive with the Focus ST as it perhaps once was, in real terms i.e. for the extra stuff you are getting, it probably hasn't gone up that much. I would seriously consider a Focus ST as an alternative to a Golf GTI due to the extra power and lower price but many I expect wouldn't and I can understand why. It probably is the only hot hatch that is classless and has universal appeal. It appeals to men and women, 17 to 70 year olds and yet you can turn up anywhere in it (the posh hotel/restaurant with the valet) and not look out of place. The more grown up current-model Fiesta and Focus STs are growing on me but other than them and the Golf, I think at 34, my wife and kids would laugh at me if I came home in another hot hatch like a VXR or RenaultSport.
The Golf GTi has never been about willy waving (i.e having the most power or the sharpest handling) but mk4 2.0 GTi excepted, it has always been a great all-rounder. If you're only interested in power and speed, it's probably not the car for you (although it can be tuned to make some pretty big figures). I'm certainly a fan!
I agree with most of what you said it's like you've just read every article ever on the GTI and summarised it in a post! How long did that take to write though?! I thought my posts were really long but that's the longest post I've read on here I think. Never driven a mk1 but the looks are both elegant and iconic and I've no doubt that at the time the drive was a revelation. It was a car designed by driving enthusiasts for driving enthusiasts.
The mk2 was esentially a better evolution of the mk1 (although I'm not sure exactly how much they have in common apart from the engine) but more refined, more space, better brakes, more performance with the 16v, better looking (personally I prefer the looks of the mk1 but the big-bumper mk2s still look pretty sharp) and the option of 5 doors for the first time, which broadened its appeal. I'm not sure if it was ever the fastest hot hatch (the 16v may have been at one stage) or had the most knife-edge handling (leave that to Peugeot and Renault) but it was undoubtably the best all-rounder. Not keen on these 20v turbo conversions though. Enjoy the car as VW intended I say, the engine is part of the character. I would be tempted to put a VR6 in a tatty mk2 though and go enjoy a bit of track driving.
I'm going to stick my neck out and say that the mk3 and mk4 weren't bad cars at the time they were launched, it was just that whereas the mk1 and 2 were ahead of the game and still near to if not the top of their class when they went out of production, the opposition caught up with and bettered the mk3 and 4 Golfs in some respects. I think the Astra mk3 was a match for the mk3 Golf in terms of a feeling of solidity and interior quality and the 306 came along not long after with better looks and handling and strong diesel engines for less money to buy and insure. The mk3 GTi models I think were more marketing than engineering led as previously. Some nice alloys, plastic wheelarches and a bigger engine basically. What I think some PHers forget though sometimes is that the GTi isn't a stand-alone model and has to move in line with the rest of the range. What do most people want from the new model? More space, more safety, more equipment, more refinement, better fuel economy and better environmental credentials. Performance and handling are probably down the bottom of the list of priorities for the majority of people. The mk3 GTi delivered on all these counts but clearly a bigger, safer car was bound to blunt the performance of the 8v model. Surely the 2.0 16v with 150bhp was as fast as the mk2 though (not driven one)? Bearing in mind the hot hatch bubble had burst at this time due to rising insurance premiums and most of the classic 80s/early 90s hot hatches had gone out of production, was the mk3 GTi really that outclassed? What were the alternatives? RS2000? Tipo 16v? 306 S16? None of them widely regarded as among the best hot hatches ever. The other thing to consider was the GTi's buyer demographic. At the time, a lot of people who bought GTis were downsizing from the traditional family favourites (Sierra/Mondeo/Cavalier/Vectra etc) and a VW Golf (with a GTi badge no less) for the price of a mid-range repmobile would have been a very appealing prospect. They may not have been as fun to drive as the mk1 and 2 but they were bigger, more practical and at least as good as the aforementioned repmobiles to drive, which was probably good enough. People bought 316is and 318is at this time for much the same reason.
The major flaw with the mk3 really was that its reputation was built on the quality engineering of the mk1 and 2 and although it felt superficially like a quality car, costs had been cut on the engineering that you couldn't see (such as poorer quality steel which was more rust-prone for example). Those who had previously owned a mk1 or 2 would have probably been quite disappointed with the quality and reliability of their mark 3 but coming from other manufacturer's I'm not so sure, although expectations may have been high of course. That being said, I have seen some mk3 Golfs racking up some fairly big mileages without too many issues and thinking about it, you probably still see more mk3s on the road than any of its contemporaries.
