RE: VW Golf GTI (Mk3): Spotted
Discussion
g7jhp said:
The Golf GTI Mk4 1.8T was so much better than the Mk3. It looked less like a GTI but was a much nicer place to be, was well made and the turbo ensured you could hustle it along at a reasonable pace. Cheap as chips to run.
100pc this.i had a new 1.8t 150 back in 99. was a really good car. dont know why they get a bad rep now , as in the day they won the group tests.i remember one auto express test from 98 where it beat every hotch hatch on sale at the time
the mark 3 was an vastly inferior car to a volcane zx 2.0. that was a great car.
I actually have fond memories of these Mk3s not too long ago had that itch i needed to scratch and one appeared quite close to me...i jumped in the motor and £500 later i was the owner of pretty clean low mileage Mk3 16V GTi Highline model on Porsche rims. My memories of it was it being a great GT car and well screwed together, every button worked, heated seats included. It drove very well and was not slow at all...it was reliable and smart only got rid of it to make space for a new car. It wasnt as hardcore as the other 90s hot hatches...i have a Gti6 Pug and thats an animal in comparison however comfort was also miles apart the Golf was a much more grown up comfortable place to be with working climate control, heated seats and cruise.
MikeyC said:
Engine: 1,984cc, four-cyl
Power (hp): 115@5,400rpm
Is this right ?
The Mk II 1.8L 8V was 112bhp
seems surprising that the larger engine has liberated all of 3 bhp - and it's probably heavier aswell ....
My guess is the introduction of the catalytic converter has a lot to do with this apparent lack of progress in the performance department.Power (hp): 115@5,400rpm
Is this right ?
The Mk II 1.8L 8V was 112bhp
seems surprising that the larger engine has liberated all of 3 bhp - and it's probably heavier aswell ....
Didn't Car magazine have a MkIII VR6 as a long-termer, and put a picture of a lemon with a VW badge pinned to it as their comment on just how good the car was?
After the MkI and MkII, particularly in 16v flavour, the MkIII was a dull pudding, not fit to wear the GTI badge, and preceded the even duller pudding that was the MkIV.
There's absolutely no reason to view the MkIII as anything other than the ginger stepchild of the GTI family.
After the MkI and MkII, particularly in 16v flavour, the MkIII was a dull pudding, not fit to wear the GTI badge, and preceded the even duller pudding that was the MkIV.
There's absolutely no reason to view the MkIII as anything other than the ginger stepchild of the GTI family.
Being a red blooded teen when these were new i thought they were great. My dad had a dragon green one as a company car and i remember being blown away by it. I also remember him not shouting about it though.
They really werent as bad as they were made out to be. The VR6 was also a much better car than it got credit for.
They really werent as bad as they were made out to be. The VR6 was also a much better car than it got credit for.
We bought a new 1.8 CL and it was a decent enough thing, just a bit dull, VR6 was lovely but more like a six cyl 3 series than a GTI, 8 valve GTI was never as bad as was made out but was a smidge slower than a Mk2 but felt worse as it was more refined and softer all round, plus expectations had changed.
However, forget all of them, seek out a 16V if you really have to have a MK3 GTI, that was the sweet spot I reckon, a lot faster than the 8 valve, not massively slower than the VR6 but had some GTI type sparkle.
However, forget all of them, seek out a 16V if you really have to have a MK3 GTI, that was the sweet spot I reckon, a lot faster than the 8 valve, not massively slower than the VR6 but had some GTI type sparkle.
Dermot O'Logical said:
Didn't Car magazine have a MkIII VR6 as a long-termer, and put a picture of a lemon with a VW badge pinned to it as their comment on just how good the car was?
After the MkI and MkII, particularly in 16v flavour, the MkIII was a dull pudding, not fit to wear the GTI badge, and preceded the even duller pudding that was the MkIV.
There's absolutely no reason to view the MkIII as anything other than the ginger stepchild of the GTI family.
After the MkI and MkII, particularly in 16v flavour, the MkIII was a dull pudding, not fit to wear the GTI badge, and preceded the even duller pudding that was the MkIV.
There's absolutely no reason to view the MkIII as anything other than the ginger stepchild of the GTI family.
I sold our NA Eunos back in '06 when Little Miss PB was on the way and got into a 97R Clio 1.2 that a friend had sold to my brother-in-law. A bit of a comedown that!
I then spotted a 95M Mk3 GTI 8v going through the auction - 5 doors so very sensible! - on the later VR6 BBSs. Yes, these may have been a bit boring but as a mildly sporty yet sensible daily for a new Dad, it was ideal. Though it didn't stop me getting into a 95N VR6 with 3 doors instead when I saw that go through the same auction a few months later!
At around the same time we replaced our 156 1.8TS with a 00W Bora 2.0 so, for a little while, we had effectively a Mk3 and a Mk4 with the same engine. Thinking back to the Mk2 GTI 8v I'd had 5 or so years earlier, I thought the MK3 wasn't a bad compromise between the two.
I then spotted a 95M Mk3 GTI 8v going through the auction - 5 doors so very sensible! - on the later VR6 BBSs. Yes, these may have been a bit boring but as a mildly sporty yet sensible daily for a new Dad, it was ideal. Though it didn't stop me getting into a 95N VR6 with 3 doors instead when I saw that go through the same auction a few months later!
At around the same time we replaced our 156 1.8TS with a 00W Bora 2.0 so, for a little while, we had effectively a Mk3 and a Mk4 with the same engine. Thinking back to the Mk2 GTI 8v I'd had 5 or so years earlier, I thought the MK3 wasn't a bad compromise between the two.
Dull to look at, dull to sit in, utterly undeserving of any classic status.
On the other hand, I owned a Mk4 GT TDI for nearly 10 years and absolutely loved it. Not particularly great handling but surprisingly quick and would comfortably return 50mpg even when being driven fast.
Didn't have a single issue with it in all that time and, once you got used to the narrow torque band, it was good fun
Interior was decent quality if a little austere.
Still miss it.
On the other hand, I owned a Mk4 GT TDI for nearly 10 years and absolutely loved it. Not particularly great handling but surprisingly quick and would comfortably return 50mpg even when being driven fast.
Didn't have a single issue with it in all that time and, once you got used to the narrow torque band, it was good fun
Interior was decent quality if a little austere.
Still miss it.
I had a 1997 MK3 GTI 8v bought when it was 5 yrs old with 40,000 miles. It was mint.
So slow and boring. Like terribly slow and boring.
Its not a GTI, its a GL with a bodykit.
I had a 1998 306 XSi before that which had 135bhp, just 20 bhp more than the GTI but felt like 120 more.
On a different planet in terms of driving enjoyment and also felt massively more modern.
The Golf GTI 8v was s
t and time should not forget this.
So slow and boring. Like terribly slow and boring.
Its not a GTI, its a GL with a bodykit.
I had a 1998 306 XSi before that which had 135bhp, just 20 bhp more than the GTI but felt like 120 more.
On a different planet in terms of driving enjoyment and also felt massively more modern.
The Golf GTI 8v was s
t and time should not forget this.Q Car said:
Who remembers the Harlequin version of these where every panel was a different colour. Oh those crazy Germans eh...
I remember it well - however, there were only four different colours on the car, just cleverly distributed on the car. The four colours were the same on all Harlequins, just differently spread around.Still not as bad as those awful Teddy Bear wheels fitted to some Golfs and Polos....
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff