306 1994-1996 (phase1) 1.6 vs Golf Driver MK2 1991-1992 1.6

[Xavimackdaddy]

Hi all, I'm 18 and will soon be on the road. I've looked at a lot of cars and these are the two that have most taken my liking, along with the mk3 golf, but this turned out to be somewhat dearer on insurance and since i'm a student, I need any extra wages to go on petrol rather than scraping together penny's.




My question for you guys is: which out of the 2 above would you go for, why, which is better in general, and what makes one better than the other in your opinion




I can get the 94' 306 XS 3 door 1.6 for £155 per month insurance

and the 95' for £164 (not sure its worth the extra tenna just because its a year newer?)

I love the phase 2's, but they start at £173 on insurance

---

OR-------------------------------

I can get a 1.6 91' Golf mk2 for £153, surprisingly I can get the 91' 1.8 mk2 for £155? so thats also an option,

or I can get the 92' golf 1.6 for £160 or the 92' mk2 Golf 1.8 for £163 (again, an extra tenna for being slightly newer?)




Sorry for adding so many figures to this

If you think I should get the mk2 1.8, I'd like to know how different the fuel consumption is, and whether the added power is noticeable




Also, its hardly relevant, but which of the cars have electric windows and central locking, maybe that would be a good reason to get the slightly younger version of each car




Thanks for your time and advice, Xavi

[Futuramic]

Where to start?

The Golf, if a five door, will probably have central locking. I don't think the lower spec ones have electric windows. The 306 will most likely have both, possibly even remote locking.

The 1.8 version will possibly be the 4+E, and carburettor fed. The 1.6 was the catalyst model, and probably carb again. Both are 8 valve and both are slow.

If you like to work on cars then neither is a bad option, parts should be available and they have more appeal, being a classic.

The 306 XS is totally next generation by comparison. It will have modern niceties: fuel injection, electronic ignition, electric stuff, airbags, ABS (maybe).

It will handle better and be far more rust resistant. 306s were galvanised. Additionally they aren't very heavy. They have a pretty straightforward eight valve engine that won't give much performance but probably uses less fuel than either of the VWs.

In short the 306 is the better car in all areas except build quality. I have experience of both cars and the Peugeot felt flimsier. And it's not a classic. If either of those points bother you get the VW. If you're planning to run it for a year or so on a minimal budget then get the 306 - build quality doesn't matter too much at that end of the scale.

[donaircooleone]

Peugeot 306 without a doubt.

They are not that badly built just a bit "plasticy"

Edit - a nice phase 1 is worth looking after.

Edited by donaircooleone on Sunday 22 September 21:59

[Xavimackdaddy]

Thanks for the speedy and awesome advice, you've made my choice much simpler and really explained it. My final question then, is - What are the differences between the 1994 306 and the 1995? anything? are the differences worth the extra tenner a month? baring in mind it can all go on fuel, thanks

[donaircooleone]

Xavimackdaddy said:

Thanks for the speedy and awesome advice, you've made my choice much simpler and really explained it. My final question then, is - What are the differences between the 1994 306 and the 1995? anything? are the differences worth the extra tenner a month? baring in mind it can all go on fuel, thanks

Don't think there is any difference. Unless there is something about the trim level of the later car or colour difference to affect the premium?