Golf GT TDI 150 v Mk5 Golf GT TDI 170
Discussion
I remember when these 150 TDIs came out and I am sure a couple of mags recorded 0-60 times in the mid 7 sec bracket, certainly below 8 sec and from memory, the Mk5 TDI 170 wasn't any quicker? Perhaps because, as I recall from a test in diesel car mag, early 150s sometimes made 170 BHP on rolling roads. Anyway, I digress. Just wondered if anyone has owned both a Mk4/Mk5 GT TDI 150/170 and can comment on whether the Mk5 is worth paying extra for as a second hand motorway plugger, in terms of performance and handling...cheers....
Wasn't the mk5 a bit heavier than the mk4? I'm not sure. Was the mk5 the last of the podgy ones before they started slimming them down?
I know my mk4 tdi 150 made a good bit more bhp than standard, close to 170 if I remember. Torque was right on the quoted figure though.
It certainly felt a lot nippier than the 2.2 cdti Civic I replaced it with!
I know my mk4 tdi 150 made a good bit more bhp than standard, close to 170 if I remember. Torque was right on the quoted figure though.
It certainly felt a lot nippier than the 2.2 cdti Civic I replaced it with!
spaceship said:
Wasn't the mk5 a bit heavier than the mk4? I'm not sure. Was the mk5 the last of the podgy ones before they started slimming them down?
I know my mk4 tdi 150 made a good bit more bhp than standard, close to 170 if I remember. Torque was right on the quoted figure though.
It certainly felt a lot nippier than the 2.2 cdti Civic I replaced it with!
The Mk5 is a bit heavier than the Mk4 and you're right they've got lighter since then. However, the 170 Pds apparently often made 180/190 BHP on rolling roads.I know my mk4 tdi 150 made a good bit more bhp than standard, close to 170 if I remember. Torque was right on the quoted figure though.
It certainly felt a lot nippier than the 2.2 cdti Civic I replaced it with!
Out of interest how did the CDTI Civic compare in handling ride with the TDI 150? I think one of the reasons the Civic feels slower is delivery. I drove one when they came out and at the time had an A3 TDI 130. My A3 FELT faster, but I think that was largely the turbo lag.
As alluded to the Mk5 was a 140 or 170. We had a 140 GT on a 54 plate. I recently looked up the MOT history and it's up to 144k now (we sold it at 30k after 4 years) and still going by the looks of recent dates.
Mate of mine had the 170 Mk4 and I always felt the Mk5 was a huge leap in modernisation. That would be my choice whether the 170 has a performance advantage or not.
Mate of mine had the 170 Mk4 and I always felt the Mk5 was a huge leap in modernisation. That would be my choice whether the 170 has a performance advantage or not.
greenarrow said:
The Mk5 is a bit heavier than the Mk4 and you're right they've got lighter since then. However, the 170 Pds apparently often made 180/190 BHP on rolling roads.
Out of interest how did the CDTI Civic compare in handling ride with the TDI 150? I think one of the reasons the Civic feels slower is delivery. I drove one when they came out and at the time had an A3 TDI 130. My A3 FELT faster, but I think that was largely the turbo lag.
I'm not one for throwing a car about so can't really comment on the handling I'm afraid. It did ride better than the mk4 but that was lowered with updated springs/shocks so was always going to be firm. The Civic always got poor reviews for ride quality so that doesn't say much for how my Golf was lowered! Out of interest how did the CDTI Civic compare in handling ride with the TDI 150? I think one of the reasons the Civic feels slower is delivery. I drove one when they came out and at the time had an A3 TDI 130. My A3 FELT faster, but I think that was largely the turbo lag.
I did feel that the Civic was laggy, must have had a big turbo. It did get much better mpg than the Golf though.
Gassing Station | Audi, Seat, Skoda & VW | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff