GolfGTIforum.co.uk
General => General discussion => Topic started by: Callum0121 on 17 July 2011, 22:13
-
Golf GTI Mk2 1.8 16v or Golf GTI Mk3 2.0 16v?
cheers callum
-
:laugh:
-
:laugh:
:lipsrsealed:
-
*Looks around for DH*
:grin:
-
? lol
-
both slow.. so its not really owt to worry about :grin:
-
im only on a 1.6 so ital be fast to me, its gonna be a project/weekend car so it will get striped and money spent on it
-
1.4 Astra SXi
-
1.4 Astra SXi
dont talk soft! :grin:
-
mk 3 is faster in a straight line. it was developed using the technology commonly found on canal boats.
-
HAHA all these replys and not one sensible comment :grin: :grin:
now guys on a serious level..
thanks
callum
-
HAHA all these replys and not one sensible comment :grin: :grin:
now guys on a serious level..
thanks
callum
On a serious level, try a search :wink:
-
mk2 138 bhp
mk3 150 bhp
i know these stats but im asking a simple question on the cars overall as i have never owned one, cheers for your help anyway.
-
mk2 138 bhp
mk3 150 bhp
i know these stats but im asking a simple question on the cars overall as i have never owned one, cheers for your help anyway.
You've got to remember that the mk3 is also heavier than the mk2 and that generally an 8v engine produces more usable torque than a 16v engine...it's not as simple as 138bhp vs 150bhp
-
generally an 8v engine produces more usable torque than a 16v engine...it's not as simple as 138bhp vs 150bhp
Shut up, you sound stupid.
Value-wise, buy a Golf3.
Best solution, buy a Golf2 and put the Golf3 2.0 16V motor in it.
Search ABF on here for lots more information.
The G2 16V runs K-jet, which is archaic and thirsty mechanical injection.
G3 16V runs Digi3, which is good quality electronic management and will deliver 40MPG on a light foot.
Have a look at Paul86S2's posts: http://www.golfgtiforum.co.uk/index.php?action=profile;u=17220
He has a well-sorted G3 16V track car.
What colour stripes are you going to put on it?
-
MK2 is the better choice, even more so with a ABF fitted
-
generally an 8v engine produces more usable torque than a 16v engine...it's not as simple as 138bhp vs 150bhp
Shut up, you sound stupid.
Value-wise, buy a Golf3.
Best solution, buy a Golf2 and put the Golf3 2.0 16V motor in it.
Search ABF on here for lots more information.
The G2 16V runs K-jet, which is archaic and thirsty mechanical injection.
G3 16V runs Digi3, which is good quality electronic management and will deliver 40MPG on a light foot.
Have a look at Paul86S2's posts: http://www.golfgtiforum.co.uk/index.php?action=profile;u=17220
He has a well-sorted G3 16V track car.
What colour stripes are you going to put on it?
And DH in all his glory strikes again :rolleyes:
Ignoring your complete inability to come across as anything other than an arrogant tw@t, I have to agree with dropping an ABF in a mk2....so much so that when a virtually identical question was asked yesterday it was the suggestion that I gave....
http://www.golfgtiforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=200208.0 (http://www.golfgtiforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=200208.0)
-
generally an 8v engine produces more usable torque than a 16v engine...it's not as simple as 138bhp vs 150bhp
lol :rolleyes:
-
Buy a mk3 and a mk2.
Chop the front of the mk3 onto the back of the mk2. Put both engines in the front.
You now have a mk 3 + mk2 = 4.0 32v 8 cylinder mk5 :afro:
To give a proper answer, there's not much in it tbh. I'd go for whichever is both in budget and in the best condition. Plenty of good condition mk3s around for reasonable money while good condition mk2s are becoming more expensive.
-
..."more usable torque"? Really!
Bring out the graph.
Oh and the MK2 is 139 BHP.
-
Edited because i'm a moron.
-
Ok, so i've just realised that the OP hasn't mentioned an 8v engine anywhere in this thread :laugh: :laugh:
Feck knows where I got that from :rolleyes:
-
Edited because i'm a moron.
Just because what you put was wrong, it doesn't make you a moron.
I think that title belongs to someone else :rolleyes:
-
i do love mk2's as i think it has alot more character, but as someone just said mk3 is more like my buget. There some half decent ones knocking around for cheap
cheers for the info guys
callum
-
MK2 is the better choice, even more so with a ABF fitted
sorry if i sound dumb but im new to the car scence, whats ABF? :undecided:
-
Ok, so i've just realised that the OP hasn't mentioned an 8v engine anywhere in this thread
Feck knows where I got that from :rolleyes:
That's why I'm here to help you out (and quote your original post). It's not arrogance, it's careful reading and being right. This is what you find annoying.
sorry if i sound dumb but im new to the car scence, whats ABF?
Re-read the thread - I specifically outlined what an ABF is :wink:
-
MK2 is the better choice, even more so with a ABF fitted
sorry if i sound dumb but im new to the car scence, whats ABF? :undecided:
ABF is the later 16v engine from a mk3 GTI.
-
Do you just want the fastest dub you can afford or is there more to it than that. My cars not the fastest but it would pi55 all over a mk3 in many respects. :grin:
-
whats ABF? :undecided:
If your gonna go to the hassle of changing engines in a mk2, you may aswell go for 20vt and map it..
-
after being on different forums over the last few years such as Zetec s owners club and MGZR.co.uk
with me being on this forum for only a few days i have noticed thats theres alot of people who are good with advise and helping, but yet a few idiots who think there funny but no-one seems to agree with them.
Its kind ov boring seeing the same few people on thread annoying people when they ask for simple advise or help...
anyway, onwards and upwards :smiley:
-
Have you tried ClubGti.co.uk ?
Really helpfull on their for proper advice
-
During the time I had my 16v, I drove quite a few 8v's and I didn't like them, they felt very very gutless.
-
During the time I had my 16v, I drove quite a few 8v's and I didn't like them, they felt very very gutless.
Obviously not been in the right 8v then. :smiley:
-
Depends on the driver really! :rolleyes:
-
Depends on the driver really! :rolleyes:
Well yeah, but if a driver jumps into a 16v from an 8v then they're going to be more impressed with the 16v overall. However people under estimate what can be squeezed out of 8v!... people forget that the number of valves isn't always key. Over sized high lift 8v can match 16v performance and better them on torque if setup correctly.
-
During the time I had my 16v, I drove quite a few 8v's and I didn't like them, they felt very very gutless.
Obviously not been in the right 8v then. :smiley:
I drove loads of them, they were all gutless. The 16v was much better.
What is it with you 8v boys and your low down torque? You run out of tourque and power very quickly, the 16v doesn't. You have the option to rev it more to take off and you have a far greater range of power you can use.
-
During the time I had my 16v, I drove quite a few 8v's and I didn't like them, they felt very very gutless.
Obviously not been in the right 8v then. :smiley:
I drove loads of them, they were all gutless. The 16v was much better.
What is it with you 8v boys and your low down torque? You run out of tourque and power very quickly, the 16v doesn't. You have the option to rev it more to take off and you have a far greater range of power you can use.
NO you are right and don't get me wrong. At no point did I compare standard 8v to 16v or say they were better. I said not to UNDERESTIMATE their potential... Mine is far from standard, hard torque to 3-4k, HP pull from 5 into late 6k.
-
Here, I did a search, official VW figures.....
(http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a3/ant1981/vwgolfstats.jpg)
-
:grin: :grin: See my last post.... oh and that doesn't relate to mine at all. in fact that doesn't relate to 16v either
-
The thing is also age and condition of the car.
The newest mk2's and oldest mk3's are nearly 20 years old now.
You could have a battered mk2 (which I would say is faster, when new) and a well maintained mk3.
One could have a mileage of 150k, but serviced every 5k and well looked after and the other could only be 80k but ragged to sh!t and neglected.
