GolfGTIforum.co.uk
General => General discussion => Topic started by: Atrueblue on 18 September 2013, 16:01
-
Hi Everyone!
Iv'e been wanting a black 2.0 GTI with black leather interior for ages and just noticed this one on Gumtree.
I'm not the biggest car expert and was wondering if you could lend your experience and opinions?
Should I buy this car?
http://www.gumtree.com/p/cars-vans-motorbikes/vw-golf-20-gti-leather-interior-air-con-heated-seats-bluetooth-audio-parrot-10mth-mot/1032326057 (http://www.gumtree.com/p/cars-vans-motorbikes/vw-golf-20-gti-leather-interior-air-con-heated-seats-bluetooth-audio-parrot-10mth-mot/1032326057)
Thank You :undecided:
ATB
-
Its a 2.0 8v, unless your not worried about performance, then its ok if you knock the price down a tad. The 8v isn't worthy of the GTI badge in most peoples opinion. It was a time when they stuck it on the higher spec cars rather than higher performance that most people associate with a GTI.
-
forget that find a decent 1.8t golf much better than the 2.0 :smiley:
-
Thanks. Not overly bothered about performance, Iv'e driven my mates 8v and they still have plenty of power.
What price do you think? (seems to have a lot of extras)
Thanks again
ATB
-
Thanks. Not overly bothered about performance, Iv'e driven my mates 8v and they still have plenty of power.
What price do you think? (seems to have a lot of extras)
Thanks again
ATB
its more the weak engine i was talking about the are known to use as much oil as fuel sometimes :wink: try a 1.8t
-
As barry says I'd avoid the 2.0, it's a really poor engine with a reputation for drinking oil. If you're not bothered about performance then the 1.8n/a is a better bet.
-
My mrs has that hateful 2.0 8v engine in her beetle and it absolutely kanes oil,i don't know where it all goes to though as it has no leaks and doesn't smoke one bit :undecided:
-
When you say it has a lot of extras, it has leather (not Recarro, or even Ricardo as the add says) and an aftermarket radio...that's it.
-
I like several "great features":
"10 Months MOT" - not really a feature. It's good to know that it passed an MOT recently.
"Enhanced bass Audio" - clearly the advertiser knows nothing about the stereo and couldn't even tell you whether it's a VW brand stereo or something by Sony/Blaupunt/Clarion/etc.
"Electric windows with four way pilot control" - ie there are 4 switches on the drivers door. Standard for cars with electric windows.
Leather seats are often heated. So not an extra, but nice if you like leather seats.
The only actual extra is the Parrot hands-free kit.
As said the 2.0 8v is underpowered and not very reliable. The 1.8 20v non-turbo is slightly more powerful and is a bit more reliable.
I think for that price you could probably find a 1.8T.
-
No it's pish!! Buy a 1.8 non turbo if ure going to go this route
-
It is a 2.0 enough said, buy a 1.8 20v much better in the long run
-
I know that the 2.0 is not the most GTI like engine, but why do you reckon the 1.8 20V is so much better? I'm sure VW replaced it for a reason.
I had a new 2.0 and a mate had a 1.8 back in 1999. We swapped cars one day and had a bit of a go. There was absolutely nothing between them.
-
I know that the 2.0 is not the most GTI like engine, but why do you reckon the 1.8 20V is so much better? I'm sure VW replaced it for a reason.
The 1.8 20v Turbo or non turbo is a much better engine, the 2.0 is noted for many problems including excessive oil use.
-
I know that the 2.0 is not the most GTI like engine, but why do you reckon the 1.8 20V is so much better? I'm sure VW replaced it for a reason.
I had a new 2.0 and a mate had a 1.8 back in 1999. We swapped cars one day and had a bit of a go. There was absolutely nothing between them.
The 1.8 20v is more economic, more powerful and more reliable. The 1.8t is in a different league all together.
-
have owned both the 1.8 n/a and t and both were good engines.
haven't owned a 2.0, but have heard of lots of problems with the 2.0 and have known people with the 2.0 and they didn't seem as reliable as the 1800...
and +1 on the above. used to see 40 odd mpg from the 1.8n/a, from 0-70 a 1.8t only pulled 2 metres or so on my 1.8n/a.
so imo the 1.8 was the better engine and have never understood why the 1.8 was stoped being made and the 2.0 carried on.
can only assume people thought 2.0 biger than 1.8 therefore more powerfull
-
2.0 engines are absolute sh!te.
My 1.6 MK3 used to absolutely cain the living daylights out of my mates 2.0 MK4 round a long stretch of roundabouts, he was a good driver, just the thing was gutless. Really didn't feel like a 2.0 and certainly not a GTI!
On the motorway was a very different story but I hated that car, I drove it several times and down lanes etc it was so tedious waiting for the thing to wind up and it never really did.
-
Well my 2.0 was ok. I had it from new and did 75,000 miles in 3 years with only a water pump impeller letting me down. It used 1 litre of oil during the first 10,000 miles, then less and less until it used none at all between the 60-70k services. I can't remeber what it was like on fuel. I replaced it with a Leon Cupra, so know all about the 1.8T.
As I said before, I had chance to compare the performance of the 2.0 and 1.8 20V and despite how they felt, there was nothing at all in it. The reason behind changing to the 2.0 was all to do with emissions.
If I had that time again, I would have saved longer and bought a 1.8T, but I didn't and that's that.
-
2.0 engines are absolute sh!te.
My 1.6 MK3 used to absolutely cain the living daylights out of my mates 2.0 MK4 round a long stretch of roundabouts, he was a good driver, just the thing was gutless. Really didn't feel like a 2.0 and certainly not a GTI!
On the motorway was a very different story but I hated that car, I drove it several times and down lanes etc it was so tedious waiting for the thing to wind up and it never really did.
I'm not so sure about this? I've had a 1.6 mk3 and that was gutless!
I've currently got a bora with the 2.0 8v, it's done 182k and still runs nice and smooth. it's pulls ok and it does drink a little oil but other then that it makes a good daily engine. But I did only pay £400 for it. If I was spending the money he's asking id go for a 1.8t
I
-
.
-
I'm not so sure about this? I've had a 1.6 mk3 and that was gutless!
You had the SPi engine though? I remember seeing pictures and totally different to mine. My one was proper nippy in all fairness for a bigger car and only being a 1.6. Wasn't by any stretch an M3 but was actually nice for day to day use, pulled well on the motorway and town, only place it lacked big time was A-Roads and country lanes.
But my mate in his MK4 could never keep up off the line and round roundabouts etc, used to really wind him up. :grin: