GolfGTIforum.co.uk
Model specific boards => Golf mk3 => Topic started by: snifferdog on 25 January 2011, 18:23
-
Car magazine - A round of golfs, 1992.
'If this is quality, the new GTI is loaded with it. Were Mercedes to make a golf, it would surely do it no better.'
'...the latest car is in a different league to the 1600 (mk1), even if through-the-gears acceleration is only slightly better to 60 mph'
'Another myth our 3 generation reunion exploded was that the original 1600 handled better than its successors. It doesnt. On both cornering grip and traction the 1600 (mk1) was soundly beaten by the 2.0 (mk3).'
'....to conclude this tale of 3 golfs with anything but admiration and acclaim for the latest GTI would be as churlish as it would be dishonest. In meeting its maker, the new golf showed granddad how it should be done.'
Auto Express - The greatest golf GTI supplement, 2008/9.
' Drive the mk3 now and its difficult to understand how it was condemned in early road tests for being overweight.'
'The steering is meaty and balanced and the chassis makes the most of the available grip. It lacks the ultimate fun factor of its predecessors but its not as far behind as its reputation would have you think.'
' A future classic, the mk3 is now a bargain. Handling is underrated.'
Volkswagen Driver - Special GTI issue, 2010
' ....contrary to expectations based on official brochure figures, our road test of the mk3 reported times which were very close to those of the mk2'.
' A second example, tested in 1995, with higher mileage, was noticeably more free revving and beat the mk2's time by recording 7.7 seconds (0 - 60mph)'.
Just thought I would share :grin:
-
Yes Snifferdog!
Get in! Up the Mk3s! :grin: :grin:
-
Blimey, mk3 compliments - Now there's a rarity! :smiley:
-
I think you should re-post it on the general page to see what all the owners of other mk's think. Doubt they will budge on their opinions though, but I bet most of em have never owned a mk3 so are just saying it on reputation. Its not the best handling tbh though, but its not as bad as it has been made out to be!
-
Have to agree, I always stuck up for the handling, although mine is massively improved since I lowered it. :laugh:
-
i feel as if i can hold my head up high again!!!!! :rolleyes:
-
Well almost...
-
I actually think of it this way.
Mk1/mk2, they are like karts. You're not going very fast but because you're low, open cockpit (sounds like it in a mk1/mk2 with the wind noise :laugh:) and you can hear every single noise it feels much faster and more connected.
When infact the mk3 is more advanced, faster and more complete :cool:
-
I found some more old mags out, there could be more quotes to come :grin: To be honest, I have omitted the quotes that say that it got heavy and fat :grin: But overall, the reviews of the mk3 werent as bad as some on this forum would have you believe.
-
And there was me thinking my Mk.3 was sh*te because some other people don't like it. But now it seems that some other other people think it's not sh*te after all. I of course always suspected it wasn't sh*te, but then I only own and drive the thing so what do I know?! :grin:
Seriously though, good finds there snifferdog, nice to see.
S.M.
-
Nice one..
To me the Mk3 is no less a Golf GTI in principle than any of the others below and above..including the 8valve too.
You have that build quality, attention to detail, understatement and classless image with the prestige of the VW/GTI badge.
Don't know why any of you guys would slump head down in the seat because your driving a Mk3 lol! would never even cross my mind.
I think all the Mk's go through different viewpoints at different periods.. to me the Mk4 is going through a period where it seems to look a bit of a chav mobile..(just my opinion) but it'll pass.. and they'll be respected/revered like the others over time, it's all in the GTI heritage and quality.
-
Someone will be along soon enough to tell us how sh!t they are usually the case :rolleyes:
-
Hehe i guess so yep.. but i just don't see it that way, never have.
-
(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p51/jmfangio5/GolfMk3VR6_02.jpg)
-
Told ya :grin:
-
The really funny thing is that the Mk2 boys say how bad it handles but when you look into the detail the Mk3 suspension is an improvement of the Mk2 and there are upgrades to the Mk2 by using Mk3 parts!
-
I have nothing against mk3's, I posted that picture before another member did. :smiley:
-
remember the mk3 came out when refinement was key (and emmision control was being tightened!).... Ford brought out the XR3i 16V (with 105 or 130bhp to keep mr insurance happy) and Vauxhall offered the astra sport at the same time and both were terrible to drive! (and possibly worse to own!)
oh and the lemon comment from car is not really 100% as they tried a vr6 and wanted the fun of a mk2 16v but the feel of a bmw (I think they compared it to a 6cylinder bmw 3 series! that cost several £££ more!!)
-
oh and the lemon comment from car is not really 100% as they tried a vr6 and wanted the fun of a mk2 16v but the feel of a bmw (I think they compared it to a 6cylinder bmw 3 series! that cost several £££ more!!)
The main problem was the amount of faults over the 6mths they had the car but it was a very early / pre production car so would not have been the finished product as such, it is an interesting read however as a lot of the issues were sorted on the later cars.
-
thats the thing, the suspension and mountings were pretty much the same as the mk2, but the springs/shocks were not as good as they could have been. there are plenty reviews out there that slate it just down to that, and its not dificult to fix it just change them. everythign else is fine really, just a little more weight put on over the mk2. but then compare a fully loaded 90spec mk2 to a mk3 and there wont be that much difference.
the shell itself is better than the mk2 as they added in lots of stiffening and general design upgrades which were found in the mk2 g60 and corrado floorpans. plus the uprated front mounts on the gti and the wide track.
as i say, it was only the shocks and springs that let them down. also a fair few reviews were of the vr6, and often they missed the point of that model. they reviewed it as if the car was a GTI, which it plainly is not. its a GT car :)
also, 0-60 comparisons arnt the whole story really, which mk2 did they test and which mk3? was the mk2 running properly? the mk3 has taller ratios which is an advantage when doign 0-60 against a pre91 mk2, as the mk2 will have to change gear to get to 60 whereas the mk3 driver does not. give it a go with a 91+ mk2 and it'll be different as 2nd is taller so the mk2 driver wont have to change gear to get to 60 either :)
problem is even worse in a mk1, as the ratios are reeeeely short so lots of gear shuffling. though i really doubt the mk3 was anywhere as near quick to 60. and the 98 test saying mk3 isnt overweight, yeah obviously compared to cars in 98/99 it isn't, but compared to what was out in 92 it was ;)
and the last one 'noticeably more free revving' hmm, yeah right. was it a 16v mk3? or did they test it vs a digi mk2 where some muppet had set the timing wrong :grin:
-
Autocar - celebrating 25 years of a motoring legend.
'In sheer fun terms, the mk3 is not as invigorating as the mk2. But the bottom line is it has more grip, a lot more speed and can lap whole seconds faster.'
:wink: