Mk2 vs Mk3 GTi

[baby g]

My girlfriend is looking for a cheap (up to about £1k) runabout for her, and is happy to get something that I can have a bit of fun in as well (bless her). One of my first thoughts was a Mk2 GTi, ticks all of the boxes probably looking at an 8v for that money. No particular requirements other than bargain basement and hassle free to run.

Looking through AutoTrader and the likes, the unloved Mk3s are significantly cheaper than the Mk2s, and I can't quite get away from how much newer and better condition the later models are for the same price (and how many there are on sale).

I know the Mk3s aren't as good as the Mk2s, I didn't even consider a Mk3 when looking at what the options might be (MX5 another front runner at the moment, size permitting) but might it be a better answer? If not, anything you can offer me to convince her that the older car is the way to go would be really appreciated!

[Dr G]

Have a look through the last 5 or 6 pages on this forum, search function seems to be a bit dappy today but it's a subject that's been well covered very recently

[paulshears]

mk3 16v is similar power to weight as a mk2 8v

mk3 8v is slow compared to mk2 8v

....

mk2 maybe cheaper to run...... but rust is a bit of an issue

[gti-ted]

The Mk3's are better equipped and a better daily car as they are not as raw as a MK2, however it's the Mk2 for me everytime .as they are faster and handle better.

I would get th O/H to test drive them both

[missing the VR6]

I'd buy a MK2 all day long as I've owned 2 8V's and think they were wonderful!
All I'd say is PAS wasn't standard on MK2's until 1990 IIRC.

[aka_kerrly]

Clearly a mk3 is the newer car so is less likely to be rusty and require work,is likely to have a lower millage and some of them come very well spec'd. They are good cars, just compared to a mk2 the extra 100odd Kilos they carry and the revised chassis set up numbs the driving expereince somewhat. A mk3 still retains the majority of components from a mk2 so sourcing parts is just as easy an cheap on a mk3 or mk2.

A mk3 colour concept would be a good mk3 for the mrs as it has heated leather, air con and available for around your budget BUT since you are panning on driving it then a mk2 is clearly more fun.

There are some very well cared for original mk2s around that will show up many a mk3 and a mk4 condition wise and dont cost a fortune. £1000-1500 allows you to pick some of the best mk2s especially if you arent fussy on it being a 5door as these can be the best buys!

On a mk2 PAS wasnt standard at any point, its always been a option but more 16v have PAS.

a mk2 16v has the best spec and for me is the best car of the bunch, electric windows, central locking, bigger brakes, bigger anti roll bars, lower suspension, imo better interiors are all standard features. Combined with it being the fastest and most enjoyable id pick one (i own 2 lol) but im aware the mrs might not be such a fan an the 8v does do better mpg an generally the digi 8v require less tinkering than a 16v.

for a run about that the Mrs will normally drive but something you can get your hands on now an again and have fun in id rather stick to a later post 1989 8v with Digi management and try and find a big bumper model with PAS an electric windows. I say this because the 8v is the easier car to drive for people who change up gear at below 3000rpm an do mostly town driving yet it can be modified a bit using basic mods to extract a few more HP from it and you can have a lot of fun in them.

Dave

[carter711]

I had a mk2 GTi 8v before my Corrado and they are great cars. Mine was very reliable and a great fun to drive, very nippy revvy engines.

Mine wasn't much to look at which was a blessing in a way as i could park it in tight spaces and leave it outside the trainstation over night without fear of it being tampered with, something i can't do in the 'rado!

[old school v-dub]

i agree mk2 gti are a far better car than the mk3 try get a 90 spec with p/s e/w that sort of thing i have a early mk2 atm steering_ ''you need to have massive arms''_not for girls
and the window winders are a bit shabby can break easy
all in all there a good solid car watch for rust <i have none yet lol>
and bushes.... like gear linkage <pick and mix gears > nightmare to do <just done mine>
and suspention if its been lowered 9/10 times the bushes are shot

[Fat Audi 80]

Easy!

Head = MK3 8v

Heart = MK2 16v

I have had both and as long as you accept the limitations of both you will be fine.

The MK3 is slower and less involving but a much more "mature" packsge, more confortable, (should be a little more reliable being newer) and will have more features.

The MK2 will break down on the odd occasion and have niggly little age related faults, but WILL put a smile on your face every day. I really really miss my 16v Golf...

Cheers,

Steve.

[mulletmark]

paulshears said:

mk2 maybe cheaper to run...... but rust is a bit of an issue

Really? I'd have alwyas put it the other way around. I've got a '89 MK2 which is looked after but not exactly pampered - spends its life outside and there's not a patch of rust one it.

MK3's are famous for going around the rear arches, on the, bootlid...

If your O/H doesn't mind losing the creature comforts and wants something with a bit of poke then go for a MK2. However if she'd rather sacrafice performance and overall driver involvement for something a bit more comfy, solid, safe (MK3 Golfs are were way ahead of the competition) then go for a MK3

Edited by mulletmark on Monday 3rd November 00:13

[missing the VR6]

mulletmark said:

paulshears said:

mk2 maybe cheaper to run...... but rust is a bit of an issue

Really? I'd have alwyas put it the other way around. I've got a '89 MK2 which is looked after but not exactly pampered - spends its life outside and there's not a patch of rust one it.

MK3's are famous for going around the rear arches, on the, bootlid...

If your O/H doesn't mind losing the creature comforts and wants something with a bit of poke then go for a MK2. However if she'd rather sacrafice performance and overall driver involvement for something a bit more comfy, solid, safe (MK3 Golfs are were way ahead of the competition) then go for a MK3

Edited by mulletmark on Monday 3rd November 00:13

Yeah I've had 2 MK2's and neither has suffered from rust.

[_Batty_]

what about a 16v corrado?
bit of a nicer place to be TBH (i've had 2 Mk2 Gti's) and the 1.8 16v's are available for under a grand (if you look hard )

[baby g]

Great shout - would I fit? (6'5)

Looks like the Corrados are cheaper than Mk2 Golfs, is there a reason for this? I assume they drive at least as well, I'm a bit surprised they are in range. Is a 91 Corrado mechanically equivalent to a 16v Mk2 Golf?

[_Batty_]

baby g said:

Great shout - would I fit? (6'5)

Looks like the Corrados are cheaper than Mk2 Golfs, is there a reason for this? I assume they drive at least as well, I'm a bit surprised they are in range. Is a 91 Corrado mechanically equivalent to a 16v Mk2 Golf?

i'm 6'1' and do with ease.
they are a tiny bit slower due to the larger size, but the 1.8 16v is the same as the '16v golf mechanically.
i've just bought one and love it

[missing the VR6]

I've had 2 Corrado's and I'm 6'1 and about 19 stone and find them very comfortable.
Certainly will be slower than the MK2 but the looks and handling should still make it worth while.
My only advice is for you're budget stay away from a cheap G60 as they can be very costly (my mistake!)
You might even find a 2.0 16v.

[Juicetin1]

If i remember correctly the 1.8 Corrado is quicker and nicer than the later 2.0, I recall the 2.0 is not the 150bhp lump from the Mk3 Golf GTI but a derivative of a Passat engine, something to do with a different gearbox being used. Nice cars, I always wanted one.

[_Batty_]

Juicetin1 said:

If i remember correctly the 1.8 Corrado is quicker and nicer than the later 2.0, I recall the 2.0 is not the 150bhp lump from the Mk3 Golf GTI but a derivative of a Passat engine, something to do with a different gearbox being used. Nice cars, I always wanted one.

there is 4 engines availible.
1.8 16v no cat, 136bhp
2.0 16v 136bhp cat (slightly more torque)
2.0 8v 115bhp utter tosh used as a last attempt to sell the corrado
2.9 VR6 198bhp creamy engine and no worse MPG than the 1.8 or 2.0, insurance can be a pain.

[missing the VR6]

There are 5 engines available in Corrado's.
You've missed out the G60.
Also the 2.0 16v produces 150 BHP as it's the engine out the mk3 GTI 16V.

Ideal solution is buy a 1.8 16V and source a 2.0 16V bottom end for some good torque and power increases.

[Juicetin1]

Batty's engine specs are right, plus the G60.
The 2.0 16v wasnt the same engine as in the Golf GTI, it produced the same power as the 1.8, 136bhp but with slightly more torque.

[Roop]

I bought a 1996 Mk3 8v which had just turned 3 years old to replace my 6 year old Fiat Cinquecento. After another year, the Golf's paint was bubbling along the top of the windscreen from stone chips and was a right mess. The Fiat was 100% rust free when I sold it.

To this day I don't know why VW didn't galvanise more than the bonnet and front wings on a £13k car (or whatever they were new back then) yet Fiat fully galvanised a £4k cheapie.

Good lift-off oversteer but a bit lardy.Mine was Satin Silver which at the time was quite rare. I still think it looked good with it's constrasting black trim and 9-spoke wheels.