Mk4 Golf GT TDi 130 - A Quick Project
Discussion
I've done a bit of research into the various geometry settings offered on the Golf/TT platform:
Audi TT 8N 2WD
Front Axle Wheel Alignment Specifications
* The angle of the outside wheel is less by this amount. Depending on manufacturer, it may be indicated as negative on the alignment computer.
Rear Axle Wheel Alignment Specifications
Golf Mk4 2WD
Front Axle Wheel Alignment Specifications
* The angle of the outside wheel is less by this amount. Depending on manufacturer, it may be indicated as negative on the alignment computer.
Rear Axle Wheel Alignment Specifications
*R32/4WD models use the same front suspension as 2WD models.
Data shows:
I didn't mention ARBs in the table above but my car currently does not have a rear ARB: Mk4 Golfs were available with 18mm or 21.7mm rear ARB, but none had the TT camber settings. The TT beam I've just bought has both 21.7mm ARB and obviously, the additional camber.
As far as the front end goes the TT lower arms are adjustable to the entire range of camber listed in the tables above, so I will have the car aligned to TT 'sports' settings, which are the most handling focussed OEM setting for the Golf/TT platform.
Audi TT 8N 2WD
Front Axle Wheel Alignment Specifications
| Alignment setting | Standard suspension | Sports suspension |
|---|---|---|
| Toe setting for each wheel (without load) | 4' ± 3.5' | 4' ± 3.5' |
| Overall toe (without load) | 8' ± 7' | 8' ± 7' |
| Camber | -45' + 30' | -58' + 30' |
| Maximum permissible difference between left and right | maximum 30' | maximum 30' |
| Toe-out on turns at 20°* | ± 1° 31' ± 20' | ± 1° 31' ± 20' |
| Caster (not adjustable) | + 7° 58' | + 7° 58' |
| Maximum permissible difference between left and right | maximum 30' | maximum 30' |
* The angle of the outside wheel is less by this amount. Depending on manufacturer, it may be indicated as negative on the alignment computer.
Rear Axle Wheel Alignment Specifications
| Alignment setting | In production before chassis number No. 8N Y1 060001 | In production after chassis number No. 8N Y1 060001 |
|---|---|---|
| Camber | - 2" ± 20' | - 2" ± 20' |
| Maximum permissible difference between left and right | maximum 30' | maximum 30' |
| Toe setting for each wheel (not adjustable) | + 14' ± 5' | + 19.5' ± 5' |
| Overall toe (not adjustable) | + 28' ± 10' | + 39' ± 10' |
| Maximum permissible deviation from longitudinal axis of | maximum 15' | maximum 15' |
Golf Mk4 2WD
Front Axle Wheel Alignment Specifications
| Alignment setting | Standard running gear | Sports running gear | Sports running gear (GTi 1.8T) | Heavy duty running gear (Estate) | R32* |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Toe setting for each wheel (without load) | -1° 30' ± 20' | -1° 31' ± 20' | -1° 32' ± 20' | -1° 27' ± 20' | -1° 20' ± 20' |
| Overall toe (without load) | 0° ± 10' | 0° ± 10' | 0° ± 10' | 0° ± 10' | 0° ± 10' |
| Camber | -30' ± 30' | -33' ± 30' | -35' ± 30' | -16' ± 30' | -45' ± 30' |
| Maximum permissible difference between left and right | maximum 30' | maximum 30' | maximum 30' | maximum 30' | maximum 30' |
| Toe-out on turns at 20°* | -1° 30' ± 20' | -1° 31' ± 20' | -1° 32' ± 20' | -1° 27' ± 20' | -1° 20' ± 20' |
| Caster (not adjustable) | +7° 40' ± 30' | +7° 50' ± 30' | +8° ± 30' | +7° 15' ± 30' | +8° ± 30' |
| Maximum permissible difference between left and right | maximum 30' | maximum 30' | maximum 30' | maximum 30' | maximum 30' |
* The angle of the outside wheel is less by this amount. Depending on manufacturer, it may be indicated as negative on the alignment computer.
Rear Axle Wheel Alignment Specifications
| Alignment setting | Standard running gear | Sports running gear | Sports running gear (GTi 1.8T) | Heavy duty running gear (Estate) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Camber | -1° 27' ± 10' | -1° 27' ± 10' | -1° 27' ± 10' | -1° 27' ± 10' |
| Maximum permissible difference between left and right | maximum 30' | maximum 30' | maximum 30' | maximum 30' |
| Toe setting for each wheel (not adjustable) | + 20' ± 10' | + 25' ± 10' | + 29' ± 10' | + 10'+10'/-7' |
| Maximum permissible deviation from longitudinal axis of | maximum 20' | maximum 20' | maximum 20' | maximum 20' |
*R32/4WD models use the same front suspension as 2WD models.
Data shows:
- The TT rear beam has nearly one degree more camber than any of the FWD Golf models.
- TT toe in increased dramatically with the 'safety' revisions, further contributing to high speed stability at the detriment of handling
- Post-revision TTs run more total rear toe in than any of the Golf models - pre-revision cars are around the same as the Golf.
- The Golf R32 runs considerably more front camber than the rest of the Golf range, and as much as the TT with 'standard' suspension settings. The TT with 'sports' suspension settings runs as much camber again.
- Introduction of ESP
- More rear toe in
- Larger front ARB
- Larger front wishbone bush
- Rear spoiler
- Smaller rear ARB
I didn't mention ARBs in the table above but my car currently does not have a rear ARB: Mk4 Golfs were available with 18mm or 21.7mm rear ARB, but none had the TT camber settings. The TT beam I've just bought has both 21.7mm ARB and obviously, the additional camber.
As far as the front end goes the TT lower arms are adjustable to the entire range of camber listed in the tables above, so I will have the car aligned to TT 'sports' settings, which are the most handling focussed OEM setting for the Golf/TT platform.
I managed to get a few more things done today.
Aluminium rings glued over the standard black rubber knobs. These tie in the Sat Nav to the new Mk5/6 headlamp switch.
Auto light kit fitted. I'm really pleased with this kit as it also enables auto leaving/coming home lights. Excuse my dusty car!
I had a change of heart with the front TT springs; the S-Line versions are too low for my daily driver duties so I've got hold of some pre-2002 versions and had them shot blasted and coated. The following photo shows the difference between types: Early type (left), S-Line (right).
I also had some TT spring cups blasted and coated.
I found a really good set of 312mm brakes in my local breakers yard. The discs and Mintex pads were like new. I had the caliper carriers blasted and coated.
I also picked up the section of wiring loom from a TT which joins the additional ESP pressure sensors on the master cylinder to the ABS/ESP module. This will enable me to incorporate the second pressure sensor with my single sensor ESP loom, using OEM plugs and wiring.
I got the rear dampers, top mounts, and springs fitted today. The TT rear springs are the same free height as my originals but the wire is 40.5mm thick compared to the 40.1mm of my originals. TT (left), GT TDi (right).
A quick bench test revealed the damping rate of the replacement shocks to feel approximately twice that of the originals, which were way too soft even for daily driving over bad surfaces.
Aluminium rings glued over the standard black rubber knobs. These tie in the Sat Nav to the new Mk5/6 headlamp switch.
Auto light kit fitted. I'm really pleased with this kit as it also enables auto leaving/coming home lights. Excuse my dusty car!
I had a change of heart with the front TT springs; the S-Line versions are too low for my daily driver duties so I've got hold of some pre-2002 versions and had them shot blasted and coated. The following photo shows the difference between types: Early type (left), S-Line (right).
I also had some TT spring cups blasted and coated.
I found a really good set of 312mm brakes in my local breakers yard. The discs and Mintex pads were like new. I had the caliper carriers blasted and coated.
I also picked up the section of wiring loom from a TT which joins the additional ESP pressure sensors on the master cylinder to the ABS/ESP module. This will enable me to incorporate the second pressure sensor with my single sensor ESP loom, using OEM plugs and wiring.
I got the rear dampers, top mounts, and springs fitted today. The TT rear springs are the same free height as my originals but the wire is 40.5mm thick compared to the 40.1mm of my originals. TT (left), GT TDi (right).
A quick bench test revealed the damping rate of the replacement shocks to feel approximately twice that of the originals, which were way too soft even for daily driving over bad surfaces.
I wanted to fit the S3 strut brace whilst the car was on axle stands as that way the brace is under compression - as it should be - when the car is back on its wheels. I drilled the turrets and packed the holes with grease, then used M10 flanged nuts and self-locking nuts to secure.
TDi cars never came fitted with a strut brace hence the engine cover was never designed to accommodate one. The cover mad to be trimmed to clear the brace.
The finished article.
By now I had what seemed like half a Mk4 Golf on the workshop floor, and could begin the refit!
I've taken the opportunity to replace the lower gearbox mount/'torque link' which is a weak link on these cars. Mine was still serviceable but had gone soft.
New ABS sensors for the TT hubs; same type as the Golf but I couldn't remove the originals without damaging them.
The TT Roadster/3.2 had already been blasted and coated but of course I found something I had to modify to suit the TDi!
The TDi front exhaust bracket secures to two captive fittings on the rear of the subframe and thankfully those fittings were present on the TT subframe, however one was obscured by the 3.2/Roadster specific bracing. I had to bore through the bracing to expose the captive fitting and then run a tap through it all to clean it up (upper green arrow)..
The TT exhaust bracket is welded directly to the subframe so it had to be removed with a grinder (lower green arrow).
The light blue arrows show new bolts in position ready for the TDi exhaust mount.
Here's the subframe assembled with new Roadster bushes, 3.2 quick rack and new track rods & ends, Powerflex black rack bush, early 19mm front ARB with new bushes & clamps. New bolts were used throughout.
Assembled height comparison between my original GT suspension (left) and the pre-2002 TT suspension (right).
Everything installed minus the brackets and ARB drop links.
All that's left on the suspension now is to fit the front ARB links and Fabia VRS rear beam bushes, then I can take the car for an alignment to TT sport spec.
TDi cars never came fitted with a strut brace hence the engine cover was never designed to accommodate one. The cover mad to be trimmed to clear the brace.
The finished article.
By now I had what seemed like half a Mk4 Golf on the workshop floor, and could begin the refit!
I've taken the opportunity to replace the lower gearbox mount/'torque link' which is a weak link on these cars. Mine was still serviceable but had gone soft.
New ABS sensors for the TT hubs; same type as the Golf but I couldn't remove the originals without damaging them.
The TT Roadster/3.2 had already been blasted and coated but of course I found something I had to modify to suit the TDi!
The TDi front exhaust bracket secures to two captive fittings on the rear of the subframe and thankfully those fittings were present on the TT subframe, however one was obscured by the 3.2/Roadster specific bracing. I had to bore through the bracing to expose the captive fitting and then run a tap through it all to clean it up (upper green arrow)..
The TT exhaust bracket is welded directly to the subframe so it had to be removed with a grinder (lower green arrow).
The light blue arrows show new bolts in position ready for the TDi exhaust mount.
Here's the subframe assembled with new Roadster bushes, 3.2 quick rack and new track rods & ends, Powerflex black rack bush, early 19mm front ARB with new bushes & clamps. New bolts were used throughout.
Assembled height comparison between my original GT suspension (left) and the pre-2002 TT suspension (right).
Everything installed minus the brackets and ARB drop links.
All that's left on the suspension now is to fit the front ARB links and Fabia VRS rear beam bushes, then I can take the car for an alignment to TT sport spec.
Great work, I had a identical one before the R32.
If I had the space I would love to refresh all the suspension on the 32 like you have.
How did the DSP speakers compare in sound quality to the standard speakers? I have been looking for something which will go with the RNS510 I fitted to mine as I think the RNS might be over powering them a bit.
If you want to improve the rear end, these are supposed to be good http://unibrace.com/product/series-xb/xb/
Keep up the good work
If I had the space I would love to refresh all the suspension on the 32 like you have.
How did the DSP speakers compare in sound quality to the standard speakers? I have been looking for something which will go with the RNS510 I fitted to mine as I think the RNS might be over powering them a bit.
If you want to improve the rear end, these are supposed to be good http://unibrace.com/product/series-xb/xb/
Keep up the good work
nipsips said:
Your attention to detail is nothing short of amazing.
Is good to see someone modifying a Golf and paying attention to the finer details!
Thank you.Is good to see someone modifying a Golf and paying attention to the finer details!
Blue32 said:
Great work, I had a identical one before the R32.
If I had the space I would love to refresh all the suspension on the 32 like you have.
How did the DSP speakers compare in sound quality to the standard speakers? I have been looking for something which will go with the RNS510 I fitted to mine as I think the RNS might be over powering them a bit.
If you want to improve the rear end, these are supposed to be good http://unibrace.com/product/series-xb/xb/
Keep up the good work
The DSP is a world away from the standard speakers and in fact with the Harman Becker amp is slightly better than the Harman Kardon LOGIC7 system fitted to an AMG Mercedes I owned previously. It has excellent clarity and the bass response and separation is really impressive given it doesn't have a sub, in fact with the right music I am still amazed it doesn't have one! If I had the space I would love to refresh all the suspension on the 32 like you have.
How did the DSP speakers compare in sound quality to the standard speakers? I have been looking for something which will go with the RNS510 I fitted to mine as I think the RNS might be over powering them a bit.
If you want to improve the rear end, these are supposed to be good http://unibrace.com/product/series-xb/xb/
Keep up the good work
The only thing you'll need to be careful of is the impedance and frequency response of the DSP speakers; I seem to recall the system has a bit of a non standard crossover point and I think the tweeters are 3ohm, so I advise checking what the RNS510 is set up to drive. You probably already know that the DSP amp is configured by the head unit using data over a bus and it would be extremely unlikely that the 510 would match in that respect. You may be able to to configure via VAG-COM and just drive it like a normal amp.
Thanks for the link to that brace. I'd not seen that before but do know how rigidity is lost by folding rear seats without a bulkhead behind, though unfortunately its a no-go for me as I regularly use the excellent load carrying capacity of the Golf with its rear seats down.
I've had a bit of a game with alignment over the past week; on Tuesday I took the car to F1 Autocentres in Lincoln to have it aligned to TT 'Sport' (fast road) spec and we just could not get the O/S/F camber anywhere near -1.30°: it was stuck around -2.30° on the minimum setting. The N/S/F was set up perfectly and somewhere in the middle of its adjustment range so clearly something wasn't right. I took the car away for further investigation.
I spent a few hours in the unit yesterday trying to get to the bottom of it and after the first round of measurements I found the O/S/F wheel Set Back was around 15mm, and that is way more than could or should be corrected by slackening the subframe or lower arm mountings and repositioning them. The TT subframe mounted to the car without any issue and had no signs of damage but I decided to measure all of its mounting positions and cross reference them with some taken from my old Golf subframe, which was known to be good.
In the end I found that the lower arm rear mounts were closer together by 5mm which of cause is sufficient to create a more significant problem at the wheel face, so it seems that the TT had taken a knock to the O/S/F wheel significant enough to compress the rear section of subframe slightly thus canting the wheel backwards in the arch and moving the minimum camber point outwards in the process.
To resolve the issue I ended up swapping the TT 3.2/Roadster subframe with my original Golf version which thankfully is in pretty decent condition. The car went back to F1 Autocentres today and they corrected everything free of charge – nice service!
It's worth pointing out that F1 Autocentre use a Supertracker machine which won't calculate Set Back like a Hunter will - otherwise the issue could be more clearly diagnosed during alignment - but for the purposes of aligning in normal circumstances the Supertracker is absolutely fine, and I really like the level of customer provided by F1. During alignment I'll be stood under the ramps with the technicians discussing cars! They also aligned the F430 for me after I fitted the Hill tie rod ends, and were very careful with the car.
Here are the results:
Front toe: perfect.
Front camber: ignore the fact it's shown in red: that's because I've ignored the Audi standard settings and gone for a fast road camber spec.
Rear toe: I have a small (3mm) toe out setting to correct on the N/S/R wheel likely caused by me unbolting the rear beam mount on that side when I replaced the bushes, but it's quite insignificant so can wait until another time.
Rear camber: OK.
I will report in a later update how the car handles.
In other news I have bought a new OEM Triplex Antenna (GPS, Radio, and phone) to replace my standard aerial. It is the finishing touch for the Sat Nav/MFD retrofit.
I spent a few hours in the unit yesterday trying to get to the bottom of it and after the first round of measurements I found the O/S/F wheel Set Back was around 15mm, and that is way more than could or should be corrected by slackening the subframe or lower arm mountings and repositioning them. The TT subframe mounted to the car without any issue and had no signs of damage but I decided to measure all of its mounting positions and cross reference them with some taken from my old Golf subframe, which was known to be good.
In the end I found that the lower arm rear mounts were closer together by 5mm which of cause is sufficient to create a more significant problem at the wheel face, so it seems that the TT had taken a knock to the O/S/F wheel significant enough to compress the rear section of subframe slightly thus canting the wheel backwards in the arch and moving the minimum camber point outwards in the process.
To resolve the issue I ended up swapping the TT 3.2/Roadster subframe with my original Golf version which thankfully is in pretty decent condition. The car went back to F1 Autocentres today and they corrected everything free of charge – nice service!
It's worth pointing out that F1 Autocentre use a Supertracker machine which won't calculate Set Back like a Hunter will - otherwise the issue could be more clearly diagnosed during alignment - but for the purposes of aligning in normal circumstances the Supertracker is absolutely fine, and I really like the level of customer provided by F1. During alignment I'll be stood under the ramps with the technicians discussing cars! They also aligned the F430 for me after I fitted the Hill tie rod ends, and were very careful with the car.
Here are the results:
Front toe: perfect.
Front camber: ignore the fact it's shown in red: that's because I've ignored the Audi standard settings and gone for a fast road camber spec.
Rear toe: I have a small (3mm) toe out setting to correct on the N/S/R wheel likely caused by me unbolting the rear beam mount on that side when I replaced the bushes, but it's quite insignificant so can wait until another time.
Rear camber: OK.
I will report in a later update how the car handles.
In other news I have bought a new OEM Triplex Antenna (GPS, Radio, and phone) to replace my standard aerial. It is the finishing touch for the Sat Nav/MFD retrofit.
Cheers.
Thanks both 
Very small update. I played around with the rear beam and went back for another alignment - got it much closer this time.
I also bought a copy of VCDS and did some data logging one Sunday afternoon just to check over the car, as I felt the performance wasn't quite what it used to be. I noted that the temp sender reading was falling a few degrees outside of the 87 to 92 degrees C range, so I replaced that and the car feels back to full health again. I checked over the MAF readings too and all was well. I also coded out EGR from the ECU and the difference is considerable - where the car would previously labour in 4th gear at 30mph (I don't drive like that!) it is now smooth. Really pleased with that.
I had four new Conti Sport Contact tyres fitted too - great daily use yres for a non-sports car.
The car will be for sale in March at somewhere over but close to £4k. 67k miles.
Very small update. I played around with the rear beam and went back for another alignment - got it much closer this time.
I also bought a copy of VCDS and did some data logging one Sunday afternoon just to check over the car, as I felt the performance wasn't quite what it used to be. I noted that the temp sender reading was falling a few degrees outside of the 87 to 92 degrees C range, so I replaced that and the car feels back to full health again. I checked over the MAF readings too and all was well. I also coded out EGR from the ECU and the difference is considerable - where the car would previously labour in 4th gear at 30mph (I don't drive like that!) it is now smooth. Really pleased with that.
I had four new Conti Sport Contact tyres fitted too - great daily use yres for a non-sports car.
The car will be for sale in March at somewhere over but close to £4k. 67k miles.
Mark-
How has it been running a mk4 golf over the past year or two you've had it? For about a week I've been running a mk4 GTi as a courtesy car. While it had the heated recaros and a surprisingly good aftermarket Alpine stereo it ends up leaving me cold. It's well built, quick enough that it doesn't embarass itself but I never want to just go out and drive in it. It feels a little clinical to me. Also the clutch pedal has a bloody long throw! I'm wondering if your treatment made the car feel better or if it kept the same feel to it?
Also what's going to replace it? I recall talk of an AMG Merc this year?
How has it been running a mk4 golf over the past year or two you've had it? For about a week I've been running a mk4 GTi as a courtesy car. While it had the heated recaros and a surprisingly good aftermarket Alpine stereo it ends up leaving me cold. It's well built, quick enough that it doesn't embarass itself but I never want to just go out and drive in it. It feels a little clinical to me. Also the clutch pedal has a bloody long throw! I'm wondering if your treatment made the car feel better or if it kept the same feel to it?
Also what's going to replace it? I recall talk of an AMG Merc this year?
JakeT said:
Mark-
How has it been running a mk4 golf over the past year or two you've had it? For about a week I've been running a mk4 GTi as a courtesy car. While it had the heated recaros and a surprisingly good aftermarket Alpine stereo it ends up leaving me cold. It's well built, quick enough that it doesn't embarass itself but I never want to just go out and drive in it. It feels a little clinical to me. Also the clutch pedal has a bloody long throw! I'm wondering if your treatment made the car feel better or if it kept the same feel to it?
Also what's going to replace it? I recall talk of an AMG Merc this year?
Hi Jake,How has it been running a mk4 golf over the past year or two you've had it? For about a week I've been running a mk4 GTi as a courtesy car. While it had the heated recaros and a surprisingly good aftermarket Alpine stereo it ends up leaving me cold. It's well built, quick enough that it doesn't embarass itself but I never want to just go out and drive in it. It feels a little clinical to me. Also the clutch pedal has a bloody long throw! I'm wondering if your treatment made the car feel better or if it kept the same feel to it?
Also what's going to replace it? I recall talk of an AMG Merc this year?
I must admit I've loved the thing, but I did have two early ones prior to this one and didn't think quite so much to them. The 1998 to 2002 models differ in spec to the 2002 onwards by their front subframe bushes, spring rates, steering rack, and anti roll bar setup. The early GTi I had just felt a bit lifeless in comparison: vague steering, wallowly ride, and zero feedback, but then haing said that I don't think any model based on this platform regardless of manufacture date will ever replace a purpose built sports car or a decent hot hatch - they are just great at the everyday.
The TT changes I've made have transformed the car again. The quick rack is great! I rarely need more than half a turn. There is a quality of damping in the Golf that I think seperates them from other cars too, only now I have less body roll and a much higher level of feedback thanks to the TT parts and geo. The quick rack helps no end when pushing on as it'll flick its tail round and push into a four wheel slide with ease! On a couple of drives now it has actually put a smile on my face
The clutch pedal in mine hasn't stood out...
I am looking at the CLK63 Cabriolet but now wondering if it will be focussed enough for the little time I spend in a car these days, hence I'm giving serious consideration to running my M3. It's never going to be worth a fortune so the only person benefitting from it being stuck in my unit unsed for months at a time is the eventual next owner.
Cheers.
Remagel2507 said:
Considering the amount of work gone into it and the attention to detail I'd say that's a very reasonable price
Thanks!mwstewart said:
Hi Jake,
I must admit I've loved the thing, but I did have two early ones prior to this one and didn't think quite so much to them. The 1998 to 2002 models differ in spec to the 2002 onwards by their front subframe bushes, spring rates, steering rack, and anti roll bar setup. The early GTi I had just felt a bit lifeless in comparison: vague steering, wallowly ride, and zero feedback, but then haing said that I don't think any model based on this platform regardless of manufacture date will ever replace a purpose built sports car or a decent hot hatch - they are just great at the everyday.
The TT changes I've made have transformed the car again. The quick rack is great! I rarely need more than half a turn. There is a quality of damping in the Golf that I think seperates them from other cars too, only now I have less body roll and a much higher level of feedback thanks to the TT parts and geo. The quick rack helps no end when pushing on as it'll flick its tail round and push into a four wheel slide with ease! On a couple of drives now it has actually put a smile on my face
The clutch pedal in mine hasn't stood out...
I am looking at the CLK63 Cabriolet but now wondering if it will be focussed enough for the little time I spend in a car these days, hence I'm giving serious consideration to running my M3. It's never going to be worth a fortune so the only person benefitting from it being stuck in my unit unsed for months at a time is the eventual next owner.
Cheers.
Thanks for the reply, what I've been driving was an early 150hp 1.8T model, so sounds like it lacks the improvements on it. Rode very well over Hampshires broken roads though!I must admit I've loved the thing, but I did have two early ones prior to this one and didn't think quite so much to them. The 1998 to 2002 models differ in spec to the 2002 onwards by their front subframe bushes, spring rates, steering rack, and anti roll bar setup. The early GTi I had just felt a bit lifeless in comparison: vague steering, wallowly ride, and zero feedback, but then haing said that I don't think any model based on this platform regardless of manufacture date will ever replace a purpose built sports car or a decent hot hatch - they are just great at the everyday.
The TT changes I've made have transformed the car again. The quick rack is great! I rarely need more than half a turn. There is a quality of damping in the Golf that I think seperates them from other cars too, only now I have less body roll and a much higher level of feedback thanks to the TT parts and geo. The quick rack helps no end when pushing on as it'll flick its tail round and push into a four wheel slide with ease! On a couple of drives now it has actually put a smile on my face
The clutch pedal in mine hasn't stood out...
I am looking at the CLK63 Cabriolet but now wondering if it will be focussed enough for the little time I spend in a car these days, hence I'm giving serious consideration to running my M3. It's never going to be worth a fortune so the only person benefitting from it being stuck in my unit unsed for months at a time is the eventual next owner.
Cheers.
The way you have the M3 set up would make it an excellent daily. It could also give you time to work on the Fiesta also...
If the Golf is still for sale in September time for some reason or before when I have the money I would happily take it off you for that price. Looking for a new DD then as my commute will look to be increasing to a 100 mile round trip per day and something like this looks amazing for it. But there's still the niggle in the back of my head about running anything diesel or automatic... I will admit it is strange.
Edited by JakeT on Tuesday 17th February 23:16
Mark, considering your experiences with various ages of MKIV Golf, would you recommend the earlier style 'fixed ring' cupholder or later adjustable arm type? My MKIV currently has no cupholder and I'm leaning towards fitting the earlier type as the arms on the later one could be prone to failing? They don't inspire much confidence either, and I'm not going to be carrying any silly sized drinks
aspirated said:
Mark, considering your experiences with various ages of MKIV Golf, would you recommend the earlier style 'fixed ring' cupholder or later adjustable arm type? My MKIV currently has no cupholder and I'm leaning towards fitting the earlier type as the arms on the later one could be prone to failing? They don't inspire much confidence either, and I'm not going to be carrying any silly sized drinks
The later version is better. The early one is fiddly to use.Gassing Station | Readers' Cars | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff