GolfGTIforum.co.uk
General => General discussion => Topic started by: Toby on 06 May 2012, 19:05
-
:grin: with his red wheels and red car!
his birthday today!
not been active to cince 2011!
:rolleyes:
-
red car white rs8,s :undecided:
-
he got rid of the santa mobile and bought a focus rs
-
and has never been back scince!
id like to know where Jake got to.... not logged on cince feb! :undecided:
-
and has never been back scince!
id like to know where Jake got to.... not logged on cince feb! :undecided:
Same, his build was interesting especially with some of the plans and progress already done
-
everyone is fooking off from mk4 scene :lipsrsealed:
-
everyone is fooking off from mk4 scene :lipsrsealed:
Tell me about it, I hate the mk4 so much, its reliable but everyone has it and now every chav too. I'll be looking at a TT or S4 next year to get into
-
Every MK4 I've seen/known has got something wrong with it. :grin:
Except the SDI I own ATM, it's got NOTHING to go wrong on it. :grin:
-
everyone is fooking off from mk4 scene :lipsrsealed:
Tell me about it, I hate the mk4 so much, its reliable but everyone has it and now every chav too. I'll be looking at a TT or S4 next year to get into
One reason i sold mine bud. Since i got mine there is now 4 mk4s on my road and they all copied my look. Alloys kit tints ervrything:angry:
And was getting p1ssed off with fuel bill as i do loads short short joirneys to work. Only thing i mis is the power. Nothing else :lipsrsealed:
-
Every MK4 I've seen/known has got something wrong with it. :grin:
Except the SDI I own ATM, it's got NOTHING to go wrong on it. :grin:
Mine works fine, I've seen many lemons and worked on a few :lipsrsealed: but my AGU and my mates AGU have been very reliable :afro:
-
lets face it though the mk4 is the uglyest of all the golfs. i never find myself looking at one thinking mmmm thats nice even when i see a kitted up one.
when i had the bora the only good thing i liked on it was the cup holders :grin:
-
Every MK4 I've seen/known has got something wrong with it. :grin:
Except the SDI I own ATM, it's got NOTHING to go wrong on it. :grin:
Mine works fine, I've seen many lemons and worked on a few :lipsrsealed: but my AGU and my mates AGU have been very reliable :afro:
Fair enough. TBF, I don't know anyone with a 1.8T or a TDI. Several 1.4's/1.6's/2.0's all been sh!te. All earlier cars admittedly, gearboxes, one burnt an exhaust valve up and all four have suffered from sunroofs randomly opening, windows playing about. I solved one with a CCM and sold it on straight away.
This SDI has been great though! Slow as hell, proper, proper noisy engine but it starts, goes then stops. Nothing wrong with it and uses next to no fuel.
-
lets face it though the mk4 is the uglyest of all the golfs. i never find myself looking at one thinking mmmm thats nice even when i see a kitted up one.
when i had the bora the only good thing i liked on it was the cup holders :grin:
No offence but you drive a mk3 boat your taste is obviously flawed :grin:
-
lets face it though the mk4 is the uglyest of all the golfs. i never find myself looking at one thinking mmmm thats nice even when i see a kitted up one.
when i had the bora the only good thing i liked on it was the cup holders :grin:
No offence but you drive a mk3 boat your taste is obviously flawed :grin:
You spelled it wrong its a mk|3oat
-
Nothing wrong with mk3s :rolleyes:
-
what ever floats your boat really i say :grin:
-
Still find the MK3 to be much more of a "drivers" car.
Maybe personal preferance.
My mum thinks the same and says it's much nicer to drive then the MK4. She's not into cars at all and just doesn't like the fact it's lowered.
-
wasnt it the mk4 that was qouted as the drivers car along with the mk1 and mk6
-
I like my mk3 very much but i liked my brothers mk4 1.8t as well, the 3 feels more involving on the road but the 4 felt like a much better quality product.
-
too many chavs own mk4's these days thats the only thing wrong with them, and the fact they are a lot more boat like than a mk3 (yes iv had 2 mk4's)
fooking sick of fake R32 look kits / cars too
whoever said mk4 was best drivers car needs a slap tho TBH
-
the mk4 really aint a handling car thats for sure
-
the mk4 really aint a handling car thats for sure
unlees you have spent a bit on it :wink:
-
spent loads and its still sh!t :grin:
-
how the mk3 is more of a boat that the mk4 i will never no as the mk4 is huge. masive fat arss on it and just dont like the look of them.
that is my opinion anyway. but each to there own.
-
fooking sick of fake R32 look kits / cars too
yes thankyou!!!!
also if i didnt spend a hour and a bit in it every day ide have a mk2 or 3. but could only live with one for short trips/fun. not for being in there comuting to work for a hour and a bit each day.
and i belive jake fooked off and sold the golf, shame really, was looking quality.
-
For a spirited drive the mk4 standard setup is so poor even in GTI standard, but with some small work or just coilovers seem to improve it so much followed by a remap! That is how it should of come out of the factory.
I like cars for handling and performance and not comfort, but as I said earlier so many chavs own them and its such a common car, when I got it no one had it, now everyone has them like a STD. As F17 said I do not see the point of replica r32's either, but then again I hate the dub skeen, such as stretched tires makes me think "hope that idiot goes round a corner and they fling off and he dies", chances are they won't come off, but I'm optimistic and hope they do.
But its good quality and it has been extremely reliable, but for some reason everyone else seems to see them as lemons :grin: :grin: :grin:
-
i quite like the r32 kit but it is done to death now same as the anni kits absolutely everywhere
-
I was going to get the r32 bumper only to fit the intercooler as theres so little space, but I hacked away and it paid off!
-
same here but fmic was sh!t and the old bumper was naffed :grin: so kept the r32 and its still here :laugh:
-
For a spirited drive the mk4 standard setup is so poor even in GTI standard, but with some small work or just coilovers seem to improve it so much followed by a remap! That is how it should of come out of the factory.
I like cars for handling and performance and not comfort, but as I said earlier so many chavs own them and its such a common car, when I got it no one had it, now everyone has them like a STD. As F17 said I do not see the point of replica r32's either, but then again I hate the dub skeen, such as stretched tires makes me think "hope that idiot goes round a corner and they fling off and he dies", chances are they won't come off, but I'm optimistic and hope they do.
But its good quality and it has been extremely reliable, but for some reason everyone else seems to see them as lemons :grin: :grin: :grin:
I think it's mostly the 'golf' community that see's them as lemons, outside of that they are still seen as a premium car.
-
Well f**k all u lot I love my mk4 and it's quicker than your average st s3 tt and mk3 tugs :grin:
-
My mk4 is far from a lemon had it for 6 years now & never had any major issues with it, in fact it is still going strong with 138k on the clock. I have owned mk1,mk2 & mk4 but just couldnt bring myself to ever buy or like a mk3 just personal taste i suppose they just didnt float my boat :grin:
Cars are only lemons if lemons have owned them :grin: a well looked after car will go on for ever :cool:
-
I have a mk4. I don't want it anymore it just bores me and drinks fuel. It handles sh!t as the body roll is insane
mk4 downwards = old knackered sh!te
-
My mk4 is far from a lemon had it for 6 years now & never had any major issues with it, in fact it is still going strong with 138k on the clock. I have owned mk1,mk2 & mk4 but just couldnt bring myself to ever buy or like a mk3 just personal taste i suppose they just didnt float my boat :grin:
Cars are only lemons if lemons have owned them :grin: a well looked after car will go on for ever :cool:
So true a lot of the mk4 faults are caused by 1. poor maintence 2. cheap crap copy parts 3. silly modifications :lipsrsealed: almost 150k on mine and its been brilliant (water pump aside!)
-
So true a lot of the mk4 faults are caused by 1. poor maintence 2. cheap crap copy parts 3. silly modifications :lipsrsealed: almost 150k on mine and its been brilliant (water pump aside!)
Indeed always better to have one with as few owners as possible narrows the chances of non maintenance,bad mods etc, mine has had 2 owners & i am one of them :grin: I also agree stick with geniune parts & keep the mods to a minimum :cool:
-
Cars are only lemons if lemons have owned them :grin: a well looked after car will go on for ever :cool:
Errr, like no and stuff:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v627/diamondhell/Lemon.jpg)
Some are sh*t right out of the box.
-
My dad bought his mk4 Gti brand new and it was serviced under Vw dealers network meticulously
Then at 80k the engine blew up ( granted it was the crap 2.0 8v)
Was re built with genuine parts and managed another 20k before same thing happened again
My dad never goes over 3.5 revs lol
I just replaced it with a AUQ
So, cars (or engines in this case) can be lemons, it's not just down to the owners
-
My dad never goes over 3.5 revs lol
This was the problem drive a car like this for ever it will clog up & die they are meant to be driven properly lol
Maybe there was some lemons then but I stil believe it's down to the way they are driven,serviced etc as never owned a lemon in my life and have had 6 golfs
-
Well f**k all u lot I love my mk4 and it's quicker than your average st s3 tt and mk3 tugs :grin:
yeah its quicker till you get to a corner :grin:
and if a mk3 is a tug that makes the mk4 an oil tanker :lipsrsealed: :grin:
-
whats that make a mk5?
Better, since they completely redesigned the suspension/chassis from being an overweight tank.
-
i see!
still prefer mk1/mk2
oh yeah no doubt there. they are the best i recon then the mk3 had to go heavyer due to actuly making them safer in a crash as that was the general progress of cars at the time. i can only assume that vw saw that people liked putting big wheels on there cars when they made the mk4 so they decided to give it huge wheel arches and a fat arss :laugh:
-
mk5's eh??? that they up'd the displacement and left it with a k03s turbo :lipsrsealed: yeah thats an improvement :rolleyes: when the audi and seat got the same engine but with a better turbo. If anything the mk5 was a bit of a con, just paying for the badge :smug:
Don't get me wrong I hate my mk4 as its become a chav wagon, but I think it looks better than a mk3, never had a problem with it either, but like with every mk I think there's pro's and con's. I love the corrado and the mk2 for looks. Don't like the mk5 as its more in price, them chavy seats in GTi spec and then they really didn't improve performance engine wise...
-
My dad never goes over 3.5 revs lol
This Dad revs his cars to fook! :grin: :evil:
-
My dad never goes over 3.5 revs lol
This Dad revs his cars to fook! :grin: :evil:
:grin:
-
The Passat took a bit of stick down in Cornwall last weekend! :wink: :grin:
The coast road was fun! :grin:
-
My dad never goes over 3.5 revs lol
This Dad revs his cars to fook! :grin: :evil:
So it should be :grin:
Cars are for driving, does them good to blow the cob webs out :evil: no matter what age you are :smug:
-
My dad never goes over 3.5 revs lol
This Dad revs his cars to fook! :grin: :evil:
So it should be :grin:
Cars are for driving, does them good to blow the cob webs out :evil: no matter what age you are :smug:
Yh lol, seem my dad disapire over a hill in front of me overtaking two cars in my old mk3 :cool:
-
My dad never goes over 3.5 revs lol
This was the problem drive a car like this for ever it will clog up & die they are meant to be driven properly lol
Maybe there was some lemons then but I stil believe it's down to the way they are driven,serviced etc as never owned a lemon in my life and have had 6 golfs
Na, its down to a sh!t engine in the first place.. FACT!!
well know issue with that engine that VW didn't like to admit, hence why they gave you a bottle of oil at every service and a pouch to put it in :grin:
-
My dad never goes over 3.5 revs lol
This was the problem drive a car like this for ever it will clog up & die they are meant to be driven properly lol
Maybe there was some lemons then but I stil believe it's down to the way they are driven,serviced etc as never owned a lemon in my life and have had 6 golfs
Na, its down to a sh!t engine in the first place.. FACT!!
well know issue with that engine that VW didn't like to admit, hence why they gave you a bottle of oil at every service and a pouch to put it in :grin:
Clear out you inbox F17bad its full!
-
mk5's eh??? that they up'd the displacement and left it with a k03s turbo :lipsrsealed: yeah thats an improvement :rolleyes: when the audi and seat got the same engine but with a better turbo. If anything the mk5 was a bit of a con, just paying for the badge :smug:
It's always been like that. S3 having more power then the MK4? Different maps on engines etc. It's all marketing hype, it's not a con it's a marketing technique which works.
The MK5 is a far more refined car then the MK4, still with faults appearing but seems a much more planted car on the road and seems to be built better inside, not massively impressed with interior build quality on the MK4.
The MK3 build quality was very good, yes there were rust issues but look at the era and the other cars. Everything feels solid on mine.
My 1.6 has been ragged non stop for the last past two years and I've never serviced it and bodged absolutely everything up on the engine as I've always planned on swapping it with something bigger so wanted to spend no money on it. Everywhere else on the car has been maintained but I've had zilch engine faults other then a coil.
-
rust issues are present on MK4
Arches where he inner trim rubs aint off and rear tailgate handle are real bad spots
Mk5 has major issues with rust too from poor build quality
seems the newer they get the worse build they are
take early and late spec mk3 for Example, no wax protection on late cars like their is on early cars (same as what mk2 had)
Rich will empty it now mate :wink:
-
rust issues are present on MK4
Arches where he inner trim rubs aint off and rear tailgate handle are real bad spots
Mk5 has major issues with rust too from poor build quality
seems the newer they get the worse build they are
take early and late spec mk3 for Example, no wax protection on late cars like their is on early cars (same as what mk2 had)
Rich will empty it now mate :wink:
Still full bud?
-
This is what the MK6 looks like underneath, this was a 60 plate, 2 week old car:
(http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t265/JoshoRey/IMG_20120116_130439-1.jpg)
(http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t265/JoshoRey/IMG_20120116_130514.jpg)
(http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t265/JoshoRey/IMG_20120116_130459.jpg)
This was so crap, you could see no paint even when the wing and bonnet was on!:
(http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t265/JoshoRey/IMG_20120116_130535.jpg)
Couple of bits of rust as well where some sponge thing behind the wing (no idea what it's for, insulation of something) had soaked up water and sat on partial BARE METAL. :shocked:
Total shocking build/paint on it, wax looked like it was fired on with a Super Soaker, some bits having a huge thick layer, other bits where it mattered having none. See these cars being rust buckets later on in life.
-
mk5's eh??? that they up'd the displacement and left it with a k03s turbo :lipsrsealed: yeah thats an improvement :rolleyes: when the audi and seat got the same engine but with a better turbo. If anything the mk5 was a bit of a con, just paying for the badge :smug:
:rolleyes: :huh:
what are you talking about? do you know anything about the TFSI engines? are aware of the difference in chassis between the mk4 & 5?
-
mk5's eh??? that they up'd the displacement and left it with a k03s turbo :lipsrsealed: yeah thats an improvement :rolleyes: when the audi and seat got the same engine but with a better turbo. If anything the mk5 was a bit of a con, just paying for the badge :smug:
:rolleyes: :huh:
what are you talking about? do you know anything about the TFSI engines? are aware of the difference in chassis between the mk4 & 5?
yea ones bigger! :cool:
define 'bigger'
If you mean bigger as in better then you are correct.
the mk4 like the mk3 before it should never have been made. the fact that the mk5 was classed as the return of the original gti tells you just about everything you need to know.
-
ment bigger as in size :grin:
I see you are competent in the art of observation
-
Say all you want my Mk4 has been a fantastic car never broken down never had any major issues, so i am glad they made it as i still love it, ok there was the odd build issue like window regulators & wiper motors/linkage & the stupid hose clips lol but since replacing them year ago had many many miles of happy motoring.
-
this thread needs to be renamed fight for the best mk golf :grin: who gives a f**k what happened to p11jon :laugh:
-
I think we hurt a mk5 owner's feelings. Mk5 handling was better but that's where it ends for me, yes tfsi engine is more efficient by injecting directly into the cylinder, which in turn more bang for buck. But they could of upped the turbo imo, your offering a better chassis with something not much more powerful than the predecessor. This is what imo let it down for me.
We can argue all day as we all have different opinions, but personally I would of got a mk1 or 2 Leon over the mk5 even with the cheap ass cabin in the seat. It's like you love the r32, I hate it, I think the vr6 engine is outdated after the mk3, yet I think Audi got there next generation of TT right when they made the mk2 engine wise and good to see the 5pot back in the rs... but as said we have different opinions and views.
-
It's like you love the r32, I hate it
R32 is outdated & inefficient :lipsrsealed: :cool:
-
its sad... the audi s4 bi turbo engine blows all std golfs away. and that's well old!
This! Propper naughty!
Well my mk4 is getting sold n aldi to replace!
-
It's like you love the r32, I hate it
R32 is outdated & unefficient :cool:
Who cares if it's inefficient, it goes a hell of a lot better than most cars and sounds awesome :cool:
-
R32's are just too slow for what they are, and use too much fuel
Mk4 version was the best, infact id call it a classic already but unfortunately it's awesome looks have been tarnished by all the chav look a likes
All just my opinions of course
-
R32's are just too slow for what they are, and use too much fuel
Mk4 version was the best, infact id call it a classic already but unfortunately it's awesome looks have been tarnished by all the chav look a likes
All just my opinions of course
I find its a shame that the main factor in which car/engine is better boils down to cost. Lets take cost out of the equation and the R32 mk5 is still the quickest/best sounding/best handling golf out there (excluding the .:R).
Im not even going to entertain a conversation about the golf 4 being better than the 5 as the majority of people on this forum are stuck in a time warp. The 4 is so far behind the 5 its not even funny. I think the fact that mk3 owners chose to pick on mk4 owners says it all really. :lipsrsealed:
-
It's like you love the r32, I hate it
R32 is outdated & inefficient :cool:
Who cares if it's inefficient, it goes a hell of a lot better than most cars and sounds awesome :cool:
Most people care nowadays, personally would rather have turbo charged engine any day that a fuel guzzling 3.2 :cool:
-
It's like you love the r32, I hate it
R32 is outdated & inefficient :cool:
Who cares if it's inefficient, it goes a hell of a lot better than most cars and sounds awesome :cool:
Most people care nowadays, personally would rather have turbo charged engine any day that a fuel guzzling 3.2 :cool:
the 3.2 v6 is really no more or less efficient than most 3.2 v6's. the fact that most people that run a golf cannot afford to run a R32 probably is.
-
the 3.2 v6 is really no more or less efficient than most 3.2 v6's. the fact that most people that run a golf cannot afford to run a R32 probably is.
Could afford to run one with ease just think turbo engines do the same job but cost a lot less to run with a lot lower emissions & in this day & age that is important i think, no matter if you can afford it or not :cool:
hence why i have a diesel turbo although was tempted by the R :evil:
-
the 3.2 v6 is really no more or less efficient than most 3.2 v6's. the fact that most people that run a golf cannot afford to run a R32 probably is.
Could afford to run one with ease just think turbo engines do the same job but cost a lot less to run with a lot lower emissions & in this day & age that is important i think, no matter if you can afford it or not :cool:
hence why i have a diesel turbo although was tempted by the R :evil:
by afford I mean, actually afford without thinking about it. If the R cost you exactly the same per month as your current ride, which would you opt for?
I find it a shame that many people will grow up and never realise there is no replacement for displacement :undecided:
-
there is no replacement for displacement :undecided:
There is, its not a VR6, but a chevy V8 7.0 :grin: :grin: :grin:
-
there is no replacement for displacement :undecided:
There is, its not a VR6, but a chevy V8 7.0 :grin: :grin: :grin:
too heavy.. might as well put a mk4 under the hood :grin:
-
I personally prefer a large V engine but not as an every day runner :grin:
-
there is no replacement for displacement :undecided:
There is, its not a VR6, but a chevy V8 7.0 :grin: :grin: :grin:
too heavy.. might as well put a mk4 under the hood :grin:
Never happy eh :tongue:
Providing its this mk4 with this engine:
Specs:
Maximum power: 108,920 hp at 102 rpm
Maximum torque: 5,608,312 lb/ft at 102rpm
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g71/sibilev/Engine1.jpg)
See how it fits well, now you would want that mk4 under your bonnet :wink:
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g71/sibilev/Engine2.jpg)
-
i think weight may be an issue... might as well pop a mk3 under there too :cool:
-
i think weight may be an issue... might as well pop a mk3 under there too :cool:
That engine is off a mk3 :undecided:
-
by afford I mean, actually afford without thinking about it. If the R cost you exactly the same per month as your current ride, which would you opt for?
I find it a shame that many people will grow up and never realise there is no replacement for displacement :undecided:
Of course i would think about it, if i had an endless money pot i wouldnt be buying a VW in the first place lol
That is a difficult choice though & i am still tempted by an R at some point but in this day & age saving money is never a bad thing :)
-
Why save? You only live once!
-
Why save? You only live once!
This, is great advise! :smiley:
-
Why save? You only live once!
Indeed you do only live once but i still have a fantastic car that is far from slow but is cheap on tax & fuel. I don't think many people have got money to burn for the sake of it nowadays.
-
their are better things to spend money on rather than cars :lipsrsealed:
yeah like BEER! :grin:
-
their are better things to spend money on rather than cars :lipsrsealed:
yeah like BEER! :grin:
Indeed :grin: beer & more beer & the odd holiday to drink more beer :grin:
-
by afford I mean, actually afford without thinking about it. If the R cost you exactly the same per month as your current ride, which would you opt for?
I find it a shame that many people will grow up and never realise there is no replacement for displacement :undecided:
Of course i would think about it, if i had an endless money pot i wouldnt be buying a VW in the first place lol
That is a difficult choice though & i am still tempted by an R at some point but in this day & age saving money is never a bad thing :)
R32UK's point is that, for those who can truly afford such cars, there is no "but...".
Turbocharging and Supercharging are techniques developed by manufacturers to extract additional performance from engines. Most commonly this has taken the shape of smaller forced induction blocks (e.g. 1.4 TSI) replacing larger naturally aspirated engines (e.g. 3.2 V6). Of course forced induction can be in itself very entertaining and offer great driving pleasure but, for the most part, the purpose of forced induction is to produce smaller capacity engines with higher outputs - in other words more efficient engines.
For those who hold displacement dear, there is truly no replacement.
Aside from the modern era of forced induction, the most recent attempts by manufacturers to replace displacement took the form of highly tuning a smaller block. A good example is the Variable valve Timing and Electronic Lift Control (VTEC) as found on most Honda engines (and the VVT equivalent on Toyota derived engines).
All of these efforts yield varying results upon the car's characteristics. Displacement gives a huge, lazy power to any engine offering high torque output in relation to the horsepower. VTEC systems essentially squeeze every last bit of horsepower from the engine which often results in a very high horsepower figure but a severely lacking torque figure. Forced induction seems to offer a middle ground between these two polar opposites offering a blend of horsepower and torque which can be tailored to suit the car, manufacturer or market.
Broadly speaking, everyone who buys a car now looks at the performance of the engine (I don't mean performance as in 0-60). Torque delivery, horsepower and fuel efficiency are all elements of an engine's performance and people simply choose the blend which suits their needs best.
But for the purest engine experience, displacement has no replacement. All other methods are simply attempts to artificially recreate the benefits of displacement.
:smiley:
-
Well put.
The linear power delivery and throttle response you get with the best NA decent capacity engines just can't be reproduced with FI.
RS4 4.2 V8 or a 911s 3.6/3.8 Flat 6 are two fine examples...stonking engines.
-
Well put Mr P! :cool:
I think a good example of this is BMW and their twin turbo engines which attempt to provide as linear power delivery as possible. They even have tri-turbo engines now doing the same thing!
-
I think a good example of this is BMW and their twin turbo engines which attempt to provide as linear power delivery as possible. They even have tri-turbo engines now doing the same thing!
Especially on diesel engines.
BMWs diesel engines have been ahead of everyone else for years...that 335D engine is astounding.
VAG are waaaaay behind the likes of that.
-
R32's are just too slow for what they are, and use too much fuel
Mk4 version was the best, infact id call it a classic already but unfortunately it's awesome looks have been tarnished by all the chav look a likes
All just my opinions of course
I find its a shame that the main factor in which car/engine is better boils down to cost. Lets take cost out of the equation and the R32 mk5 is still the quickest/best sounding/best handling golf out there (excluding the .:R).
Im not even going to entertain a conversation about the golf 4 being better than the 5 as the majority of people on this forum are stuck in a time warp. The 4 is so far behind the 5 its not even funny. I think the fact that mk3 owners chose to pick on mk4 owners says it all really. :lipsrsealed:
Im not talking about the cost, i mean for the size of the engine and all the hype (mainly off owners) they are just noting special at all
id choose a mk5 GTI over a mk5 R32 all day long, R32 is just so weak IMO.. (yes the Mk5 version)
i don't know what the figures are on paper but id say in the real world a GTI mk5 would piss all over a R32 in the street, get in a ED30 and it ups the game even more
Id agree the Mk4 is no where near as good as the mk5, (in GTI formats) the mk3 was poor out the box too in 8v format but if you look at the other cars of same vintage as the MK3 GTI, such as GTE astra 16v 156bhp but does not handle at all, RS2000 (again 150bhp) the 16v mk3 was on point with those... better ? i dunno, but looking at old magazines (can upload if need be) the GTI 16v golf gets car of year... 1993
-
Im not talking about the cost, i mean for the size of the engine and all the hype (mainly off owners) they are just noting special at all
id choose a mk5 GTI over a mk5 R32 all day long, R32 is just so weak IMO.. (yes the Mk5 version)
i don't know what the figures are on paper but id say in the real world a GTI mk5 would piss all over a R32 in the street, get in a ED30 and it ups the game even more
The R32 pisses all over the GTI and ED30 in real life and more so on a track... . I think it was over 2secs just on the TG track (ED30). I have owned all three and can confirm the R32 is quicker flat out andd much quicker in everyday driving. I love how people just follow the myth that the R32 is big and slow..
if you had taken any time to actually drive the car or read any of the reviews then you would hear virtually every pro driver rave on about the performance and handling. People need to get out there and drive cars rather than rate them by stats :wink: :cool:
p.s. the R32 takes a while to learn how to drive. :cool:
-
Oh dear, R32UK. You haven't come across dear Brad's 'real world' before, have you?
In Brad's 'real world' whatever Brad says is faster.
In Brad's mind, which is where Brad's 'real world' exists.
It's a convenient construct that allows Brad to continue to argue black is white in total ignorance of any inconvenient facts.
You are unable to win this argument because anything you say will be countered by 'ah but in the real world...'
-
by afford I mean, actually afford without thinking about it. If the R cost you exactly the same per month as your current ride, which would you opt for?
I find it a shame that many people will grow up and never realise there is no replacement for displacement :undecided:
Of course i would think about it, if i had an endless money pot i wouldnt be buying a VW in the first place lol
That is a difficult choice though & i am still tempted by an R at some point but in this day & age saving money is never a bad thing :)
R32UK's point is that, for those who can truly afford such cars, there is no "but...".
:smiley:
I understood his point :grin:
My point being was if you don't have to say "but" why the f**k would you buy a Golf in the first place it's an R32 not a Aston
I get an average of 50mpg & proud of it, actually have hit 65mpg when driving to work :grin:
-
And surely the point being about the edition 35 is with a stage one remap it would be 277 bhp so would then surely beat the R32 that is the joy of turbo charged engines great improvements for not a lot of money
If you have plenty then A stage 2 would take it to 321bhp, a stage 3 up to 362bhp.
-
And plenty of heat soak :grin:
-
I understood his point :grin:
My point being was if you don't have to say "but" why the f**k would you buy a Golf in the first place it's an R32 not a Aston
I get an average of 50mpg & proud of it, actually have hit 65mpg when driving to work :grin:
When I had mine i didnt really worry too much about the petrol costs... The difference between an R32 and a Aston are massive. There is an inbetween. I think thats the point you may be missing.
-
Oh dear, R32UK. You haven't come across dear Brad's 'real world' before, have you?
In Brad's 'real world' whatever Brad says is faster.
In Brad's mind, which is where Brad's 'real world' exists.
It's a convenient construct that allows Brad to continue to argue black is white in total ignorance of any inconvenient facts.
You are unable to win this argument because anything you say will be countered by 'ah but in the real world...'
I have encountered Bradley a few times previously.... but hey, we cant give up on the kids. They can only remain in the playground for so long :cool:
-
I've driven a MK5 GTI and an R32.
GTI "feels" fast IMO, it's not if you time it but just because the turbo boost feels fast.
The R32 is more luxury and lazy "do I have to do this" but while actually getting to 60 etc very fast.
You could say that the R32 is heavier and if you kept the GTI on boost well round corners then you could think it's faster I'd agree because it feels more "yobbish" but I'm definately sure the R32 would do it much quicker.
It's hard to describe. The GTI is quick and feels very quick throwing it about but that's because the R32 is so refined and luxury IMO.
GTI is much more boy racer to me then the R32 and the R32 is a lovely car to drive, reminds me of the M5. Neither FELT as fast as I'd thought, until you looked at the speedo.
-
I understood his point :grin:
My point being was if you don't have to say "but" why the f**k would you buy a Golf in the first place it's an R32 not a Aston
I get an average of 50mpg & proud of it, actually have hit 65mpg when driving to work :grin:
When I had mine i didnt really worry too much about the petrol costs... The difference between an R32 and a Aston are massive. There is an inbetween. I think thats the point you may be missing.
Not missed it, was just using an extreme example
Suppose it all depends what sort mileage your doing I've managed to knock up 4000 miles in 2 months on my Rocco so fuel costs are a factor plus prefer spending money on beer than fuel :cool:
-
Suppose it all depends what sort mileage your doing I've managed to knock up 4000 miles in 2 months on my Rocco so fuel costs are a factor plus prefer spending money on beer, hookers and drugs than fuel :cool:
No just beer lol hookers are overrated & had my fill of the other eventually lol