RE: Shed Of The Week: VW Golf Mk5
Discussion
Worked on the launch of the mk 5 Golf - doesn't feel that long ago. We had a couple of pre-prod / early build cars through for training and early meetings with RV setters etc. I remember saying to everyone who got in the car, don't worry about the plastics, they'll be changed when the car hits production-proper.... Saying that my mum had a 150 FSI in the exact spec here, and I've got to say that held together OK and I actually liked the way it drove.
white_goodman said:
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.
I believe the team that did the chassis for the Mk1 Focus was poached by VW to do the chassis on the Mk5 Golf (as the Golf fell down in this area)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.
And the team that did the excellent interior for the Mk4 Golf was poached by Ford to do the Mk2 Focus
If this is correct it would explain their similarity
Reading this again reminded me that I had a 1.4 Golf mk5 as a courtesy car a while back. Was about the same age and was clearly very worn, but despite having no power and no spec, I did have quite a laugh in it. It was comfy, but still handled tidily and the engine was so gutless it was quite fun to make progress. 60mph felt like an achievement rather than a limit!
Regarding this being the wrong engine, it's a bag of sand! 150hp should suffice for that. The seats in this thing alone must be worth a few quid on ebay.
Regarding this being the wrong engine, it's a bag of sand! 150hp should suffice for that. The seats in this thing alone must be worth a few quid on ebay.
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.
I had an A4 with this engine and my wife a TT with the 1.8 turbo.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 engines feel very different, the turbo with lots of mid range torque but the FSI likes to rev and makes a (relatively) nice (for a four) noise while doing so.
Despite the lower performance I prefer the normally aspirated engine.
FWDRacer said:
Mrs FWDracer has a 1.4 Mk5 Golf. It is known as the "Teutonic German B'stad" and pisses its MOT every year - last year required its cataracts sorting. Cheap toothpaste substituted Autoglym. Who knew!. Heading towards 100K and feels run in now. Not sure about the commentary on build quality being lesser than Mk4, simply can't accept it.
So solid you'd be happy to put your first born in it, to learn to drive.
Our one is on sports suspension and 16" wheels, and whilst hardly the most thrilling FWD hatch, you simply cannot either lose it, nor lose your licence in it. Perfect first car.
I was going to suggest toothpaste for the headlamps too.So solid you'd be happy to put your first born in it, to learn to drive.
Our one is on sports suspension and 16" wheels, and whilst hardly the most thrilling FWD hatch, you simply cannot either lose it, nor lose your licence in it. Perfect first car.
It will also make your old car smell nice and minty
"the 2.0 would do 0-60 in 8 seconds but didnt have the thrust of the 1.8T". the 1.8T was 8.5s to 60 I believe so if the 2.0 didnt have that engines thrust how on earth did it crack the benchmark run to 60 half a second quicker than the turbo 1.8?
still a lot of shed for the money this.
still a lot of shed for the money this.
ToothbrushMan said:
"the 2.0 would do 0-60 in 8 seconds but didnt have the thrust of the 1.8T". the 1.8T was 8.5s to 60 I believe so if the 2.0 didnt have that engines thrust how on earth did it crack the benchmark run to 60 half a second quicker than the turbo 1.8?
still a lot of shed for the money this.
The turbo would give a bigger mid range punch, so it would feel quicker. still a lot of shed for the money this.
I realise this is shed money - and it's been a long time since I've shopped at this end of the market - but if the seller can't even be bothered making it presentable for the pics what does that say?
Add in the short MOT and the no warranty bit and to me the seller's just about admitting its a heap and he's not willing to spend any time or money on it.
Add in the short MOT and the no warranty bit and to me the seller's just about admitting its a heap and he's not willing to spend any time or money on it.
Drive Blind said:
I realise this is shed money - and it's been a long time since I've shopped at this end of the market - but if the seller can't even be bothered making it presentable for the pics what does that say?
Add in the short MOT and the no warranty bit and to me the seller's just about admitting its a heap and he's not willing to spend any time or money on it.
Agreed. If he spent 20 quid and cleaned up the headlights and gave it a good wash it would look more presentable. Add in the short MOT and the no warranty bit and to me the seller's just about admitting its a heap and he's not willing to spend any time or money on it.
As others said due to trading standards if engine or gearbox went pop on drive home would they be liable?
Jimmy Recard said:
I've tried the cheap toothpaste trick on a few cars. It always seems to look ok for a few days and then goes s
t again. Maybe I'm not doing it right.
Polishing it with the intended products I always seem to do fine
Given how bad those are on the Golf, i think its going to need the £20 or so invested in a proper cleaning kit to refresh them.t again. Maybe I'm not doing it right.Polishing it with the intended products I always seem to do fine
I wouldnt begrudge it a penny of that. It'll make a big difference.
Drive Blind said:
I realise this is shed money - and it's been a long time since I've shopped at this end of the market - but if the seller can't even be bothered making it presentable for the pics what does that say?
Add in the short MOT and the no warranty bit and to me the seller's just about admitting its a heap and he's not willing to spend any time or money on it.
Its clearly a trade in hes taken and is looking to punt on.Add in the short MOT and the no warranty bit and to me the seller's just about admitting its a heap and he's not willing to spend any time or money on it.
A years ticket, valet, sort out the lights, service and you could be looking at needing to £1495 it.
Hes probably taking a days pay and getting it moved on
daemon said:
Whilst he doesnt have to provide a warranty, he has to warrant the condition of the car.
Normal Consumer Rights Act rules apply.
No laws stop two sensible adults being able to come to a deal. If the seller says "I took it in px yesterday, never driven it, it might last a day or might last 2 years" then as long as it lasts a day it has been correctly described, sold and marketed and no one has been led up any garden paths, misled, lied to or rights infringed. It does have to be road legal but that is a different thing. Normal Consumer Rights Act rules apply.
The laws are designed to protect the seller from getting what they are being sold and expecting and also to protect the buyer from the seller subsequently demanding something else.
It is all down to how it is advertised, sold, priced or whatever. If it is pitched at retail price, as a delightful car with no faults and it goes pop after 2 days then the buyer will have a lot more comeback than something cheap advertised and sold as a possible heap.
I agree he has to warrant the condition of the car, but only so far as he/she has presented and sold it.
confused_buyer said:
daemon said:
Whilst he doesnt have to provide a warranty, he has to warrant the condition of the car.
Normal Consumer Rights Act rules apply.
No laws stop two sensible adults being able to come to a deal. If the seller says "I took it in px yesterday, never driven it, it might last a day or might last 2 years" then as long as it lasts a day it has been correctly described, sold and marketed and no one has been led up any garden paths, misled, lied to or rights infringed. It does have to be road legal but that is a different thing. Normal Consumer Rights Act rules apply.
The laws are designed to protect the seller from getting what they are being sold and expecting and also to protect the buyer from the seller subsequently demanding something else.
It is all down to how it is advertised, sold, priced or whatever. If it is pitched at retail price, as a delightful car with no faults and it goes pop after 2 days then the buyer will have a lot more comeback than something cheap advertised and sold as a possible heap.
I agree he has to warrant the condition of the car, but only so far as he/she has presented and sold it.
Its one of those cars as a seller you'd need to pick your buyer - someone who understands its "as is".
The start of VW cost cutting.An Astra of this vintage is build to a higher standard,even a Peugeot.Have you seen a rusty MK4 Astra or Peugeot 306 ? The reason VW dealers have such a shoddy reputation is because of cars like this,with their 'perceived' quality.I should know,as I worked there for 15 years.A mk 4 might be better,and you can get them for a few hundred quid
jakesmith said:
I believe the team that did the chassis for the Mk1 Focus was poached by VW to do the chassis on the Mk5 Golf (as the Golf fell down in this area)
And the team that did the excellent interior for the Mk4 Golf was poached by Ford to do the Mk2 Focus
If this is correct it would explain their similarity
Ample power in a 1.2TSI Golf? And the team that did the excellent interior for the Mk4 Golf was poached by Ford to do the Mk2 Focus
If this is correct it would explain their similarity
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff