Golf MK3 GTi - 8v vs 16v ?
Discussion
My question isn't about performance like top speed or acceleration, but it's more about reliability and running costs.
Which is better for an everyday car - still with abit of zip.
btw I'll be turning 20 with 2 years no claims in september which is when i plan on changing cars.
What insurance sites do you recommend for getting quotes?
I'm tying myself in knots trying to work out all of the dates
Which is better for an everyday car - still with abit of zip.
btw I'll be turning 20 with 2 years no claims in september which is when i plan on changing cars.
What insurance sites do you recommend for getting quotes?
I'm tying myself in knots trying to work out all of the dates
caaarrl94 said:
What insurance sites do you recommend for getting quotes?
There won't be much in it, but running costs will be slightly in favour of the 8v.
The press hated the 8v back in the day; the 16v rated as a far better car and was considered close to class-best.
In my experience, that was unfair... both were nice cars, they just drove completely differently. Until the 16v came out, the 8v couldn't compete, performance-wise, with it's competitors. It was a quality product though, which is why so many exist today.
Both can now be insured on classic policies, but I have a feeling you might need to be 21 to qualify.
Before you commit to a GTI though, try a VR6...
The press hated the 8v back in the day; the 16v rated as a far better car and was considered close to class-best.
In my experience, that was unfair... both were nice cars, they just drove completely differently. Until the 16v came out, the 8v couldn't compete, performance-wise, with it's competitors. It was a quality product though, which is why so many exist today.
Both can now be insured on classic policies, but I have a feeling you might need to be 21 to qualify.
Before you commit to a GTI though, try a VR6...
The performance debate has been rife ever since the Mk2... anybody who says the performance is drastically different between the two probably hasn't driven both back-to-back. Neither have I. But in the various Golf racing championships the advantage of the 16v over the 8v is measured in tenths, not seconds, per lap.
Personally I like the characteristics of two valve engines for daily use. They tend to deliver the torque lower in the rev band which makes them more flexible when it comes to everyday high gear / low speed situations. The 16v makes more horsepower but peak power and torque is further around the gauge so this advantage is negated in every day use unless you're running it to the limiter.
In terms of ownership costs I expect they're broadly almost identical, except perhaps in terms of insurance where the 16v models probably come off a tiny bit worse.
Personally I like the characteristics of two valve engines for daily use. They tend to deliver the torque lower in the rev band which makes them more flexible when it comes to everyday high gear / low speed situations. The 16v makes more horsepower but peak power and torque is further around the gauge so this advantage is negated in every day use unless you're running it to the limiter.
In terms of ownership costs I expect they're broadly almost identical, except perhaps in terms of insurance where the 16v models probably come off a tiny bit worse.
te. Ecurie Ecosse said:
Any particular reason why you are looking at a Mk3 instead of a Mk2?
If you are set on a Mk3 both engines are robust and the 16v is a lot better. Better still if fitted to a Mk2
Ideally you want the best of both, a MK2 shell running a mk3 2.0 16v ABF or a 2.8 VR6 AAA engine & running gear, both are great fun!!!!!If you are set on a Mk3 both engines are robust and the 16v is a lot better. Better still if fitted to a Mk2
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff