Mk2 Gti or Starlet Glanza? Yes, a what car thread!

[streetshine]

Hello all, I'm looking for some advice (and or/opinions!) on which of the two above cars is superior. I have been looking at many cars for a while, but as of now I have narrowed it down to these two. reasonable to insure, reasonable to run, and generally regarded as a lot of fun.

So, the questions:

In the golf department, should I be looking at an 8v or 16v? I dont want to open a can of worms here, but A vr6 conversion could be on the cards in a year or so, which makes me wonder if an 8v is better (ie, because it's cheaper) or the 16v would be a much better bet.

How much should I be looking to pay for a decent example of either car?

In your opinion and experience, which do you guys think is better?

When it comes to tuning, I'm guessing that the glanza would be easier to tune, but the golf gti can be made maybe just as quick with head work cams, chip, etc?

Thanks for all of your inputs!

[Daston]

There is no way the Golf will be as quick as the Starlet with just headwork. The Starlet is silly quick and can be tuned relitavly easy, in order to get the same bhp the gold will need a new engine etc. They are not fast though and do run out of puff

[Willber]

streetshine said:

Hello all, I'm looking for some advice (and or/opinions!) on which of the two above cars is superior. I have been looking at many cars for a while, but as of now I have narrowed it down to these two. reasonable to insure, reasonable to run, and generally regarded as a lot of fun.

So, the questions:

In the golf department, should I be looking at an 8v or 16v? I dont want to open a can of worms here, but A vr6 conversion could be on the cards in a year or so, which makes me wonder if an 8v is better (ie, because it's cheaper) or the 16v would be a much better bet.

How much should I be looking to pay for a decent example of either car?

In your opinion and experience, which do you guys think is better?

When it comes to tuning, I'm guessing that the glanza would be easier to tune, but the golf gti can be made maybe just as quick with head work cams, chip, etc?

Thanks for all of your inputs!

Out of the two i'd get the Golf. The Starlet is probably quicker and can be set up to handle as well as a Golf but I just don't like them. Look like a noddy car to me.

Anyway, if you're doing a VR6 conversion then go for an 8v (post 1990 with hazard switch on the steering column) as it uses Digifant injection and the Central Electric 2 fuse box and wiring, which is essentially what the VR6 will need to run. You could still do it with a 16v obviously but they use K-Jetronic injection which is mechanical so you would have to do a lot more work in order to convert it.

A VR6 MK2 with chassis mods and a bit of breathing on the engine will see you at 200bhp approx and with a fantastic soundtrack, a lot more 'soul' than a Glanza I would say.

If you are going for the Golf and intend to keep it standard then I would go for the 16v. Pay around £1500 for a looked after example but it will still need a bit of work doing on it to bring it to its best. Upwards to £2000 for a nice one needing little work I would say.

Hope that helps.

[iggletiggle]

Odd that these are your two choice of cars if you dont mind me saying.

The starlet is a mental little tin pot with ample tuning capabilities and all in all very quick.

The Golf is a bit of driving history, a great drive but will never be as quick as the starlet without some major engine work/conversions.

I am surprised that the insurance is similar on the two to be honest, i'd have thought the starlet would have been nutty insurance..

ETA IMHO i would take a golf 8v and just keep it fairly standard.. the 8v unit, if looked after, will run forever. I believe the 16v is not as bullet proof and not a huge amount better than the 8v.

My Mk2 Golf is a lovely car and im now getting to the stage that i regret ripping the 8v unit out ready to fit the 2.0t unit..

Edited by iggletiggle on Tuesday 20th April 12:32

[Willber]

iggletiggle said:

Odd that these are your two choice of cars if you dont mind me saying.

The starlet is a mental little tin pot with ample tuning capabilities and all in all very quick.

The Golf is a bit of driving history, a great drive but will never be as quick as the starlet without some major engine work/conversions.

I am surprised that the insurance is similar on the two to be honest, i'd have thought the starlet would have been nutty insurance..

ETA IMHO i would take a golf 8v and just keep it fairly standard.. the 8v unit, if looked after, will run forever. I believe the 16v is not as bullet proof and not a huge amount better than the 8v.

My Mk2 Golf is a lovely car and im now getting to the stage that i regret ripping the 8v unit out ready to fit the 2.0t unit..

Edited by iggletiggle on Tuesday 20th April 12:32

Both 8v and 16v are bulletproof, the rest of the 16v car might be knocking on a bit as they are typically favoured by the boy racers. But nothing to suggest one is more reliable than the other.

You wont regret ripping the 8v out when you have the 2.0t up and running though! I am swapping mine out for an ABF engine.

[iggletiggle]

Willber said:

iggletiggle said:

Odd that these are your two choice of cars if you dont mind me saying.

The starlet is a mental little tin pot with ample tuning capabilities and all in all very quick.

The Golf is a bit of driving history, a great drive but will never be as quick as the starlet without some major engine work/conversions.

I am surprised that the insurance is similar on the two to be honest, i'd have thought the starlet would have been nutty insurance..

ETA IMHO i would take a golf 8v and just keep it fairly standard.. the 8v unit, if looked after, will run forever. I believe the 16v is not as bullet proof and not a huge amount better than the 8v.

My Mk2 Golf is a lovely car and im now getting to the stage that i regret ripping the 8v unit out ready to fit the 2.0t unit..

Edited by iggletiggle on Tuesday 20th April 12:32

Both 8v and 16v are bulletproof, the rest of the 16v car might be knocking on a bit as they are typically favoured by the boy racers. But nothing to suggest one is more reliable than the other.

You wont regret ripping the 8v out when you have the 2.0t up and running though! I am swapping mine out for an ABF engine.

Fair play, i thought i had read a few forums about the 16v but was very possibly wrong..

Yeah its just a lot of money and time.. the car hasnt even been drivable for bloody ages and its going to be around 9months until anywhere near finished.. It will be worth it, i know, its just a pain

the ABF engine should be nice

[aka_kerrly]

iggletiggle said:

ETA IMHO i would take a golf 8v and just keep it fairly standard.. the 8v unit, if looked after, will run forever. I believe the 16v is not as bullet proof and not a huge amount better than the 8v.

Edited by iggletiggle on Tuesday 20th April 12:32

Your reply was sounding good and well thought out unti then.

the 8 an 16v are day an night different. If maintained and well set up both will do high millages and make easy work of it with just service items needing replacing.

The 16v is a totally different driving style to the 8v and both of the GTIs are very different driving style to the glanza. A 16v produces the same torque an hp as a 8v until 3750Rpm although some people think the 8v feels faster lower down the rev range as its single cam design feels more responsive. The 16v starts making more power/torque all the way to ite 7200rpm limit where as a 8v runs out of steam nearer 5800-6100rpm.

The 1.3 glanza can be made to go fast, tuned to 175Hp in a sub 1T car makes it rapid but the problem is you need to really wind the engine up to get the most and due to its small capacity long motorways runs are a bit hardcore. Plus like any small cc high pressure turbo'd engine it will be under a lot of strain. If anything the glanza is closer to the 16v in its revy nature and keeping it above 4500-5000rpm toward the upper end of the rev range it will make a lot of progress!!

From another perspective though the mk2 golf is a lot easier to work on, parts are dead cheap and easily obtainable. There is scope to put 20vt/VR6 engines in at a later date which can be tuned well beyond 300hp. The glanza can be troublesome getting some components as they were never a UK spec car and to get 200hp you are reducing the reliability considerably.

Ive looked at glanzas in the past and currently own a mk2 golf, a mate had a glanza and it was very similar to a R5GTT, striaght line rocket when on full boast, not very nice to drive off boast, that said a 16v golf below 3000rpm doesnt feel that great either but this is solved with a 2.0L bottom end which is a easy conversion that gives 150+hp

dave

[300bhp/ton]

What sort of money to MK1 Golf's go for these days? better looking IMO than a MK2.

[scottishninja2]

Glanza every time.

Suspension will need to be changed if it is still standard,, but most have already been done.

Cracking fun, reliable and cheap as chips to run/insure/modify.

Few years ago i had a Starlet GT running reliably at 215bhp and it was probably the most fun car ive ever owned. It would have easily embarassed my current 147GTA if the two had met.......*reminisces *

Get the glanza!

Stephen.

[Jayho]

iggletiggle said:

I am surprised that the insurance is similar on the two to be honest, i'd have thought the starlet would have been nutty insurance..

Edited by iggletiggle on Tuesday 20th April 12:32

There was a loophole for a few years when these were getting imported with the documents stating 1.3l without anyone asking if it was turbo ect... certain databases wont have it logged as a turbo which is very cheap to insure... although highly illegal and classified as fraud many people fail to tell the insurer of this "mistake" when they get the car documents through because as far as they're concerned "i've given them my numberplate, they should do the rest from there"

I'd personally go for the golf, its a solid little car, happy to go or cruise, whereas the starlet/galanza is always in GO mode. There's also heavy understeer and wheelspin in the wet with the toyotas. I'd say the Golf is a lot more predictable and a very good condition one would be an instant classic!

[Dale19]

A mate has an 8v mk2, and i have a Starlet gt turbo (same engine as the glanza) arnt sure how the handle compare to the glanza, but i`ll say anyway

This particular Golf had koni springs and shocks, polybushed front end, larger brakes (cant remember what off) cammed, 2.0 bottom end , 4-1 mani, full exhaust system, and a few other bits, the handling was very neutral, predictable and it was easy to drive, but there wasnt a lot of grip on offer, when it did let go though, it was very progressive, but it all felt a bit wooly, and it didnt feel very nimble, even though its a light car.

The starlets pretty much standard engine wise, 2.5" exhaust system, its lowered with some KYB shocks, standard calipers with unknown pads, with a non lsd box, i prefer the handling, its got quite a bit of roll but grips well, more feedback from the steering and brakes than the golf, the brakes are quite good when they have warmed up, it feels more chuckable than the golf, its also quite a bit quicker than the golf i drove.

I find it quite difficult to put the power down in the rain, its quite laggy, so when it comes on boost it tends to break traction really easily in 2nd and 3rd, and with a slight lift the throttle boost tended to drop off quickly, meaning theres a slight delay when you want the power again, so it can be a bit messy, ive just had a different dump vavle which has helped this a lot though as it doesnt release all the pressure as soon as the throttle is lifted slightly like the old one, but ive not had much chance to play in the rain yet.

Overall i prefer the starlet out of the 2. I think as you started upping the power though, the golf would be a better bet, only due to the peaky delivery of the starlet.

You need to drive them though and decide from that.

Does anyone know what a standard mk2 weighs? I got the starlet weighed the other day at 880kg with nothing removed.

[Willber]

Standard MK2 is circa 1000kg give or take 50kg each way I would have thought for a 5 door or 3 door. Around a tonne anyway.

What tyres did your mates mk2 have on? Sounds unusual for it not to grip with that kind of set up. Did it have uprated arb's?

[Dale19]

Quite light then bearing in mind they arnt a physically small car.

Yoko parada I believe, and as far as i know it had standard arb's, it was mainly in lower speed corners (sub 40) that it started to understeer quite early, i dont know if this is usual as ive not driven another. It wasnt rediculously early, but it was a earlier than i was used to from a stty standard megane i owned at the time, which bearing in mind the suspension mods, was a suprise.

[aka_kerrly]

i to am surprised by the understeering golf.. i run a factory 90spec 16v front set up but with new poly bushes and ball joints/lower arms/ARB mounts and with 195/45/15s and it certainly doesnt feel under steer like until you are giving it plenty of lock on tight corners, for sweeping long corners the car feels very planted and stable. Previously ive run one in standard trim with 185/60/14s and yes there was a lot more understeer and it would spin 2nd an 3rd if you encouraged it.

the weight of a mk2 is around 1000kgs with fuel/ engine fluids and driver on board.

to be fair a polo G40 is more of a fair comparission to a Glanza.

dave

[Marf]

A standard Glanza will be quicker than a standard 8v or 16v, and probably quicker than a tuned version of both!

Personally, I'd go for the glanza.

emanage
hybrid
injectors
lsd

200hp/800kg.

Whats not to like?

[iggletiggle]

aka_kerrly said:

iggletiggle said:

ETA IMHO i would take a golf 8v and just keep it fairly standard.. the 8v unit, if looked after, will run forever. I believe the 16v is not as bullet proof and not a huge amount better than the 8v.

Edited by iggletiggle on Tuesday 20th April 12:32

Your reply was sounding good and well thought out unti then.

the 8 an 16v are day an night different. If maintained and well set up both will do high millages and make easy work of it with just service items needing replacing.

The 16v is a totally different driving style to the 8v and both of the GTIs are very different driving style to the glanza. A 16v produces the same torque an hp as a 8v until 3750Rpm although some people think the 8v feels faster lower down the rev range as its single cam design feels more responsive. The 16v starts making more power/torque all the way to ite 7200rpm limit where as a 8v runs out of steam nearer 5800-6100rpm.

my answer was only IMHO as stated as when i drove 4 different 16v (all 90spec) they all didnt feel a huge amount different to the 8v i eventually bought bar having a little more pull higher up. And like i said above, i was mistaken about the 8v/16v reliability, i was certain i had read it elsewhere on forums but i seem to have failed there.

Either way, i'd look at the golf instead, it'll be a lot more interesting for you in the long run

[Marf]

Define "interesting"

For me I think it boils down to one question, do you want a car that once breathed on a little bit will be bloody quick, or do you want a car that has the cult following?

[iggletiggle]

Marf said:

Define "interesting"

For me I think it boils down to one question, do you want a car that once breathed on a little bit will be bloody quick, or do you want a car that has the cult following?

well i just think the glanza would be a pain to live with day to day (in wet/snow/ice) as you wont be able to use all that power and go all the time.. i am assuming this will be the only car you have..

I would say the Golf would be much more useable day to day whilst maintaining the fun factor on a a/b road hoon in the sunshine.. with the merits of a cult following and classic styling/good looks.

[Marf]

iggletiggle said:

Marf said:

Define "interesting"

For me I think it boils down to one question, do you want a car that once breathed on a little bit will be bloody quick, or do you want a car that has the cult following?

well i just think the glanza would be a pain to live with day to day (in wet/snow/ice) as you wont be able to use all that power and go all the time.. i am assuming this will be the only car you have..

I would say the Golf would be much more useable day to day whilst maintaining the fun factor on a a/b road hoon in the sunshine.. with the merits of a cult following and classic styling/good looks.

Two things

1) the throttle is not a binary input. turbocharged cars can also be fitted with boost controllers.

2) one chassis is 10 years newer than the other, which is going to be worse in adverse conditions?

I ran what ended up being a 200hp/tonne turbocharged hatchback for 6 years and had no problems driving in the wet/snow/ice.

Edited by Marf on Tuesday 20th April 16:11

[streetshine]

Cheers all for the reply, my god, choosing a car is harder than I thought. One thing that does sway me towards the golf IS the cult following, which I really enjoy. you feel part of a group of enthusiasts, whereas there isn't such a following with glanzas. most of my mates are very into the Vdub scene, and we try to get to as many shows as possible. It would be a bit of a bummer to be "out of the scene" as such with a jap car, but then again, why should that matter.

As for the insurance, at 19 with 2 years no claims the insurance on the glanza (DECLARED AS A 1.3 TURBO) with slight tuning is £1100.86 through adrian flux. By comparison, a mk2 golf gti 8v is 1500.