Conference terri::cars_uk

    Yes and the Report for the GSI 16 valve is in Autocar and motor
    out today as well as the RS2000 and the golf VR6.
    
    Martin

    .0 is covered by 525.64, the rest is covered by numerous dir/title=golf
    topics.
    
    Maybe we should merge the lot together?.
    
    Richard

    See this weeks Autoexpress
    
    new Escort  vs  new Golf  vs  new Astra
    
    Huw.

    Re .5
    
    Are they looking at cars from the cooking end of the range or the
    performance end ?  What do they say ?
    
    John

    Autocar and Motor have performance end autoexpress have the less sedate
    models.
    
    martin

    CAR has write-ups on the latest range of 'hot hatches'
    
    J.R.

    Hi Kieth,
    
    The 115 bhp is for a catalyst 2.0 engine, I don't think the 1.8 8v was
    even 100 bhp with the thing.  Still, it's certainly no power per cc record
    breaker!
    
    Also, there's as much torque at 2200 rpm as the old 1.8 8v's peak at
    3800 rpm.  Sounds like the GTI is now to really become a grand tourer,
    as opposed to a sprinter.  Smoother, quieter, but just as agile.
    
    There's no doubt the GTI is maturing, the question is;
    
    Is it still the right badge, as it was for the original VW screamer?
    
    Robbie.
    
    p.s. Can I have my VR6 now?

    
    DO people really buy VW's for their perceived quality statement?
    
    I thought they were basically bought because they were seen (much 
    as a Mini) as a classless car with a reputation for reliability.
    
    Do VW owners think believe that their cars are sort of mini-BMWs?
    
    Mark

    I think the sort of person who buys a BMW 316 would also buy one of
    the new 8V Golf GTi's - for the image first, then for all the other 
    usual reasons (quality,reliable,gutless etc).
    
    
    Jerome.

    
    Well there seems to be quite a few 'armchair experts' out there, so I
    thought I'd donate some first hand experience:
    I've had 2 Golfs over the last 6 years the first was an 8v mk2
    the second is a 16v mk2.
    
    My prime reason for choosing a Golf was reliability. As the other
    contractors out there will know, if you don't work, you don't get
    paid. Neither car ever let me down on the road, so I think this
    factor was justified.
    
    Secondly I wanted something practical, big enough to put a computer, or
    a chest of drawers or whatever in the back, both of which have been 
    carried at one time or another.
    
    Third I wanted something which the performance could be described as
    adequate and the running costs not too ridiculous.
    
    As for the boy racer, traffic light dragsters out there, the
    difference for the 0-60 between the 8v and the 16v engine is 
    less than a second, the 16v comes into its own above about
    4000 rpm (over 70mph in top gear).
    
    Personally I wouldn't consider a BMW 316, (it couldn't take the chest of 
    drawers) and I'm amazed by the sweeping generalization of such a statement 
    - do you know lots of BMW 316 drivers then ?
    
    Jeff K. 
     

    re 1545.16
    
    I am surprised you didn't understand what I was getting at. A BMW 316
    is for the money very slow and poorly equiped. For the money you could
    buy a Ford or Vauxhall, for instance, that is far superior in terms of
    perfomance (not just 0-60 or top whack either) and equipment. Yet 
    people still choose the BMW.  It is likely they want the image that 
    the BMW has not just the reliability & quality etc. After all, you 
    could probably find decent cars for the price of a BMW 316 that have 
    the quality etc but not the image. 
         I feel that if someone is going to buy the new 8V GTi when there 
    are other quality hot hatches that are much faster all round, then they 
    are probably buying it for the image. As with the BMW. 
         You stated that you bought your cars for the reliability, but there 
    are cars that are probably more reliable than a VW so why didn't you buy 
    one of them?
                           
    
    Jerome.                     

    
    re .17 - 'More reliable than a VW'? - name two 
    
    Are you implying that the Golf is poorly equipped or not as fast as 
    some other hatches, mine has all sorts of electric gizmos as standard.
    
    Yes there may now be faster hatchbacks around, 'in a straight line', 
    but most comparative reviews I've read reckoned the Golf was the better 
    car to drive in normal road conditions than, for example, the equivalent 
    Vauxhall or Ford.
    
    Jeff K.
                                      
    
    

    
    For those who are worried about "poor" performance of 8 v GTI:
    
    - you can always buy VR6
    - there will be 16 v later
    - there is many tuning parts available for older golf and most
      probably will be for the new model from OETTINGER for example.
    
    I myself have 1.6 litre 1991 with 75 hp as standard, but with Oettinger
    cam and pipe it gives more than 90 hp. Without cat.
    
    Hannu
    
    
    

    
    Hello Steve,
    
    This is how I'd perceived VWs (funnily enough lowly Mercs seem to be
    perceived as reliable workhorses in most of Europe, but as status
    symbols in the UK). I've nothing against the Golf (except perhaps
    the way VAG market them in the UK), but it isn't a car which inspires
    any excitement in me.
    
    Re another note.
    
    Cars more reliable than a VW? Well, I don't have a report to hand, but
    seem to recall that a lot of Japanese cars come out ahead of the VW
    Golf in GERMAN tests! (Much though it pains me to say!!!). Personally
    I had very little complaint with the reliability of my Renault 5GT
    Turbo and would buy one again if I was in the market for such a car.
    I doubt that many mass produced cars are VERY unreliable these days,
    but perhaps I was just lucky with the Renault. Autocar and Motor seem
    to concur with my experience (In fact are slightly luckier) with the
    Calibra (ie. Total reliabilty albeit for a bit more than a Golf).
    
    Mark

Re: that other note.

Cars more reliable than a VW ?

Well having owned both Polos and a Golf,  both the Polos and the Golf were 
less reliable than either the Mini or the Vauxhall Nova I currently use.
In fact, the Golf was the most unreliable car I have ever had the misfortune to 
own/use, the Polo 1.1 coming second in the unreliable car stakes.

I would consider Vauxhalls to far exceed VW's in the reliability stakes and
the much-vaunted safety of the VW's is exceeded by the Astra and the Nova !

No, I would never go back to VW's, they are an expensive millstone when they
go wrong.  Expensive to buy, and expensive to maintain.

    I didn't think BMW made a 316 any more - just a 316i.
    
    Regards
    

    
    I think Golf is, and originally meant to be a reliable, basic car that
    is good to handle with reasonable inside space. It is not or has not been
    a luxorious car. Maybe not the cheapiest, but there is a value for the
    money.
    
    I myself used to have a japanese car and it was a reliable one, but
    not very  solid and the handling was poor. (Nissan Cherry -84)
    
    
    Hannu

RE: .21

Mark,
	When I talk about reliability, I'm talking about something that
will do me for 150-200,000 miles without a major component failing. 
I reckon that the Golf will do this for me - we'll know in another
2-3 years!
	
	I agree that other cars are also very reliable these days 
- particularly for their first owner.

    
    Well, fortunately I don't have to worry about cars lasting that
    long! :^)
    
    Mark

    
    Yes, if I had to say something negative about the Golf, I would
    say it is a bit boring.
    
    Fortunately there are other ways to find excitment ;-)
    
    Jeff K.

RE: .28

Well you've got to be ambitious! I "parked" my last VW van (air cooled) at
135,000 miles - it was still going strong. My current (water cooled) one is on
85,000 miles. The Golf is on 90,000 miles. I'll run it until it drops. I'll let
you know at what mileage this occurs..!

Steve

P.S. Entropy is an unknown phenomenon Switzerland!

	Anyone knows when MKIII 16V is going to appear? Any specs?
	For sure it costs less than VR6, but I suppose it is more
	expensive than MKII 16V.

	I test drove 1.8 CL and it was a reasonable car for it's 
	price. (in Finland) Car feels bigger than MKII inside.
	With 90 hp it is not a hot hatch, but scores with good
	torgue at low rpm. 

	The doors of the MKIII are so heavy(!




	Hannu

    re-1
    
    VW were having problems with the 2.0Litre 16v 143BHP engine that is
    going to be fitted to the GTi 16v.  I have not heard anything else
    since though.
    
    Grant

    But surely the Passat has had that 2.0 16 valve engine for yonks?
    

re .33: Sure, I had one for almost 3 years (just gave it back a month ago).

Needed a new cylinder head after a few months (warranty). Consumed a lot of oil.

I now have a Golf VR6. (174 hp DIN).

    Is there a Mk III Golf GTI review note in here - couldn't find one with
    the obvious titles?
    
    Thanks

there's the generic Golf GTI topic, might be best to continue your discussion 
there


     544  BELFST::G_DOWNEY     12-APR-1989   168  Golf GTI

    Already driving my third VW Golf
    The best thing about them is that they feel the same after 2 or 3 years
    as when you just bought them.
    
    1. Golf GT4 special action model with multipoint injection 1800cc 90BHP
    2. Golf GTI 8v 107BHP and a LPG installation (driving on GAZ)
    3. Golf VR6 174 BHP. Now this is really moving around.
    
    You can't go faster for less money but it is more comfortable than the
    MKII Golf GTI.
    
    C-YA  Erik

    Re: .-1
    
    "......... thing about them is that they feel the same after 2 or 3 years
    as when you just bought them."
    
    Never mind, you can't have everything. (-: (-:
    
    JohnK