Wasn't the mk4 just a tarted up mk3 really? They did a good job on updating the styling (still looks contemporary to this day) and the new interior was very nice but not much else I think. More standard features and a more complicated car too I suppose, which was both good and bad. The 1.8 20v was actually a decent enough engine with more power and refinement than the 2.0 that replaced it. Not sure why they ditched it really. The turbo is a pretty decent engine too. Lots of torque for a petrol and good fuel economy (better than the 2.0), if a little lacking in character. I don't think a lack of pace was the issue with the GTi turbo though and if it was, the engine was easily tuneable but it was the chassis that was a bit flat-footed and when Ford brought out the mk1 Focus not long after, that really brought into focus (no pun intended) the chassis deficiencies. Volkswagen must have been kicking themselves for their complacency. I was unfortunate enough to own a 2000 mk4 2.0 Golf GTi and without a doubt it was the worse car that I have ever owned. I really wanted a mk4 Golf, as a "sensible" replacement for my Corrado VR6 but wasn't really keen on a 1.6 because I would either have to go for the base model or the SE with those horrid velour seats. My budget didn't stretch to a turbo or TDI sadly (which I should have got), so the 2.0 GTi with a bit more power than the 1.6 and the nicer interior seemed like a good compromise. It didn't take me long to regret my choice though. The engine was gutless and unrefined, burnt a lot of oil and was very thirsty (about 20-25mpg), less than my VR6 Corrado in fact and the first time I tried to drive it hard down my favourite B-road, it felt very unhappy and unsettled (not right in a GTi), whereas the Corrado loved to be driven hard. By contrast, even a humble 1.6 Focus would have been a joy to drive down the same road. At the end of the day, it looked quite nice, the interior was a nice place to be, it was a comfy motorway car and it was practical too but that was about it. I hated it and it suffered from no end of electrical niggles, so it only lasted a year with me. Had I bought a later turbo or TDI though (still excellent cars the TDIs), or even a mk3 16v, I don't think I would have felt so shortchanged. The mk4 was facelifted from 2002 (not that you would be able to tell the difference) but there were some small improvements made to the chassis apparently. Even so, when it came out, what did the mk4 turbo have to compete with? The only major threat was the Peugeot 306 GTi-6/Rallye which unquestionably was a better hot hatch from a performance and handling perspective but was by now a dated design without as much showroom appeal as the Golf. It was only really later in its life when it was bested by better value competitors inside its own stable (Leon Cupra, Octavia vRS) and then the Focus ST170 (better chassis but worse engine), EP3 Type-R or even the MG ZS 180 maybe that it became truly outclassed.
Despite the downer that PH have on the mk3 and 4 Golfs, I know the sales figures would show otherwise with the mk3 selling better than the mk2 and the mk4 selling better than the mk3. I bet GTi models aside that if we were looking at 1.6 petrol models say, that most of us would still rather have a mk4 to a mk3 and a mk3 to a mk2 too, as the non-GTi models are really showing their age now on the older generations. I don't think the mk3 and 4 GTis (with the possible exception of the Anniversary edition) will be remembered as fondly as the mk1s and 2s though.
I believe that the mk5 Golf was probably less popular than the mk4 for two reasons. Firstly, a much shorter production run: 4 years vs 6 years and some resistance to the new styling, particularly the new headlights. I was selling VWs just after the mk5 came out and the difference in the drive compared to the mk4 was a revelation thanks to the new Ford Focus-style suspension. You could even feel the night and day difference in the most humble 1.4 model. I was really keen for potential customers who had the old model to drive the new model and experience the drive for themselves but a lot of them bought without a test drive. It's a Golf, I don't need to drive it! The loyalty of Golf customers is staggering too. I can't remember any existing customer coming in with a Golf and going to buy another make of car. The GTI really was superb when it came out though. 33% more power, a safe yet more capable and involving chassis and I think the GTI enhancements although subtle, really lifted the exterior and interior ambiance of the car. Still probably the best all-rounder that I have driven too. Again, a lot of these customers weren't typical hot hatch customers. They were 30+ year olds with families or people in their 40s/50s who could have afforded an A4/3-Series/C-Class instead but chose to buy a VW hatchback instead. Not many other cars can make people happy to downsize (other than the MINI possibly). I couldn't have seen those same people buying a Focus, Astra or Type-R. Will it become a classic like the mk1 and 2 though? On ability, it deserves to be but honestly, I;m not so sure.
I have yet to drive a mk6 or mk7 but I doubt it will be as night and day as the difference between mk4 and mk5. Each iteration will be a little bit better than the last: a bit more power, a bit more refined and economical and have a few more standard features, so although it is a shame that the price isn't as competitive with the Focus ST as it perhaps once was, in real terms i.e. for the extra stuff you are getting, it probably hasn't gone up that much. I would seriously consider a Focus ST as an alternative to a Golf GTI due to the extra power and lower price but many I expect wouldn't and I can understand why. It probably is the only hot hatch that is classless and has universal appeal. It appeals to men and women, 17 to 70 year olds and yet you can turn up anywhere in it (the posh hotel/restaurant with the valet) and not look out of place. The more grown up current-model Fiesta and Focus STs are growing on me but other than them and the Golf, I think at 34, my wife and kids would laugh at me if I came home in another hot hatch like a VXR or RenaultSport.
The Golf GTi has never been about willy waving (i.e having the most power or the sharpest handling) but mk4 2.0 GTi excepted, it has always been a great all-rounder. If you're only interested in power and speed, it's probably not the car for you (although it can be tuned to make some pretty big figures). I'm certainly a fan!
As it's so long more paragraphs would be nice but it's a forum so I don't think anybody really cares.
iloveboost said:
I agree with most of what you said it's like you've just read every article ever on the GTI and summarised it in a post! How long did that take to write though?! I thought my posts were really long but that's the longest post I've read on here I think.
As it's so long more paragraphs would be nice but it's a forum so I don't think anybody really cares.
Thanks. I guess 25 years of reading car magazines (+ some personal experience of the cars) wasn't a complete waste of time! I only meant to make a couple of points but got a bit carried away! It didn't take me long actually!As it's so long more paragraphs would be nice but it's a forum so I don't think anybody really cares.
One gap in my knowledge is the engines on the mk3. Is the 8v the same engine as on the mk4 and is the 16v the same engine with a 16v head? Wouldn't mind a 5dr mk3 16v or 3 door mk4 turbo as my next shed for the daily grind, so that I can have a proper hot hatch (like a 1.9 205 GTi or a 106 Rallye) as well just for fun! In case, I didn't make it clear, I hate the engine in the mk4 2.0 GTi with a passion, so defintely wouldn't have a mk3 with the same engine! Looking on AT, there are some tidy non-rusty mk3 GTis going for around a grand but they're all 8vs. Why no 16vs? Have they all been butchered for their engines to go in mk1 and 2s?
chungasarnies said:
f
king hell, I thought I was going mad the one time I saw a Mk5 on a '10. That's cleared that up then.
Found a couple on Autotrader, they don't come cheap! Potential future classic?king hell, I thought I was going mad the one time I saw a Mk5 on a '10. That's cleared that up then.http://www.btacc.co.uk/used-cars/volkswagen-golf-2...
http://www.crossroads-garage.co.uk/vw-golf-gti-in-...
va1o said:
Found a couple on Autotrader, they don't come cheap! Potential future classic?
http://www.btacc.co.uk/used-cars/volkswagen-golf-2...
This one's on fake Monza IIs. Have to be a bit careful about them, as I seem to remember reading about a couple of failures...they're made in China...http://www.btacc.co.uk/used-cars/volkswagen-golf-2...
You can actually check with VW what the original order spec was which says whether it was originally on 18s or not.
RacerMike said:
This one's on fake Monza IIs. Have to be a bit careful about them, as I seem to remember reading about a couple of failures...they're made in China...
You can actually check with VW what the original order spec was which says whether it was originally on 18s or not.
Good spot, hadn't noticed that. Mine is on 17s which I think actually suits the Mk5 better. I tried one on 18s but the diamond cut finish doesn't age well and they impact the ride quality/ NVH. However the Mk6/ Mk7 need the bigger wheels to fill the arches. You can actually check with VW what the original order spec was which says whether it was originally on 18s or not.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff