RE: VW Golf GTI Mk2 by Petrolicious: Time For Tea
Discussion
Nice video.
I am very much a mk2 fan and consider myself quite knowledgeable on them. They are definitely one of those cars that somehow gets under your skin plus the owners clubs /show scene associated with them helps keep the popular.
I bought my first 1990 8v in 2001 and have owned over a dozen since plus rebuilt/worked on hundreds. I'm down to just one in my collection now, a lovely tornado red 89 16v which is one of the last skinny bumper cars.
I've spent years collecting loads of period bits an OE extras so my car now has bbs wheels, electric windows, mirrors and sunroof, various votex bits like centre consol, gear knob, headlight protectors, rear headrests/split fold rear an countless other bits.
I just need get it finished!!!!!
I am very much a mk2 fan and consider myself quite knowledgeable on them. They are definitely one of those cars that somehow gets under your skin plus the owners clubs /show scene associated with them helps keep the popular.
I bought my first 1990 8v in 2001 and have owned over a dozen since plus rebuilt/worked on hundreds. I'm down to just one in my collection now, a lovely tornado red 89 16v which is one of the last skinny bumper cars.
I've spent years collecting loads of period bits an OE extras so my car now has bbs wheels, electric windows, mirrors and sunroof, various votex bits like centre consol, gear knob, headlight protectors, rear headrests/split fold rear an countless other bits.
I just need get it finished!!!!!
J4CKO said:
blade7 said:
I'm not a great fan of either TBH but having owned a 85 Golf GTi and a 86 S1 Escort Turbo, I'd have to say the Escort would murder the Golf.
The RS turbo wasnt a competitor for the 8 valve GTI, which was an XR3i rival, 16 valve Golf was more on a par with a RS Turbo, and RS Turbos generally tended to be faster than standard due to the boost getting cranked up.graham22 said:
eta - wouldn't a 85/86 GTI still have had alloys despite the poverty spec of this one on the ad?
No, that's right on those steels. I always quite liked the sleeper aspect as a result. Glad it's a hefty price - round the corner from my Grandad's care home would have been too tempting for comfort! My second car was a 89G 8V GTI 3-door in the light green posted on the first page but sitting on the Teardrop alloys. I loved it.
Bought as a replacement for my first car - a 205 Roland Garros - because that car had started letting me down with the well-documented hot starting issue so I shelved plans to buy a 205 1.6 GTi and bought the 'reliable' Golf instead.
Alas, within 6 months it had failed the MOT as the front wing was coming away from the rest of the car! It was fun while it lasted though!
2xChevrons said:
I'm afraid I've never liked the Mk2 GTI (although I'll immediately temper that by saying I've never driven a stock 16V - only one that had had virtually every bit of drivetrain and running gear it left Wolfsburg with modified. It drove very nicely but it was basically a track car).
The 8V ones though, never saw what the deal was. Numb, slow steering, crashy ride that was prone to skitter, engine that had to be wrung right up to the top end to get good performance out of it, and not in a nice that's-the-way-it-was-designed VTEC sort of way. Excellent grip provided the road surface was good, but no real sense of 'poise'. All roadholding and not much actual handling. They can cover ground at a decent rate and do a good go-kart impression around roundabouts but they're not much fun. At the end of the day they feel like what they are - a family hatchback with rather crude engineering given a punchy engine and some suspension tweaks.
But I can see why they were so popular. At the end of the day they were/are 'a quick Golf'. They're very well built, rugged and easy to fix. They're comfy (if you can find a good position for seats), quiet, spacious and refined. And they're not going to give you any suprises on a wet wintery day. And it's still one of the only hot hatches to have some middle-class snob appeal about it. It's basically a 1980s equivalent of the MGB GT - it looks nice, it's comfy, it's practical, it's reliable and it's fun but utterly undemanding to drive. If you want to it can be a normal car with a good badge.
I've found the 205 GTi to be a much more fun and involving to drive. It's got a more resolved ride and sharper responses. The 1.6 engine was much zingier. It had a much more inherent feeling of balance and it needed a degree of care and attention to get the best out it which is very satisfying. But the build quality is terrible, the 1.9 engine is still pretty coarse and it's a smaller, less practical machine. If the Golf is an MGB, the 205 is a Triumph GT6.
The absolute best-driving hot-hatch has to be the Alfasud 1.5 Cloverleaf (or the Alfa 33 equivalent) but that's not in anything like the same league of practicality as the Pug, let alone the VW.
+1. Perfectly nice cars but not in the same league as any of the similar era French stuff as far as driving is concerned.The 8V ones though, never saw what the deal was. Numb, slow steering, crashy ride that was prone to skitter, engine that had to be wrung right up to the top end to get good performance out of it, and not in a nice that's-the-way-it-was-designed VTEC sort of way. Excellent grip provided the road surface was good, but no real sense of 'poise'. All roadholding and not much actual handling. They can cover ground at a decent rate and do a good go-kart impression around roundabouts but they're not much fun. At the end of the day they feel like what they are - a family hatchback with rather crude engineering given a punchy engine and some suspension tweaks.
But I can see why they were so popular. At the end of the day they were/are 'a quick Golf'. They're very well built, rugged and easy to fix. They're comfy (if you can find a good position for seats), quiet, spacious and refined. And they're not going to give you any suprises on a wet wintery day. And it's still one of the only hot hatches to have some middle-class snob appeal about it. It's basically a 1980s equivalent of the MGB GT - it looks nice, it's comfy, it's practical, it's reliable and it's fun but utterly undemanding to drive. If you want to it can be a normal car with a good badge.
I've found the 205 GTi to be a much more fun and involving to drive. It's got a more resolved ride and sharper responses. The 1.6 engine was much zingier. It had a much more inherent feeling of balance and it needed a degree of care and attention to get the best out it which is very satisfying. But the build quality is terrible, the 1.9 engine is still pretty coarse and it's a smaller, less practical machine. If the Golf is an MGB, the 205 is a Triumph GT6.
The absolute best-driving hot-hatch has to be the Alfasud 1.5 Cloverleaf (or the Alfa 33 equivalent) but that's not in anything like the same league of practicality as the Pug, let alone the VW.
blade7 said:
J4CKO said:
blade7 said:
I'm not a great fan of either TBH but having owned a 85 Golf GTi and a 86 S1 Escort Turbo, I'd have to say the Escort would murder the Golf.
The RS turbo wasnt a competitor for the 8 valve GTI, which was an XR3i rival, 16 valve Golf was more on a par with a RS Turbo, and RS Turbos generally tended to be faster than standard due to the boost getting cranked up.Our 88 MK2 8 valve (basic spec, no options) was £10,430, RS Turbos were a couple of grand or more expensive.at the time, 13/14 ? suppose like a Focus RS vs a Golf GTI now ?
Escort Turbo , like its Fiesta RS Turbo relation , did have a major image problem in period. The Escorts all seemed to be Essex white and looked adolescent and thuggish at best . Regardless of how good it was to drive(and every Ford engine I drove from 70s to 90s was ghastly compared to Alfa, Peugeot , Toyota and VW) it had terrible DRG and , like it or not, a serious deficiency in imge and perceived quality beside the VW .
coppice said:
Escort Turbo , ..... The Escorts all seemed to be Essex white
The Series 1 homologation cars, apart from a couple for people with Royal connections, were indeed all white. The Series 2 ( from around D-reg up to about H/J reg ) were available in a range of colours - white, red, black, grey rallye_turbo said:
Yeah - Escort Cosworth.
RS Turbo could be compared to G60. Front wheel drive - both charged engines. G60 was 160bhp - more than Escort? Wonder if they were ever benchmarked against each other? I recall the Rallye was 2 x the cost of the GTI new. I guess G60 sat in between?
Difficult to compare pricewise in the UK as the G60 Golf wasn't sold here.RS Turbo could be compared to G60. Front wheel drive - both charged engines. G60 was 160bhp - more than Escort? Wonder if they were ever benchmarked against each other? I recall the Rallye was 2 x the cost of the GTI new. I guess G60 sat in between?
coppice said:
Escort Turbo , like its Fiesta RS Turbo relation , did have a major image problem in period. The Escorts all seemed to be Essex white and looked adolescent and thuggish at best . Regardless of how good it was to drive(and every Ford engine I drove from 70s to 90s was ghastly compared to Alfa, Peugeot , Toyota and VW) it had terrible DRG and , like it or not, a serious deficiency in imge and perceived quality beside the VW .
What a lot of snobby nonsense. I didn't gel with my 86 RS Turbo but it certainly was a more desirable and better car than the 8v Golf. And turbocharging the 1600 engine disguised it's harshness. If you had been talking about the XR3i I'd have agreed with you though, they were rubbish. Edited by blade7 on Tuesday 28th November 19:26
I really don’t know what people are talking about? A Escort RS Turbo is a direct rival for the GTI 16v, in fact it’s slower as standard 132 vs 139bhp for the Golf
G60 comparison it is not! Because he has the word “Turbo” in it doesn’t always mean it was Cosworth fast!
G60 comparison it is not! Because he has the word “Turbo” in it doesn’t always mean it was Cosworth fast!
Edited by stugolf on Tuesday 28th November 19:28
stugolf said:
I really don’t know what people are talking about? A Escort RS Turbo is a direct rival for the GTI 16v, in fact it’s slower as standard
G60 comparison it is not! Because he has the word “Turbo” in it doesn’t always mean it was Cosworth fast!
It was only a 1600 but it had more torque, and I doubt there were many 'standard' ones around back in the day. G60 comparison it is not! Because he has the word “Turbo” in it doesn’t always mean it was Cosworth fast!
Edited by blade7 on Tuesday 28th November 19:59
blade7 said:
It was only a 1600 but it had more torque, and I doubt there were many 'standard' ones around back in the day.
Oh the 90s early 00s when you could buy an RST for a grand fit a Bailey or forge dump valve, whack the boost up and hope for the best. Some lasted fine with 185ish but plenty died at around 200hp.Edited by blade7 on Tuesday 28th November 19:59
Likewise VW g60 owners would fit smaller charger pulleys and ecu chips to run 200hp.
The RST vs Gti was a big deal in 80/90s. I'm happy to still have a Gti and a G60.
Nice thread this, now on my 16th Golf (a 2015 GTD) my first was an 1976 1100 N in kermit green. Since then I've owned every GTi including a GTI Engineering RE1900 16V, 2 VR6's, and a Mk 4 V6 4 Motion.
My personal favourites were my first Mk 2 16V which I had new back in 1987 that was a proper exotic car back then, my 1990 RE 1900 16V, Mk 3 VR6 and my Mk 5 GTi which I bought for my 40th new back in 2005. My current Mk 7 GTD is very impressive but a bit dull.
IMO the ultimate GTi is a three door 1986 K Jetronic 8V in Mars Red, Atlas Grey or Jade Green on original steel wheels. Brilliant car!
My personal favourites were my first Mk 2 16V which I had new back in 1987 that was a proper exotic car back then, my 1990 RE 1900 16V, Mk 3 VR6 and my Mk 5 GTi which I bought for my 40th new back in 2005. My current Mk 7 GTD is very impressive but a bit dull.
IMO the ultimate GTi is a three door 1986 K Jetronic 8V in Mars Red, Atlas Grey or Jade Green on original steel wheels. Brilliant car!
Edited by Gunk on Tuesday 28th November 20:30
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff