Mk4 Golf V5, any good?
Discussion
I don't want to start a what car thread but I've been offered a 2000 2.3 V5 Mk4 Golf for shed money but it's a quite a distance away so I can't have a look at it, I will if it interests me enough though. I've never been into VAGs so I no idea what I'd be looking for anyway but I do fancy a change from the Honda and a warbly 5 pot might suit me. Does anyone have any experience with these cars, anything I should be wary of come service and MoT time?
On a side note, there might be a 2002 Honda Accord Vtec sport for sale soon if anyone is interested
Thanks in advance.
On a side note, there might be a 2002 Honda Accord Vtec sport for sale soon if anyone is interested
Thanks in advance.
I did have a brief look in to these, as they sounded interesting, but really the only thing going for them is the noise. There are single and twincam versions, the single cam has a rather poor 150 bhp, and terrible fuel economy, the twincam is a bit better with 170 bhp, and slightly better economy.
Check the last time the clutch was changed,if its alright and it still feels a bit clunky and heavy when changing gear than it needs its flywheel changed,so worth checking that as well.
Rear reverse lights do not usually work and need their fuse changed,other than that its pretty reliable.
Oh and as many other mk4 Golfs (Gtis etc) the handling is sh!te,on aftermarket shocks and springs it gets better if you are bothered.
Id say definitely go for it if it's in a good price,if it had all the above correctly changed and working there's not much to worry.
Rear reverse lights do not usually work and need their fuse changed,other than that its pretty reliable.
Oh and as many other mk4 Golfs (Gtis etc) the handling is sh!te,on aftermarket shocks and springs it gets better if you are bothered.
Id say definitely go for it if it's in a good price,if it had all the above correctly changed and working there's not much to worry.
They are ok, had a few, they are soft and heavy and drink lots of fuel, think of it as luxury Golf, dont exepct it to drive like a hot hatch its not.
They work quite well as an auto.
If you live in an area with lots of speed bumps be-ware the V5 golf is easy to crack the sump open on the larger speed humps if you hit it the wrong way.
Look out for over heating in traffic (fan relays).
Worn rear suspension bushes (makes a clonk over bumps)
Electric windows and c/locking not working on all doors can be a pain to fix that.
They work quite well as an auto.
If you live in an area with lots of speed bumps be-ware the V5 golf is easy to crack the sump open on the larger speed humps if you hit it the wrong way.
Look out for over heating in traffic (fan relays).
Worn rear suspension bushes (makes a clonk over bumps)
Electric windows and c/locking not working on all doors can be a pain to fix that.
Sound great!
Bit thirsty for what they are and were sold as the prestige version of the Golf, so are a bit "stodgy". But its a nice place to be and comfortable and give decent performance. The 150 is a bit crap (the turbo 1.8 certainly feels a lot faster), but the 170 is much nicer. But there is a reason why VW no longer sell the car or engine in the UK (and Europe I think). You can get more power, economy and thrill with different engines. Not sure if its still sold in the US, but a nice car and a bit different.
Bit thirsty for what they are and were sold as the prestige version of the Golf, so are a bit "stodgy". But its a nice place to be and comfortable and give decent performance. The 150 is a bit crap (the turbo 1.8 certainly feels a lot faster), but the 170 is much nicer. But there is a reason why VW no longer sell the car or engine in the UK (and Europe I think). You can get more power, economy and thrill with different engines. Not sure if its still sold in the US, but a nice car and a bit different.
I had a Toledo V5, 150hp version (same engine...but MUCH more kit...and more interesting imo)
To be honest, it was great - lovely torquey power delivery made it swifter than the figures suggested. Very smooth and sounded brilliant.
MPG wise it wasn't bad, just below 30mpg average, but over 40 was easy cruising at 80.
Given the choice between that and the 1.8, i'd go for the v5 every time.
Actually keep thinking about another toledo v5, this time the 170 version.
To be honest, it was great - lovely torquey power delivery made it swifter than the figures suggested. Very smooth and sounded brilliant.
MPG wise it wasn't bad, just below 30mpg average, but over 40 was easy cruising at 80.
Given the choice between that and the 1.8, i'd go for the v5 every time.
Actually keep thinking about another toledo v5, this time the 170 version.
Thanks guys, some excellent advice as to what I should be looking for. From what I've been told (a mate lives near to the car) it's in fairly good nick and has had most of it's faults fixed but what they were I don't know yet. It was bought by someone as a stop gap between his previous car and a Porsche but he just wants rid of it now so it's going cheap. I didn't realise there were two versions of the engine, I'll have to find out which it is first as well.
To be honest I am a little at odds with selling the Honda, I've had no problems with it at all since I bought it 2 years ago, but, it's time for a change and I fancy something I haven't had yet. I get slightly under 30mpg on a good day as it's woefully underpowered with it's single cam Vtec but handles beautifully.
Certainly food for thought anyway, cheers guys.
To be honest I am a little at odds with selling the Honda, I've had no problems with it at all since I bought it 2 years ago, but, it's time for a change and I fancy something I haven't had yet. I get slightly under 30mpg on a good day as it's woefully underpowered with it's single cam Vtec but handles beautifully.
Certainly food for thought anyway, cheers guys.
Depends on your definition of shed money but 2.8 Vr6 4 motion golfs aren't going for a great deal of money these days and they offer a lot more than a V5.
As another poster mentioned, the Toledo V5 is where the real bargains can be had.
It is worth digging out a few road tests on these things, I remember What Car and Top Gear doing group tests which put the mk4 golf ahead of the focus, civic, Alfa, BMW compact, as a complete package but the 306GTI-6 and Xsara VTS came out top in the handling department. The mk4/A3 were not highlighted as being bad at all just that they provide a more neutral set up with less of the lift off oversteer antics of a 306.
As another poster mentioned, the Toledo V5 is where the real bargains can be had.
It is worth digging out a few road tests on these things, I remember What Car and Top Gear doing group tests which put the mk4 golf ahead of the focus, civic, Alfa, BMW compact, as a complete package but the 306GTI-6 and Xsara VTS came out top in the handling department. The mk4/A3 were not highlighted as being bad at all just that they provide a more neutral set up with less of the lift off oversteer antics of a 306.
Big Fat Fatty said:
I don't want to start a what car thread but I've been offered a 2000 2.3 V5 Mk4 Golf for shed money but it's a quite a distance away so I can't have a look at it, I will if it interests me enough though. I've never been into VAGs so I no idea what I'd be looking for anyway but I do fancy a change from the Honda and a warbly 5 pot might suit me. Does anyone have any experience with these cars, anything I should be wary of come service and MoT time?
On a side note, there might be a 2002 Honda Accord Vtec sport for sale soon if anyone is interested
Thanks in advance.
If you like LOTS of understeer and cars that handle like boats you'll love it, if not you'll probably hate it.On a side note, there might be a 2002 Honda Accord Vtec sport for sale soon if anyone is interested
Thanks in advance.
I have a feeling you will be dissappointed when comparing it to an Accord.
Fair enough, your Accord is the slowest one so in a straight line the Golf will be better. However, the Accord is much sharper to drive (Don't you just love the steering?) and corners like it's on rails. Don't think the Golf would be lightning quick either. 2 litre Accords can out pace them no problem as they weigh so much more than the Accord.
If I was you, I would either stick with the Accord, or look for something else. Type-R's can be picked up cheap nowadays, and give out better MPG than your 1.8 SOHC surprisingly!
Fair enough, your Accord is the slowest one so in a straight line the Golf will be better. However, the Accord is much sharper to drive (Don't you just love the steering?) and corners like it's on rails. Don't think the Golf would be lightning quick either. 2 litre Accords can out pace them no problem as they weigh so much more than the Accord.
If I was you, I would either stick with the Accord, or look for something else. Type-R's can be picked up cheap nowadays, and give out better MPG than your 1.8 SOHC surprisingly!
Big Fat Fatty said:
Thanks guys, some excellent advice as to what I should be looking for. From what I've been told (a mate lives near to the car) it's in fairly good nick and has had most of it's faults fixed but what they were I don't know yet. It was bought by someone as a stop gap between his previous car and a Porsche but he just wants rid of it now so it's going cheap. I didn't realise there were two versions of the engine, I'll have to find out which it is first as well.
To be honest I am a little at odds with selling the Honda, I've had no problems with it at all since I bought it 2 years ago, but, it's time for a change and I fancy something I haven't had yet. I get slightly under 30mpg on a good day as it's woefully underpowered with it's single cam Vtec but handles beautifully.
Certainly food for thought anyway, cheers guys.
If it's 2000 it will probably be the 150bhp one. I am looking out for a Toledo, but all the ones less than 200miles away are always the 150bhp To be honest I am a little at odds with selling the Honda, I've had no problems with it at all since I bought it 2 years ago, but, it's time for a change and I fancy something I haven't had yet. I get slightly under 30mpg on a good day as it's woefully underpowered with it's single cam Vtec but handles beautifully.
Certainly food for thought anyway, cheers guys.
Pic of the 150 below. The 170 doesn't have the red leads.
.:ian:. said:
I did have a brief look in to these, as they sounded interesting, but really the only thing going for them is the noise. There are single and twincam versions, the single cam has a rather poor 150 bhp, and terrible fuel economy, the twincam is a bit better with 170 bhp, and slightly better economy.
Both variants are twin cam. Early cars only had 10 valves tho, later ones 20.
They are cut down versions of the 12 valve vr6 in the mk3 golf and the 24 valve in the mk4 golf 4motion.
Invest in a fault code reader and shares in WD40 for when your wipers grind to a halt.
The 2.8 V6 sounds amazing and has more toys (heated leather seats etc) but just as an example, a week of just town driving and 2 motorway trips gave me something like 180 miles out of a tank.
They're not amazing cars, but not as suicide inducingly awful as some on here would have you believe
The 2.8 V6 sounds amazing and has more toys (heated leather seats etc) but just as an example, a week of just town driving and 2 motorway trips gave me something like 180 miles out of a tank.
They're not amazing cars, but not as suicide inducingly awful as some on here would have you believe
I have had a Golf V5 (150) for 9 years. Its been ultra reliable and cheap to run, nothing much has gone wrong with it in 80k miles and 12 years (2000 model year car).
Yes it can be a bit thirsty, but I have seen 35mpg+ on a motorway run without trying too hard.
Big bonus is that mine has climate control (not sure if it was standard) and thats the reason I bought it.
Plenty of people say its a wallowy old boat, I would suggest it is what you make of it. Given the opportunity you can certainly throw it around and I've shown many a 1.8T a clean pair of heels in the twisties. You just need to drive the car properly and understand its dynamics. I think mine may have some kind of optional sports suspension as its quite firm (this may be why I disagree with everyone else on the handling!)
Even though its only 150Bhp I wouldnt call it sluggish, its just not supercar fast. I prefer the linear power delivery to the lag/burst performance of the turbo models.
What I have found is that you need to find someone to look after it who knows VW's. My local garage dont like working on the engine (for servicing) as they arent familiar with it. I tried a reasonably well known VW upgrade/performance/Service independant and they didnt have a clue - they actually told me a water leak was an oil leak ! I have now found a really really good little garage who know their stuff. Might be worth checking that you have someone local who can service it before buying (or DIY it of course).
Do not ever ever ever take it to a dealer for service or diagnostics. Just dont.
Yes it can be a bit thirsty, but I have seen 35mpg+ on a motorway run without trying too hard.
Big bonus is that mine has climate control (not sure if it was standard) and thats the reason I bought it.
Plenty of people say its a wallowy old boat, I would suggest it is what you make of it. Given the opportunity you can certainly throw it around and I've shown many a 1.8T a clean pair of heels in the twisties. You just need to drive the car properly and understand its dynamics. I think mine may have some kind of optional sports suspension as its quite firm (this may be why I disagree with everyone else on the handling!)
Even though its only 150Bhp I wouldnt call it sluggish, its just not supercar fast. I prefer the linear power delivery to the lag/burst performance of the turbo models.
What I have found is that you need to find someone to look after it who knows VW's. My local garage dont like working on the engine (for servicing) as they arent familiar with it. I tried a reasonably well known VW upgrade/performance/Service independant and they didnt have a clue - they actually told me a water leak was an oil leak ! I have now found a really really good little garage who know their stuff. Might be worth checking that you have someone local who can service it before buying (or DIY it of course).
Do not ever ever ever take it to a dealer for service or diagnostics. Just dont.
Below is a link to an autocar roadtest for the 170 BHP version of the v5 golf. Having driven both the 150 BHP version of the V5 and having owned the 170 bhp for a number of years I would definitely say the 170 BHP version is the one to go for out of the two. But their both pretty good cars. I never had any real problems at all apart from the wiper mechanism seizing and a window regulator breaking and both were cheaply fixed.
http://www.festivalplanet.com/golfv5/phpbb3/viewto...
As confirmed by the roadtest, the 170 BHP version is 7.4 seconds 0-60 and 20.2 seconds 0-100 (over 4 seconds quicker to 100 over the 150 BHP version if thats your thing). Nothing groundbreaking by todays standards but quick enough.
Also its worth bearing in mind the roadtest autocar done was with a car with a sports pack suspension, if the car had standard springs then I very much doubt the reviewer would have been so complimentary. In standard form and without a sports pack all mk4 golfs are pretty shocking. But they are comfortable enough for just motoring along.
As for people telling you to forget it and go for a 1.8t version, in standard form earlier 1.8 turbos with 150 BHP are far slower. By comparison I have the original autocar roadtest for the 1.8t with 150 BHP and the 0.60 was 8.5 and the 0.100 time was 25.6.
For your reference Autocar also did a roadtest for the 150 version of the V5 and its 0-60 time was 8.5 seconds and 24.3 0-100, so again this was quicker than the 150 bhp 1.8t to 100. The 1.8T engine was given a slight boost by VW to 180 bhp in 2002 for the launch of the 25th anniversary model but you will have to pay a premium for these versions.
Dont get me wrong the 1.8t is far more tunable and will be faster if you want to spend a few hundred quid on a remap etc but if you just want a standard car then I would definitely say the v5 with 170 BHP is the better one of the bunch. Unless you can afford to go for a V6 that is.
I would just drive a few versions and see what suits you really.
http://www.festivalplanet.com/golfv5/phpbb3/viewto...
As confirmed by the roadtest, the 170 BHP version is 7.4 seconds 0-60 and 20.2 seconds 0-100 (over 4 seconds quicker to 100 over the 150 BHP version if thats your thing). Nothing groundbreaking by todays standards but quick enough.
Also its worth bearing in mind the roadtest autocar done was with a car with a sports pack suspension, if the car had standard springs then I very much doubt the reviewer would have been so complimentary. In standard form and without a sports pack all mk4 golfs are pretty shocking. But they are comfortable enough for just motoring along.
As for people telling you to forget it and go for a 1.8t version, in standard form earlier 1.8 turbos with 150 BHP are far slower. By comparison I have the original autocar roadtest for the 1.8t with 150 BHP and the 0.60 was 8.5 and the 0.100 time was 25.6.
For your reference Autocar also did a roadtest for the 150 version of the V5 and its 0-60 time was 8.5 seconds and 24.3 0-100, so again this was quicker than the 150 bhp 1.8t to 100. The 1.8T engine was given a slight boost by VW to 180 bhp in 2002 for the launch of the 25th anniversary model but you will have to pay a premium for these versions.
Dont get me wrong the 1.8t is far more tunable and will be faster if you want to spend a few hundred quid on a remap etc but if you just want a standard car then I would definitely say the v5 with 170 BHP is the better one of the bunch. Unless you can afford to go for a V6 that is.
I would just drive a few versions and see what suits you really.
Edited by pupkin10 on Tuesday 4th September 19:46
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff