Mk IV Golf 130 pd or 2.0 "gti"

[siovey]

Hi Guys, I'm looking for cheap car to run round in for 6 months or so until my work contract either finishes or is extended so I can buy something better.
I cannot find anything that takes my fancy but have narrowed it down to 2 local cars

1) Golf Mk IV 130pd with 130k miles- 2004 plate
2) Golf Mk IV 2.0 petrol "gti" - 60k miles - 2004 plate

They are both about the same price. The question is, which one will be more reliable and hold its value better for say 6-12 months?

I had a 1.8t gti new back in 1999 and loved it. Possibly another option would be a Jag X type 2.5 sport for the same money with 60k miles (to be fair, I'd probably prefer this but know nothing about these)

Any opinions on this one, chaps?
Cheers
Simon

[pad58]

Get the 130PD ,they where the best diesel Mk4 , the 2ltr was a great disappointment.

However if you go for an 18T they have more than likely been ragged by now ,except mine of course.

[Motorrad]

The 2.0 'GTi' is st. I hate to say it but buy the diesel.


Personally I'd spend the same money on a Seat Cupra with the 1.8T engine but that wasnt the question.

[Drive Blind]

the 130pd will hold its value better and will be easier to sell on.

however the pd130 has more potential to go wrong - turbo, clutch, dmf.

How many miles are you doing weekly? the pd will do 55mpg, i imagine only 35 from the 2l gti.

[BorkFactor]

As a cheap reliable car I would go for the 2.0 - not sporty at all but reliable and plenty about.

[zeduffman]

I had the 2.0 8v briefly. Reliable and comfortable, but would only get 35mpg, meaning it was only marginally better on fuel than my R32. If you're after something cheap to run I would go for the diesel.

[FamilyDub]

Motorrad said:

The 2.0 'GTi' is st. I hate to say it but buy the diesel

He's right. In MK4 context.

[siovey]

Thanks guys. I've been to test drive the diesel and have bought it. Good bodywork condition, a stack of receipts and the engine felt really strong
I'll be doing 200 miles per week and will flog it after 6 months to get something better if the job goes well
Bit of a come down from the M3 but as a short term car it seems a good cheap option

Edited by siovey on Saturday 30th August 17:42

[Rammy76]

My sister had the 2.0 "GTI" version. It was nice enough to sit in but was thirsty for what performance it gave.
It also drank oil at an alarming rate for a FSH 40000 mile car, I'm not sure if that's a characteristic of that particular engine though or whether hers was a bad one.