RE: Shed Of The Week: VW Golf Mk5
Discussion
BeastieBoy73 said:
The issue of rust on the front wings goes right across the VW range of that era.
VW do have a 12 year bodywork warranty and have just replaced both front wings on my 08 Passat with no fuss at all.
Tell me more....I have a 56 plate Golf with bubbles on the front arches.VW do have a 12 year bodywork warranty and have just replaced both front wings on my 08 Passat with no fuss at all.
In September I'll need a stopgap car when our leased Tiguan goes back. This will do the trick.
That's about all I can say about it! As others have said, not the most exciting thing but for the job I'll need it to do, it will be spot-on. Alas, I don't have the folding to hand right now. Darn it!
That's about all I can say about it! As others have said, not the most exciting thing but for the job I'll need it to do, it will be spot-on. Alas, I don't have the folding to hand right now. Darn it!
I had the miss fortune to own a MKV 1.6 Sport (ha, sport!).
Bought as an approved VAG at 3 years old. One of the worst cars I've ever owned. Faults every other month, both CATS replaced too, and then ABS failure. Rusty wings too.
The wings are a design fault and VW will replace them. Only if you know about it that is. It's not like they tell you!
Worst car I've ever owned, a MK3 GTI 8v.
P.O.S!
Bought as an approved VAG at 3 years old. One of the worst cars I've ever owned. Faults every other month, both CATS replaced too, and then ABS failure. Rusty wings too.
The wings are a design fault and VW will replace them. Only if you know about it that is. It's not like they tell you!
Worst car I've ever owned, a MK3 GTI 8v.
P.O.S!
ruprechtmonkeyboy said:
I know. The mk4 was and is a pretty terrible car. Mk5 was leagues ahead. This could just be the usual PH Golf bashing by some posters though.
The MK5 GTI was a massive improvement over the old MK4 version(s), certainly. The cooking models, on the other hand, i'm not so sure. I definitely wouldn't go as far to say leagues ahead, anyway.Sure, they had nicer interiors and a felt a bit more premium inside, but did they really drive that much better?
As the article mentions the common rusty arch issue, I thought it was worth mentioning there's an official VW bulletin for this. Providing it's still the original paint on the wing, they'll replace them FOC. Some dealers take a bit of work/persuasion, as you'll see from a search!
An OK shed but not really for me.
I would be rather cautious about the idea of it being cost free to run. I base that on my previous time in the trade and my brother's experience of his Golfs. He has had:
Mk4 GTI turbo - engine was good and body solid but it rattled and had quite a few small niggly problems (character?). It started to rust (front wings) and had a lot of money spent on rebuilding the suspension. It went quite well but was softly sprung and not really a GTI. The strangest thing was that the odometer would loose thousands of miles every 6 months or so, therefore my brother never really knew what mileage it had done when he sold it.
It was replaced with a near mint 27k miles mk5 GTI 30th Anniversary DSG with FVSH. It was certainly a better car power and handling wise, but it had quite a few faults (rear brake calipers and PCV valve? + used a lot of oil) for something so low mileage and was beginning to feel 'baggy' and make some strange noises when he sold it at circa 55k miles.
He has replaced it with an older 5dr mk5 GTI manual which he says feels much nicer. So far this seems fine though it needed one rusty wing replacing before purchase (which the garage did). He does live in West London who's speed bumps take their toll, but even so, VWs are not a paragon of reliability.
I would be rather cautious about the idea of it being cost free to run. I base that on my previous time in the trade and my brother's experience of his Golfs. He has had:
Mk4 GTI turbo - engine was good and body solid but it rattled and had quite a few small niggly problems (character?). It started to rust (front wings) and had a lot of money spent on rebuilding the suspension. It went quite well but was softly sprung and not really a GTI. The strangest thing was that the odometer would loose thousands of miles every 6 months or so, therefore my brother never really knew what mileage it had done when he sold it.
It was replaced with a near mint 27k miles mk5 GTI 30th Anniversary DSG with FVSH. It was certainly a better car power and handling wise, but it had quite a few faults (rear brake calipers and PCV valve? + used a lot of oil) for something so low mileage and was beginning to feel 'baggy' and make some strange noises when he sold it at circa 55k miles.
He has replaced it with an older 5dr mk5 GTI manual which he says feels much nicer. So far this seems fine though it needed one rusty wing replacing before purchase (which the garage did). He does live in West London who's speed bumps take their toll, but even so, VWs are not a paragon of reliability.
CliveM said:
Sheesh - it's a G R A N D. Get over yourselves - the fact it'll clean up fine for minimal outlay and will reliably move its heated seats from A to B is pretty awesome.
Granted it might not be for all - but for someone this will fit the bill perfectly.
Indeed. Reasonably specification, wet sand and polish the headlights, bit of titivation, and it would be a very smart car for minimal outlay.Granted it might not be for all - but for someone this will fit the bill perfectly.
I owned an early example of one of these (2004) for 50k miles. It was very reliable but was drinking oil by the time i moved it on. The only non-service work it required in my tenure was one coil-pack, an exhaust sensor and two snapped rear springs. It did rust at the arches, though.
I found it to be a pretty good steer. Pokey enough and handled reasonably well with the sport suspension on 225 tyres - mine had optional split-rim 17" alloys which improved the overall appearance from bland to smart.
Regarding all the comments of dull. Well, yes. It's a mid-spec Golf, they're designed to be dull.
I found it to be a pretty good steer. Pokey enough and handled reasonably well with the sport suspension on 225 tyres - mine had optional split-rim 17" alloys which improved the overall appearance from bland to smart.
Regarding all the comments of dull. Well, yes. It's a mid-spec Golf, they're designed to be dull.
It's a car for someone on a limited budget who's not too bothered about cars, I'd say.
That's to say I think it's a nice car, but I can't see myself ever really wanting it. It's in that odd and unfortunate middle position of not being a frugal engine choice and not being a performance engine choice either. For me it'd have to be either a diesel or a GTI I think. Nothing in between.
That's to say I think it's a nice car, but I can't see myself ever really wanting it. It's in that odd and unfortunate middle position of not being a frugal engine choice and not being a performance engine choice either. For me it'd have to be either a diesel or a GTI I think. Nothing in between.
I'd rather have a MK1/MK2 Focus, they're just a much better steer. And dare I say it more reliable. Perceived quality isn't as high, but I suspect actually quality is the same.
The survival rate thread from a few months back showed Focus and Golf were very similar in terms of survival rates. Both models being at the top of their segment.
The survival rate thread from a few months back showed Focus and Golf were very similar in terms of survival rates. Both models being at the top of their segment.
I used to sell these new back in the day. Great cars. As good to drive as the mk1 Focus, better than the mk2 and leagues ahead of the mk4 Golf in my opinion. These early non-turbo FSI engines weren't that great though. Pretty gutless and not great on fuel either. Being a GT, this one is quite a nice spec but other than that the 1.6 FSI is just as good. The coil packs did go on them and you needed to run them on superunleaded, as they would pink on 95. Personally, I would rather go 1.9 TDI/2.0 TDI on this age. There's a very similar spec 2.0 TDI down in Dorset on Gumtree for 2k and it's worth the extra in my opinion.
When I quit selling VWs, I had the misfortune to buy a mk4 2.0 GTi. Hugely unreliable and complete garbage at 8 years old and 80,000 miles. In comparison my dad bought a mk5 1.9 TDI new and ran it up to over 100k, no problems, so in my opinion the mk5 Golf is a much better car. That being said, I wouldn't buy a Golf with the wrong engine again so if my hand were to be forced on a 1k Golf, I would be seeking out a mk4 1.8T GTi.
On a side note, things have changed. I rented a new mk7 Golf 1.2 TSI recently and racked up around 1000 miles in it. Ample power and refinement, a consistent 50mpg and no need for super unleaded. I don't see the point in choosing the lowest power diesel instead.
When I quit selling VWs, I had the misfortune to buy a mk4 2.0 GTi. Hugely unreliable and complete garbage at 8 years old and 80,000 miles. In comparison my dad bought a mk5 1.9 TDI new and ran it up to over 100k, no problems, so in my opinion the mk5 Golf is a much better car. That being said, I wouldn't buy a Golf with the wrong engine again so if my hand were to be forced on a 1k Golf, I would be seeking out a mk4 1.8T GTi.
On a side note, things have changed. I rented a new mk7 Golf 1.2 TSI recently and racked up around 1000 miles in it. Ample power and refinement, a consistent 50mpg and no need for super unleaded. I don't see the point in choosing the lowest power diesel instead.
Here in Germany they say that FSI stands for "Frisst Sprit Immer", which means it always likes drinking petrol. 
My daughter had an Eos with the 2.0l FSI: nice car, but economical it was not. (and the roof leaked, but that's another story)
My daughter had an Eos with the 2.0l FSI: nice car, but economical it was not. (and the roof leaked, but that's another story)Edited by GuitarTech on Friday 16th June 18:56
culpz said:
Proper LSD or not, it's probably one of the most pointless engines to combine it with, surely?
I was also under the impression that this particular engine wasn't that reliable and did suffer from a few issue but i could well be wrong there. I think the main issue would be the lack of performance from such a big engine. Isn't it basically just a non-turbocharged version of the one they put in the MK5 GTI? So, you get worse fuel consumption with alot less performance.
Looking at it as a shed, it's probably very good VFM. I'd much rather a 1.8T MK4 for the same budget though.
The 1.8Ts are all heavily modified, un serviced nails for £1KI was also under the impression that this particular engine wasn't that reliable and did suffer from a few issue but i could well be wrong there. I think the main issue would be the lack of performance from such a big engine. Isn't it basically just a non-turbocharged version of the one they put in the MK5 GTI? So, you get worse fuel consumption with alot less performance.
Looking at it as a shed, it's probably very good VFM. I'd much rather a 1.8T MK4 for the same budget though.
MDMA . said:
daemon said:
A £20 headlight restorer kit from the like of 3M or Autoglym would bring those headlight up like new
just had Autoglym in this morning. they are selling like hot cakes! now an MOT failure I believe.Before...
During....
After....
Edited by daemon on Friday 16th June 20:57
Edited by daemon on Friday 16th June 20:58
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff