Whittled down to 2..
Discussion
Just here to pick your brains and take in real world experiences of the 2 cars in question. We need something ideally that will have 5 doors, preferably petrol and something I can get in at the weekend and not be bored to tears in. Now I realise they will not exactly light the motor world with excitement, but it will mainly be driven by the wife so she had a big say.
Mk5 Golf Gti and the Ford Focus ST
I've heard both good and bad regarding both, but would appreciate owners comments, maybe someone that's owned both perhaps?
The MPG figure on the Focus is something that concerns me a little, but it certainly wouldn't be the deciding factor, as if I wanted decent MPG I'd buy a Prius, right!?
Also, anybody know servicing intervals, cambelts, running cost and anything else that comes with ownership of these cars?
Thanks in advance you kind people.
Mk5 Golf Gti and the Ford Focus ST
I've heard both good and bad regarding both, but would appreciate owners comments, maybe someone that's owned both perhaps?
The MPG figure on the Focus is something that concerns me a little, but it certainly wouldn't be the deciding factor, as if I wanted decent MPG I'd buy a Prius, right!?
Also, anybody know servicing intervals, cambelts, running cost and anything else that comes with ownership of these cars?
Thanks in advance you kind people.
Both are great cars.
VW is built better than the ST
ST 5 pot engine is a real gem, it sounds fantastic. The GTI 2.0tfsi engine is good but doesn't sound as good.
Ford interior isn't as classy as the VW
Both handle nicely as they come.
If you can find an ST 260 mountune, your in for a treat. If you can stretch to a GTI edition 30 that would be a good choice too.
VW is built better than the ST
ST 5 pot engine is a real gem, it sounds fantastic. The GTI 2.0tfsi engine is good but doesn't sound as good.
Ford interior isn't as classy as the VW
Both handle nicely as they come.
If you can find an ST 260 mountune, your in for a treat. If you can stretch to a GTI edition 30 that would be a good choice too.
From my limited experience of both cars...
The Focus undeniably has the nicer engine, both in terms of throttle response and noise.
I'd say the Golf handles better - the Focus feels a touch under-damped and the suspension doesn't respond quickly enough to sharp bumps making it feel slightly unsettled. I think the Focus is perhaps marginally more neutral though.
The Focus has infinitely nicer feeling brakes - the Golf (like almost all VAG cars) has far too much servo assistance.
I don't know much about the Focus engine, but the TFSI unit is reasonable enough, both in terms of economy and reliability. Air conditioning pumps are prone to fail, as are ESP units (if the ESP light is stuck on, or doesn't come on when you turn on the ignition, walk away, it's not cheap to fix). MPG-wise our Octavia (which I think has marginally better aerodynamics than the Golf) gives about 35mpg at a steady 80mph cruise; 40mph at 70mph; down to high 20s in stop-start traffic.
Ours gets through about a litre of oil every 4000 miles, but that's apparently fairly normal.
The Focus undeniably has the nicer engine, both in terms of throttle response and noise.
I'd say the Golf handles better - the Focus feels a touch under-damped and the suspension doesn't respond quickly enough to sharp bumps making it feel slightly unsettled. I think the Focus is perhaps marginally more neutral though.
The Focus has infinitely nicer feeling brakes - the Golf (like almost all VAG cars) has far too much servo assistance.
I don't know much about the Focus engine, but the TFSI unit is reasonable enough, both in terms of economy and reliability. Air conditioning pumps are prone to fail, as are ESP units (if the ESP light is stuck on, or doesn't come on when you turn on the ignition, walk away, it's not cheap to fix). MPG-wise our Octavia (which I think has marginally better aerodynamics than the Golf) gives about 35mpg at a steady 80mph cruise; 40mph at 70mph; down to high 20s in stop-start traffic.
Ours gets through about a litre of oil every 4000 miles, but that's apparently fairly normal.
Edited by kambites on Sunday 17th November 10:18
Recently bought a 2009 ST (XR5 in Aus) and I really like it.
Its easy enough to guide around a busy town all day long, but lives to hoon, and hoons well. Sounds great when pushing on, turbo spools up nice and early and torque is good.
MPG wise, around town in the suburbs with heavy traffic I get about 20mpg. On a straight cruise mostly highway, I've seen 35mpg with ease.
Servicing, as an enthusiast it will be getting fresh oil and filter every 6000km, manufacturer specifies a 12000km service interval. Cambelt is 10 years or 100,000km - so no big dramas.
Most noticeable weakness is the lower engine mount being too soft, which causes knocking/wheel hop/poor launch when pushing the car from stationary. New mount insert, or upgraded torque mount fixes the issue and is cheap to implement. Also lacks cruise control.
Stock tune-ability is high, remaps a easy to come by from reputable companies. Simple bolt on mods (intake, exhaust, intercooler, injectors) can make the BHP number much more impressive too.
Its easy enough to guide around a busy town all day long, but lives to hoon, and hoons well. Sounds great when pushing on, turbo spools up nice and early and torque is good.
MPG wise, around town in the suburbs with heavy traffic I get about 20mpg. On a straight cruise mostly highway, I've seen 35mpg with ease.
Servicing, as an enthusiast it will be getting fresh oil and filter every 6000km, manufacturer specifies a 12000km service interval. Cambelt is 10 years or 100,000km - so no big dramas.
Most noticeable weakness is the lower engine mount being too soft, which causes knocking/wheel hop/poor launch when pushing the car from stationary. New mount insert, or upgraded torque mount fixes the issue and is cheap to implement. Also lacks cruise control.
Stock tune-ability is high, remaps a easy to come by from reputable companies. Simple bolt on mods (intake, exhaust, intercooler, injectors) can make the BHP number much more impressive too.
yardman said:
Recently bought a 2009 ST (XR5 in Aus) and I really like it.
Its easy enough to guide around a busy town all day long, but lives to hoon, and hoons well. Sounds great when pushing on, turbo spools up nice and early and torque is good.
MPG wise, around town in the suburbs with heavy traffic I get about 20mpg. On a straight cruise mostly highway, I've seen 35mpg with ease.
Servicing, as an enthusiast it will be getting fresh oil and filter every 6000km, manufacturer specifies a 12000km service interval. Cambelt is 10 years or 100,000km - so no big dramas.
Most noticeable weakness is the lower engine mount being too soft, which causes knocking/wheel hop/poor launch when pushing the car from stationary. New mount insert, or upgraded torque mount fixes the issue and is cheap to implement. Also lacks cruise control.
Stock tune-ability is high, remaps a easy to come by from reputable companies. Simple bolt on mods (intake, exhaust, intercooler, injectors) can make the BHP number much more impressive too.
Thanks for that. Its easy enough to guide around a busy town all day long, but lives to hoon, and hoons well. Sounds great when pushing on, turbo spools up nice and early and torque is good.
MPG wise, around town in the suburbs with heavy traffic I get about 20mpg. On a straight cruise mostly highway, I've seen 35mpg with ease.
Servicing, as an enthusiast it will be getting fresh oil and filter every 6000km, manufacturer specifies a 12000km service interval. Cambelt is 10 years or 100,000km - so no big dramas.
Most noticeable weakness is the lower engine mount being too soft, which causes knocking/wheel hop/poor launch when pushing the car from stationary. New mount insert, or upgraded torque mount fixes the issue and is cheap to implement. Also lacks cruise control.
Stock tune-ability is high, remaps a easy to come by from reputable companies. Simple bolt on mods (intake, exhaust, intercooler, injectors) can make the BHP number much more impressive too.
Can't claim to know much about the Golf, bar it was something I considered at the time, but ultimately thought it was a touch too pricey and straight-laced for what it was (which is, of course, a personal view 
).
However, I do know a touch more about the Focus.
MPG - Never going to match the Golf in extremis, let alone a fast tractor, but really does depend on how you drive it, where you drive it and how far you drive it. My mileage is a mix, but slightly biased towards towards m-ways (though a decent element of that is at horse & cart pace
). I get somewhere between @ 24 and 33, depending on circumstances, speed and so on.
Servicing - Every 12.5k miles. Alternates between minor at @ £140 and major @ £240ish, plus of course other stuff that's needed. Those prices are Ford ones, but in the frozen North - no idea if they're much different elsewhere.
Cambelt - Ignore our Aussie friend. In Blighty it is 125,000 miles (yep
).
Other running costs - Didn't manage to find it last time I looked, but I did post (in the Ford forum, sometime in the last 12-18 months, I think) a reasonable view of my running costs over a six figure mileage. Will obviously vary for many reasons, but some kind of view.
Standard & driven sensibly (in some senses), it won't break the bank. Even oil consumption can be pathetic, as in I still have a little of the litre I bought when I bought the car, 130-odd k ago.
Other stuff - Oily stuff is pretty robust, but look out for rust around rear wheel arches, oil diaphragm issues and unsympathetic tuning. Suspension also suffers a little, but how much due to weight & how much due to general age - ?
All I can say is that mine has taken the stick fairly admirably when viewed from a balanced perspective & for all the VAG great, Ford s
te, reality for me is that the VW wouldn't have coped any better from an overall perspective.
).However, I do know a touch more about the Focus.
MPG - Never going to match the Golf in extremis, let alone a fast tractor, but really does depend on how you drive it, where you drive it and how far you drive it. My mileage is a mix, but slightly biased towards towards m-ways (though a decent element of that is at horse & cart pace
). I get somewhere between @ 24 and 33, depending on circumstances, speed and so on.Servicing - Every 12.5k miles. Alternates between minor at @ £140 and major @ £240ish, plus of course other stuff that's needed. Those prices are Ford ones, but in the frozen North - no idea if they're much different elsewhere.
Cambelt - Ignore our Aussie friend. In Blighty it is 125,000 miles (yep
).Other running costs - Didn't manage to find it last time I looked, but I did post (in the Ford forum, sometime in the last 12-18 months, I think) a reasonable view of my running costs over a six figure mileage. Will obviously vary for many reasons, but some kind of view.
Standard & driven sensibly (in some senses
), it won't break the bank. Even oil consumption can be pathetic, as in I still have a little of the litre I bought when I bought the car, 130-odd k ago.Other stuff - Oily stuff is pretty robust, but look out for rust around rear wheel arches, oil diaphragm issues and unsympathetic tuning. Suspension also suffers a little, but how much due to weight & how much due to general age - ?
All I can say is that mine has taken the stick fairly admirably when viewed from a balanced perspective & for all the VAG great, Ford s
te, reality for me is that the VW wouldn't have coped any better from an overall perspective.Out of the two I've only driven the Golf, and it was a very good car for a FWD, but if it has to be FWD I think I'd take a Civic Type R as it has a smaller lag on the throttle and handling just as good (though the ride may annoy some), although the driving position on the Golf is better, the Civic feels more nimble to me and has a more charismatic engine.
RobM77 said:
Out of the two I've only driven the Golf, and it was a very good car for a FWD, but if it has to be FWD I think I'd take a Civic Type R as it has a smaller lag on the throttle and handling just as good (though the ride may annoy some), although the driving position on the Golf is better, the Civic feels more nimble to me and has a more charismatic engine.
The FN2 does definitely feel more nimble than the Golf, but I'd disagree in regard to the engine, mostly because it sees much less raucous in the later Civic than it does in the earlier one, which is a bit disappointing. I never used to like the FN2 but having driven one recently I'm seriously considering one as my next car. Well worth a look IMO and much of that subduing of the engine can be counteracted with a mod or two.ManOpener said:
RobM77 said:
Out of the two I've only driven the Golf, and it was a very good car for a FWD, but if it has to be FWD I think I'd take a Civic Type R as it has a smaller lag on the throttle and handling just as good (though the ride may annoy some), although the driving position on the Golf is better, the Civic feels more nimble to me and has a more charismatic engine.
The FN2 does definitely feel more nimble than the Golf, but I'd disagree in regard to the engine, mostly because it sees much less raucous in the later Civic than it does in the earlier one, which is a bit disappointing. I never used to like the FN2 but having driven one recently I'm seriously considering one as my next car. Well worth a look IMO and much of that subduing of the engine can be counteracted with a mod or two.SwineFluPirate said:
Thanks for your kind input.
I've looked into the Civic, also having a long test drive in an FN2 Civic and unfortunately it's not for me/us.
Currently looking into some nice spec Golf's and ST's, so it will ultimately come down to test driving both.
Of the two, I personally preferred the Golf chassis and interior, though that 5-pot engine in the Focus is excellent and, as others have said, the brakes are much better. I found the ST torque steered much more and was simultaneously less comfortable and less adjustable.I've looked into the Civic, also having a long test drive in an FN2 Civic and unfortunately it's not for me/us.
Currently looking into some nice spec Golf's and ST's, so it will ultimately come down to test driving both.
One word of warning is that the Mk5 platform cars seem to suffer with a few niggles when it comes to certain components. Engines tend to be pretty sturdy aside from HPFP cam/cam follower wear on the earlier cars and dodgy diverter valves, but issues like the ABS ECU failures (which are well very documented), uneven rear tyre wear and tramping leading to high road noise (quite well documented) and failures of the electromechanical steering (not that well documented although they seem to be quite common) do affect some of the cars. Not sure on reliability with the ST, but aside from expensive tyres, front spring failures and interior squeaks and rattles I think they tend to be a bit better.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff