The mk 2 gti was so slow

[lornemalvo]

I had several mk 2 GTIs in the past and always thought they were pretty quick. However, I was just looking at their specs on auto trader. 112 bhp and 0-60 in 11.7 seconds. I can't now believe I ever thought of them as quick.

[Clarkedontgo]

Don’t always believe things you read , I think they were about 8.6 to 60 , although the early k jet injection always felt sharper to me

[bristolbaron]

Mk2 what? Golf?
I’ve seen the times as
8v 0-60 in 8.3 (112bhp)
16v 0-60 in 7.9 (136bhp)

Not quick by todays standards but still enough to have fun in.

[lornemalvo]

11.7 secs according to Auto Trader, but always felt MUCH quicker than that to me, and always very flexible

[Heathwood]

The Autotrader figures are clearly wrong. The 16v also states 11.7 and that was in the high 7s.

[sixor8]

Some of the specs are totally wrong on A/T. Do a search for cars with sub 5s 0-60 times and you'll get loads of BMW X5 3.0d with 235 bhp, and there's a Ford Focus 1.0 with 124bhp too. Sometimes its the database, others it's the sellers overwriting the default information with gibberish.

I've lost count how many times a car is quoted as having an annual VED of £600 due to emissions over 225g/km, but it was registered before March 2006 and so will be a maximum of £360.

[aka_kerrly]

Heathwood said:

The Autotrader figures are clearly wrong. The 16v also states 11.7 and that was in the high 7s.

Magazine tests back in the 80s/early 90s put the 1.8 16v at 0-60mph in 7.5seconds and various sources plus my own experience is a 15.3-15.9second quarter of a mile. The 8v was usually around 1>1.5 seconds slower.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/triggerscarstuff/906...

With a 16v bottom end from a Passat my mk2 16v could break the 7 second barrier and dip into the 14.9 quarters, fairly respectable compared with modern 1.6 Turbo "warm" hatches.

[s m]

lornemalvo said:

11.7 secs according to Auto Trader, but always felt MUCH quicker than that to me, and always very flexible

Auto Trader figures are total fiction. Any car enthusiast knows Mk1/2 Golf Gtis were firmly in the 8 second bracket for the 60 sprint. The 16v Mk2 was in the 7s

[Dapster]

Here's some figures from Car Magazine from Aug 1990 - the 16v getting close to 8.0. All Golf get better with age so I'd imagine a well run in one to dip in under 8 no problem.

I had an 8v back in the day and it wasn't the acceleration that was memorable - it was the speed you could carry through a decent A road - great handling, lots of torque, tons of grip and superb body control. They really could cover ground quickly.




https://www.flickr.com/photos/triggerscarstuff/450...

[s m]

A friend worked as a mechanic at the local VW dealers when these came out. They were the classic example of an engine that loosened up with miles - he used to PDI new ones and said they always felt a bit flat - once they’d done a few thousand miles they really loosened up

[vpr]

I used to sell these new. They were great though the MK1 always felt quicker.

Remember when the 16v arrived. It was epic, revving to 7200 rpm was a major thing.

My boss at the time always ran a Quattro Turbo (10 valve)

One day we left the dealership at the end of the day, flat out as per usual, me in the 16v leafing the way.

Next day he reveals that he was flat out in the QT and only just keeping up. We all know turn cars were quite deceptive

[Gunk]

Back in 1989 I had a Mk2 16V GTi Engineering RE1900, (in period white with a full BBS body kit) that was about 160 bhp and was the car that VW should have made.

[lornemalvo]

I had several 8v, never a 16v, absolutely loved them. More than some much more expensive cars owned since. They were just so right in every way

[anonymous-user]

I had a 16v and it was a hoot. Passed it on to son-in-law who has a collection going on. Back yard is full of them. Should put them in a garage really rather than tarp and brick everywhere.

[Mr Tidy]

lornemalvo said:

I had several 8v, never a 16v, absolutely loved them. More than some much more expensive cars owned since. They were just so right in every way

I had a Mk1 1.6 and a MK2 16V briefly but drove a few others owned by a mate on track days and they were just so much fun.

So now you know Autotrader performance figures are way out!

[vpr]

I used to sell these new. They were great though the MK1 always felt quicker.

Remember when the 16v arrived. It was epic, revving to 7200 rpm was a major thing.

My boss at the time always ran a Quattro Turbo (10 valve)

One day we left the dealership at the end of the day, flat out as per usual, me in the 16v leafing the way.

Next day he reveals that he was flat out in the QT and only just keeping up. We all know turn cars were quite deceptive

[s m]

vpr said:

I used to sell these new. They were great though the MK1 always felt quicker.

Remember when the 16v arrived. It was epic, revving to 7200 rpm was a major thing.

My boss at the time always ran a Quattro Turbo (10 valve)

One day we left the dealership at the end of the day, flat out as per usual, me in the 16v leafing the way.

Next day he reveals that he was flat out in the QT and only just keeping up. We all know turn cars were quite deceptive

I had a Mk1 1800 ( after my 1st RS2000 was written off by an errant BMW overtaking ) and it had plenty of go …….but not much stop. Went back to another Mk2 RS after having it a few months as I just found it more fun

Like a lot of old cars I think the Mk1 felt fast but the 16v had a fresh pair of legs if you were wringing it out……and being in our late teens/20s back then everything was wrung out driving with friends!

Not surprised a non 20v Quattro was all out trying to match a 16v though





You always need a big gap in performance ( or driver/road knowledge ) for it to be noticeable on the road

I think the later 10v Quattros were a bit quicker though to be fair - although still quoted as around 200bhp

[Glosphil]

Looking at the quoted car reviews reminded me how much more technical info was in the reviews then compared with now.

[s m]

Glosphil said:

Looking at the quoted car reviews reminded me how much more technical info was in the reviews then compared with now.

Not sure I agree entirely - current ones still have 95% of that info although they spread it round the review a bit more

Edited by s m on Wednesday 8th June 09:59

[Dapster]

s m said:

£15k for a Quattro in '88 is the equivalent of about £35k now - I remember they seemed expensive at the time, but that's an absolute bargain. Audi's flagship Quattro coupe these days is the RS5 which lists at over £75k.