Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Doctor Gollum]

I rather like the 16V Golf GTI from the late eighties.

Not many around now, I imagine.

The 8v was arguably a better car...

More of a stump puller but less 'rev happy' I presume.

A couple of mates had both. The 16v was quicker, but less reliable and the 8v delivered its power better and was more tuneable iirc.

That said, my weapons of choice at the time were a manual Mk 2 2.8i Granada, and a full fat XR4x4i so I didn't give the Golf much of a thought 

[henryd]

I rather like the 16V Golf GTI from the late eighties.

Not many around now, I imagine.

The 8v was arguably a better car...

Agreed, never driven a good 16v yet,8v was great

[Doctor Gollum]

Cannier buyers used to save enough buying 1.8 8v Jetta and Golf Drivers and use the savings to fit the Gti suspension and body kit.

Whilst the Mk2 Golf Gti was a bit tasty when it was launched, by the time it was affordable, there were much better cars around.

[Nick W]

I rather like the 16V Golf GTI from the late eighties.

Not many around now, I imagine.

The 8v was arguably a better car...

More of a stump puller but less 'rev happy' I presume.

A couple of mates had both. The 16v was quicker, but less reliable and the 8v delivered its power better and was more tuneable iirc.

That said, my weapons of choice at the time were a manual Mk 2 2.8i Granada, and a full fat XR4x4i so I didn't give the Golf much of a thought 

Yes, once the Golfs had disappeared into the distance you could worry about how your cam gears were holding up

[Nick W]

......as for a white XR3i Cabrio.....

.....only gay men and hairdressers need apply.

They're better if the car is free, a lockset is in stock and the car sells six months later for £750. This was nearly twenty yeas ago

[Doctor Gollum]

I rather like the 16V Golf GTI from the late eighties.

Not many around now, I imagine.

The 8v was arguably a better car...

More of a stump puller but less 'rev happy' I presume.

A couple of mates had both. The 16v was quicker, but less reliable and the 8v delivered its power better and was more tuneable iirc.

That said, my weapons of choice at the time were a manual Mk 2 2.8i Granada, and a full fat XR4x4i so I didn't give the Golf much of a thought 

Yes, once the Golfs had disappeared into the distance you could worry about how your cam gears were holding up

I clearly wasn't trying hard enough then... Never had a single one fail on six cars with that engine

The 2.3s were running 2.8 carbs and the Sierra was a missile.

[johnnydog]

So they paid that much, for the worst Mk of Golf they ever made

On what basis do you say that?
I have owned around half a dozen Mk 4 Golfs between 2000 and 2005, the majority being 150bhp 1.8 Turbos, with several 180bhp 1.8Turbos, but also a couple of 2.3 V5's. All excellent vehicles, well built, very reliable with a great performance. The Mk 4 was the basis of the future Golf models design which (apart from the Mk5 which was ugly imho) is still retained in the current model.
The 2.0 petrol Mk4 GTi was a slug in comparison, and I only drove one, which was inferior in most respects compared to the 1.8 GTi T models.
I still think the Mk4 GTi Turbos, which this anniversary model was based on, were one of the best engined and attractive looking Golfs ever made.

[Marks DTM Calib]

Over weight and un-inspiring, throw in a bucket full of backward steps on reliability and build.

I have now done the sills on three, they eat engine mounts (particularly the dog bone mount to the rear), go through Cats, the interiors are poor and fall apart, electrics an issue and they don't even drive particularly well. Brakes are complete crap even with decent components and well setup, THE worst Mk of golf by a long way 

A real backward step from the predecessor

[Doctor Gollum]

Well, he did ask

[Andy B]

Over weight and un-inspiring, throw in a bucket full of backward steps on reliability and build.

I have now done the sills on three, they eat engine mounts (particularly the dog bone mount to the rear), go through Cats, the interiors are poor and fall apart, electrics an issue and they don't even drive particularly well. Brakes are complete crap even with decent components and well setup, THE worst Mk of golf by a long way 

A real backward step from the predecessor

So ..... apart.from that? What's wrong with them? 

[STEMO]

Over weight and un-inspiring, throw in a bucket full of backward steps on reliability and build.

I have now done the sills on three, they eat engine mounts (particularly the dog bone mount to the rear), go through Cats, the interiors are poor and fall apart, electrics an issue and they don't even drive particularly well. Brakes are complete crap even with decent components and well setup, THE worst Mk of golf by a long way 

A real backward step from the predecessor

You're a little bit picky, if you ask me 

[Rangie]

Over weight and un-inspiring, throw in a bucket full of backward steps on reliability and build.

I have now done the sills on three, they eat engine mounts (particularly the dog bone mount to the rear), go through Cats, the interiors are poor and fall apart, electrics an issue and they don't even drive particularly well. Brakes are complete crap even with decent components and well setup, THE worst Mk of golf by a long way 

A real backward step from the predecessor

You're a little bit picky, if you ask me 

. 


And some numpty paid 30 odd grand for what sounds like a heap of shite..😄

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

Over weight and un-inspiring, throw in a bucket full of backward steps on reliability and build.

I have now done the sills on three, they eat engine mounts (particularly the dog bone mount to the rear), go through Cats, the interiors are poor and fall apart, electrics an issue and they don't even drive particularly well. Brakes are complete crap even with decent components and well setup, THE worst Mk of golf by a long way 

A real backward step from the predecessor

Can we assume it wasn't you who stumped up £38250 for it?........

[johnnydog]

Over weight and un-inspiring, throw in a bucket full of backward steps on reliability and build.

I have now done the sills on three, they eat engine mounts (particularly the dog bone mount to the rear), go through Cats, the interiors are poor and fall apart, electrics an issue and they don't even drive particularly well. Brakes are complete crap even with decent components and well setup, THE worst Mk of golf by a long way 

A real backward step from the predecessor

Well I certainly can't agree with these points . I have bought / owned many of them and certainly not experienced any of the problems you have highlighted.
You mention corroded sills so obviously the ones you have worked on are now at least 17 years old so this is nothing particularly unusual for a vehicle of that age. Mine were all no more than 6 years old so current issues are probably not a fair comparison.
At least you don't get rusty sills on an Omega that is at least 17 years old.....

[STEMO]

Off topic but on topic, I saw a brand spanking GTI today and, I must say, it looked very 'sanitized'. It would probably go like a scalded cat, but it looked like a right fat bastard.