Same would go for the 8v Vs. 16v argument. :lipsrsealed: :wink:
-
noticed on reading through your posts you said ital :grin:
maybe THIS is what you really want :laugh:
(http://i1221.photobucket.com/albums/dd478/gimp6969/beige_ital.jpg)
a nice 1.3 4 speed :rolleyes:
-
So anyway back to the original question.
Golf 2 16v 0 60 = 7.6
Golf 3 16v 0 60 = 8.4
Taken from a book i have not just made up. Although in the real world probably never gonna acheive those times. Probably best to drive both and make your own mind up.
Also have you driven a mk3 to see if you actually like the car?
Might not matter which one is fastest.
-
To be honest, doesn't always matter which one is fastest, as are you going to drive it at it's fastest all the time? Probably not. Something with a bit of poke is nice enough.
-
So anyway back to the original question.
Golf 2 16v 0 60 = 7.6
Golf 3 16v 0 60 = 8.4
Taken from a book i have not just made up. Although in the real world probably never gonna acheive those times. Probably best to drive both and make your own mind up.
Also have you driven a mk3 to see if you actually like the car?
Might not matter which one is fastest.
Where did you get those figures from?
VW quoted figures are much closer. There is no way that a mk2 is nearly a second quicker than a mk3.
-
A book about the history of gtis.
Have seen some people state that the mk2 does it in 7.2. Not that anyones gonna notice that difference.
-
So anyway back to the original question.
Golf 2 16v 0 60 = 7.6
Golf 3 16v 0 60 = 8.4
Taken from a book i have not just made up. Although in the real world probably never gonna acheive those times. Probably best to drive both and make your own mind up.
Also have you driven a mk3 to see if you actually like the car?
Might not matter which one is fastest.
Where did you get those figures from?
VW quoted figures are much closer. There is no way that a mk2 is nearly a second quicker than a mk3.
Autocar tested a mk2 16v = 7.1 but a mk3 was 8.4 so it shows what difference the extra weight is costing
-
Having had a few, golfs that is...
Mk2 16v wins hands down over Mk3 16v for fun factor
ABF, 1.8T, and VR are all possible engine conversions.
My last three golfs have been 8v and i dont miss the extra 8v at all.
The VR is a different story, whatever people say about heavy lump too far forward etc etc, it just sounds awsome and has a grin factor of 8.6 whether its in a Mk2 or 3 :cool:
-
I've owned a mk2 16v, mk3 VR6, passat GT 16v, Audi 100 quattro and now Audi A8.
I've also had regular use of a mk3 16v and an Audi 90 Quattro 20v( I think i've remembered everything :grin:)
I find some of the times quoted on the mk2 16v interesting, it was a quick car, but not that quick. I don't think it was any quicker than the mk3 16v.
If a 16v could do 0-60 in close to 7 seconds, then that on paper, is nearly as quick as my A8, and that frankly is laughable.
Just to add the mk3 VR6 was a fair bit quicker than the mk2 16v, its a shame the handling didn't match.
Oh course this is only based on my own experiences of the last 15 years.
-
This still going :shocked: :laugh:
-
This still going :shocked: :laugh:
I'm faster than you :grin:
-
This still going :shocked: :laugh:
I'm faster than you :grin:
Everyone is faster than me ive got a mk4 :cry:
:grin: :grin: :grin:
-
:grin: :grin: :grin:
-
If a 16v could do 0-60 in close to 7 seconds, then that on paper, is nearly as quick as my A8, and that frankly is laughable.
It's not laughable at all, the A8 is a big heavy car remember.
-
If a 16v could do 0-60 in close to 7 seconds, then that on paper, is nearly as quick as my A8, and that frankly is laughable.
It's not laughable at all, the A8 is a big heavy car remember.
True. But the A8 has 300bhp and 290ft of torque available from 3000rpm, it is aluminium chassis, so not as heavy as people think.
So yes, having owned both cars, its very laughable :grin:
-
What does it weigh?
-
1700kg i believe.
-
This still going :shocked: :laugh:
I'm faster than you :grin:
Everyone is faster than me ive got a mk4 :cry:
:grin: :grin: :grin:
espeically on that expensive fateful day :laugh: :kiss: :tongue:
-
Well we all knoe the mk3 8v is faster than both of them so what does it matter! :grin:
-
Not going up into the loft now, so here is a Jetta 16v roadtest summary from 1986. :smiley:
Weight quoted works out @ 1013kg.
(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p51/jmfangio5/jetta16v.jpg)
-
Not going up into the loft now, so here is a Jetta 16v roadtest summary.
That's just laughable.
Nothing's as fast as a 1700kg A8 as eny fule kno
-
Not going up into the loft now, so here is a Jetta 16v roadtest summary.
That's just laughable.
Nothing's as fast as a 1700kg A8 as eny fule kno
Only a golf 2 with an ABF in it :grin:
-
(http://uk.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0WTf2omlyZOUVwAfxhWBQx./SIG=12oo28q6e/EXP=1311180710/**http%3a//czechfolks.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/egg-face-flickr.jpg)
-
This still going :shocked: :laugh:
I'm faster than you :grin:
Everyone is faster than me ive got a mk4 :cry:
:grin: :grin: :grin:
espeically on that expensive fateful day :laugh: :kiss: :tongue:
:tongue: :grin: :grin: :grin:
-
top speed wise you'd hope the mk3 is faster
as mass dosent affect top end speed just how long it takes to get there, you would hope a mk3 golf is more airodynamic than a mk2 ( there must be a reason for it being so fugly )
so more power and less drag it should go faster eventualy ( provied your on a long boreing straight level road wihtout any corneres)
going downhill the mk3 has an unfair advantage as it ate all the pies
as allread coverd accseloration wise the mk3 is going to be crap as its heavyy unless you've lightend it LOTS or as they rot so well the rustworm may have done that for you.
-
top speed wise you'd hope the mk3 is faster
as mass dosent affect top end speed just how long it takes to get there, you would hope a mk3 golf is more airodynamic than a mk2 ( there must be a reason for it being so fugly )
so more power and less drag it should go faster eventualy ( provied your on a long boreing straight level road wihtout any corneres)
going downhill the mk3 has an unfair advantage as it ate all the pies
as allread coverd accseloration wise the mk3 is going to be crap as its heavyy unless you've lightend it LOTS or as they rot so well the rustworm may have done that for you.
:shocked:
You'll get a slapped hand from the Mk3 defensiveness movement.
-
You'll get a slapped hand from the Mk3 defensiveness movement.
Let me know when they're planning it.
I think it would be very funny to watch this event try to take place.
-
You'll get a slapped hand from the Mk3 defensiveness movement.
Let me know when they're planning it.
I think it would be very funny to watch this event try to take place.
On the beach?
-
No at the boatyard
-
No at the scrapyard
Corrected
-
MkII looks so much better than a MkIII, so does it really matter what is faster?
-
You'll get a slapped hand from the Mk3 defensiveness movement.
Let me know when they're planning it.
I think it would be very funny to watch this event try to take place.
yeah don't mess with thomas, he can overtake r32's motherf**ka
-
yeah don't mess with thomas, he can overtake r32's motherf**ka
Talking about Danny here, numpty.
Do keep up, I know you struggle.
-
im sure you will be 'backing him up'
-
im sure you will be 'backing him up'
Probably be right behind him.
Anyone quite realize how sad you lot really are arguing over what car is better and what not?
-
No at the scrapyard
Corrected
:grin:
Oh dear what heppened to this thread?
Decent MK1s are the fastest. :rolleyes:
[\END THREAD]
-
Decent MK1s are the fastest. :rolleyes:
Not bumped into one for some time.
Space-frame specials don't count BTW. :wink:
-
My Aldi is quicker than the lot of you