RE: Volkswagen Golf GTI Mk5: Spotted

[Triumph Man]

funkyrobot said:

thebraketester said:

The 1 series is fine if you are happy to sit in a cramped cockpit with compromised leg room. My wifes got a 120D M and to be fair it does handle better than a stock mk5 GTI. Better balanced and quicker steering rack to name 2 main points. I wouldn't own one though, because there are too many things with them that would annoy me. Cramped.. crap seat adjustment... £380 for 2 rear runflats etc etc.

Steady there.

I posted a thread on here a few years ago about how small the 1 series is inside. The masses were not happy with me.

They are pokey inside. I'm only 5'10", but even with the seat at its lowest in our office 116i, my hair scrapes the headliner.

[carparkno1]

This morning I hopped into my golf in zero degree weather, heated seats on, a 15 min blat across some lovely Scottish roads and then sat on the motorway for 20 mins. Averaged 33mpg and had a bit of fun with it.

Enough room for a load of golf gear in the boot and a car seat in the back when needed.

Basically sums this car up - love it.

[cbmotorsport]

Had a MK5 from new for 4 years and 100k. Only issue I had was an aircon problem.

Typically German and functional, but a breath of fresh air after previous incarnations of the GTI. It was fun but practical. It needed a bit more grunt, but handled excellently and was good fun on a decent B road. It was never sold as the latest greatest hot hatch, but more as a refined practical hot hatch capable of a b road blast or taking the mother in law to Sunday lunch in relative comfort and silence. It was an excellent road car.

My Mk6 however had a failed cam chain tensioner which lunched the top end, and before that a bit broke off the inlet manifold and caused a right mess. All under warranty thankfully, but i didn't have the car for about 6 months of my 3 year ownership.

ETA: Both cars seem to be going strong still, with pretty high mileages on them, according to the MOT database.

[Mr2Mike]

Ahbefive said:

Your other points seems quite subjective so I guess we just have different opinions about those. Imo the CTR is a massively inferior car.

Indeed, you have to question why on earth anyone would prefer a (relatively) lightweight hatch with excellent handling, powered by a razor sharp, normally aspirated engine over a heavy, thirsty turbocharged saloon.

[Car-Matt]

Mr2Mike said:

Ahbefive said:

Your other points seems quite subjective so I guess we just have different opinions about those. Imo the CTR is a massively inferior car.

Indeed, you have to question why on earth anyone would prefer a (relatively) lightweight hatch with excellent handling, powered by a razor sharp, normally aspirated engine over a heavy, thirsty turbocharged saloon.

Yes, certainly something to torque about isnt it......

[HorneyMX5]

A few years ago I test drove all the Hot Hatches of this era when looking to buy one. I bought an FN2 Type R. The Golf was without a doubt the best all round package for a daily car doing 25,000 miles a year but once I'd driven the Civic it was a heart over head decision. The ride was a bit harder than the rest, you really had to get on it to get the performance etc The only way to describe the Civic is fizzy, from the engine to the handling. The interior space and boot were huge, a real tardis of a car. I adored it and was sad to see it go when I went all adult and bought a Yeti TDi.

[J4CKO]

Isnt a MK2 TT basically the same thing under the skin but a bit lighter ?

Anyone tried them both, if you can live without the additional practicality the TT seems to wear a bit better bodily.

[justinio]

SuperchargedVR6 said:

The MK2 ST is pretty good but the old 5 cylinder ones are horrible things. .

As someone who currently daily drives a Mk5 GTI, and used to daily a Mk2 Focus ST, I can safely say you are talking utter rubbish.

The only thing horrible about the ST 5 pot, was how thirsty it was. Everything else about it was brilliant.

[Ahbefive]

Mr2Mike said:

Ahbefive said:

Your other points seems quite subjective so I guess we just have different opinions about those. Imo the CTR is a massively inferior car.

Indeed, you have to question why on earth anyone would prefer a (relatively) lightweight hatch with excellent handling, powered by a razor sharp, normally aspirated engine over a heavy, thirsty turbocharged saloon.

What heavy, thirsty, turbocharged saloon are you talking about?

Edit: I see you have struggled with comprehension.
He was saying he preferred the CTR to the Focus ST and I was saying that the Focus is better. I was only mentioning the Volvo due to the talk about mpg with this engine as I likely have far more experience of the mpg these engines achieve than most and 21mpg is a load of cobblers. Late 20s mpg is pretty normal which is similar to other cars in its category.

Obviously the Volvo is not comparable to a CTR, it would eat it for breakfast, be far more comfortable but less fun.

Edited by Ahbefive on Thursday 22 February 18:41

[ManOpener]

Ahbefive said:

21mpg is a load of cobblers.

Pressing on, it really isn't. I wasn't trying to infer that it's a rounded average MPG figure, but driving the same 300 miles of A-road in the same manner as the 2.7 Cayman and Leon it was in the company of, it managed a significantly lower MPG figure. Not that you drive 300 miles of Welsh A-road for economy, but the Cayman managed 28 and the Leon 30.

Ahbefive said:

Late 20s mpg is pretty normal which is similar to other cars in its category.

My Leon, which has the same engine as the Mk5 GTI, has averaged 33mpg in my use, and I do a lot of town driving. I would expect the economy in the ST to be about 25% worse as it has 25% more displacement, and that's about in line with what other owners report.