GolfGTIforum.co.uk
Model specific boards => Golf mk7 => Topic started by: Tornado8 on 30 August 2015, 17:41
-
With 40 years of GTI I thought I'd look at the progress of the GTI from MK1 TO MK7.
The figures I found were as follows:-
MK1 110BHP 0-60 9.0s 103lbft Torque 810kg 135BHP/Tonne
MK7(3 door) 220BHP 0-60 6.5s 258lbft Torque 1400Kg 157BHP/tonne
So over 40 years it seems the power to weight ratio( I thought it would be a lot higher) :shocked: is nothing compared to the increase in the torque figures which I find rather interesting. What do you think?
-
I think that you must have had a really boring day looking up those stats :grin: :grin:
-
Absolutely, I even washed and polished and cleaned the car inside and out :grin:
But the other point I want to raise whilst I'm bored, is where will it all end a Mk14 GTI weighing 2000kg and 600HP :laugh:
-
I think it also needs to be viewed in the context of emissions and changing safety regs. But yeh they could be a bit more powerful which is why many have them remapped :laugh:.
As for the torque increase, that is an advantage of turbocharging without increasing cc. There probably wasn't much gain in torque between MK1 and MK3.
-
As above, turbocharging is both the best and the worst things that happened with these cars.
You lose the instant response and character of the engine with turbocharging but when you want a bit more power out of the unit you can spend £500 - 700 on a remap and get an instant 40 - 50bhp plus lots more torque. When you think back to the mk1 you'd need at least £1000 (which would be double maybe now in real terms) just to modify the cylinder head and cam to give you extra power, which would be invariably mostly be at the top end, so then you'd need to add at least another £1500 to get the bottom end bored out to 1.9 or 2.0 so you then had decent torque to make it a much quicker on road performer. Been there and written the book.
So what we can see from the figures it that the power to weight is quite similar so the car retains a similar character of sorts; and when you consider the massive weight gain it shows how modern electronics mean that VW can still get similar fuel consumption figures out of the bigger engined heavier car.
With the mk1 it was the bodywork that rotted away making the car end up in scrap yards. The bodies tend to be much better built on the later cars (galvanised) but it's the electronic and engine failures that make it an unviable repair once it gets a few years old - you can't take a component out and replace or repair bits of it any more, instead the plethora of electronic units cost hundreds and hundreds at least to replace once they become defective meaning vehicles out of warranty are a ticking time bomb before something VERY expensive goes on them. That's why big old VW's, Audis and BMW's not to mention bigger French cars and Jap stuff depreciate so very heavily on their running and repair 'cost of ownership' liklihood. Along with affordable finance and throwaway society encouraged by the government(s) taxing older cars that aren't "green" enough despite the factories churning out probably chucking out god knows what into the atmosphere, never mind the raw materials production...
Therefore in real terms a new or newish GTI nowadays is probably far more affordable than when the mk1 was around for normal human beings, with a much higher spec to go with the extra weight.
Thankfully they come with a 3 year warranty now too unlike the 1 year with the mk1.
-
I'd take a MK1 Campaign all day long!
-
Well informed reply Exonian.
As each replacement model arrives it has to have more power, more mpg and be safer as well. There has to be a point where either the weight has to fall, or the engines become even more powerful or lighter or both :smiley:
-
Well informed reply Exonian.
As each replacement model arrives it has to have more power, more mpg and be safer as well. There has to be a point where either the weight has to fall, or the engines become even more powerful or lighter or both :smiley:
Err, thanks, just a bit of waffling from me really.
Excuse grammar etc too as I find it really hard reading back through tidying up paragraphs on my phone as it doesn't scroll very well at times.
I'd take a MK1 Campaign all day long!
I think most of us would like to think that.
I'll put it down to rose tinted specs. :whistle:
Mine spent most of its life getting fixed.
It was rubbish up hill with any more than two people on board.
The brakes... we won't go there.
You needed arms like Arnie to steer it.
Still, it was fun :smiley: but handling and safety have come a long long way since.
-
I'd take a MK1 Campaign all day long!
:evil: :cool:
With the mk1 ibodywork that rotted away making the car end up in scrap yards. The bodies tend to be much better built on the later cars
Only early ones the late 82-83-84 cars had wheel arch liners, waxoiled, underseal etc from the factory, to the same level as the mk2-s early cars.
-
Well informed reply Exonian.
As each replacement model arrives it has to have more power, more mpg and be safer as well. There has to be a point where either the weight has to fall, or the engines become even more powerful or lighter or both :smiley:
Err, thanks, just a bit of waffling from me really.
Excuse grammar etc too as I find it really hard reading back through tidying up paragraphs on my phone as it doesn't scroll very well at times.
I'd take a MK1 Campaign all day long!
I think most of us would like to think that.
I'll put it down to rose tinted specs. :whistle:
Mine spent most of its life getting fixed.
It was rubbish up hill with any more than two people on board.
The brakes... we won't go there.
You needed arms like Arnie to steer it.
Still, it was fun :smiley: but handling and safety have come a long long way since.
you had a bad one then. Had mine 26 years and my daily for alot of that. Allways starts and had no problems with it in 26 years apart from age related issues brakes,exhaust,suspension unlike these modern electronic, designed by accountants, vw piles of sh!t that keep disapointing me that we have had over that time too. Mine has no problems up hills pulled like mad with full load normally in 5th! so guess yours had big problems probably poorly adjusted injection system. Brakes are down to poorly setup rear adjustment, funny how poor brakes only come to light years lster and its actually due to ware and tear and never mensioned when new in any review. Keep on top of those silly wedge adjusters and weak springs on them and keep using genuine shoes and pads and the brakes are fine. Yes you have to push the pedal as its not massively servoed like modern audis but brakes as well as any other. Linkages sease and ware on the cross link pins too which can cause a play in the pedal.
Steerings heavy at parking speeds its not assisted so expected. Let the car crawl and it turns fine but still a little heavy. On the move its no worse than my leon. Im not a fan of the way it weights up in corners but the leon does the same. The performane is average nowadays and its not refined by modern standards and hasnt got the nvh of modern cars. Or the higher gearing for cruising on motorways but the throttle response especially and the way it freely revs because of the mechanical fuel injection compared to the strangled modern electronic controlled cars still shock me and makes me smile. As does the amount of space inside compared to its modest external footprint. The suspension is soft and it leansss by modern standards.
-
My 1.6 GTI wasn't massively unreliable considering the treatment it got but it always had oil leaks and ran too hot. It even burst its expansion tank! It went rusty though despite an anal cleaning routine.
My 1.8 GTI was very unreliable. Better built but mechanically sh!te. I ended up uprating everything that broke on it so it ended up quite modified! I was young then. It wasn't driven really hard but wasn't grannied either but was always in the garage (as was the 1.6) getting little things fixed.
And the cars weren't called "Exocets" for no reason. The standard RHD brakes weren't good.
I hated the non PAS steering. Devon lanes and slow steering don't mix. The 205 GTI's without PAS were just as bad.
My mk2's were all trouble free.
As were my mk4's, mk5's and mk6's
In fact unlike yours Snoops, my mk6's were very reliable considering some of the massive commutes I had to do when my dad was very unwell. Clocking up well over 700 miles a week for a good while during some appalling weather.
Early days with the mk7's.
I'll be the first to agree the mk1 was a truly great car but not as a daily driver in modern traffic and road conditions.
Still, I have found something the mk1 and 7's share that other Golfs lacked - hit an irregularity head on and it sounds like the car has just exploded!
-
Mines been driven v.v.hard ive had it since i was 17 :wink: but its never let me down. Its my dependable fall back on car.
Very little difference between mk1 and mk2 1.8s so as i said you had a couple bad mk1s but normal mk2s.
My SEATs were average, electrical gremlins (all actual vw shared bits or bosch), injection issues and an engine build issue with the 2.0 16v Gti. I miss my ibiza 16v though.
My 2.0 8v stranded me so many times i had to get rid. Engine electronic gremlins.
Im now sick of replacing door locks, window motors on our ibiza mk4 and leon mk1. (Same parts as mk4 golfs)
My mk5 rattled like mad and had a couple of issues which including the cost cutting cheap ass french made fuel injector issue.. Glad i sold it though the way they are rusting.. i also never really fell in love with the micra rounded looks.
The mk6 has had some issues mainly oil leaks. I just feel the engineering is poor and built to a price and has been since the mk2 GTIs to be honest. The more i read about the issues with the mk7 im still unsure if i will ever bother to get one.
-
That basically leads back to my first post.
The 40 year old ones tended to rust and later ones are just mass produced & full of cheap electronics that are a time bomb.
Which is best?
Each has its day as to whether it would be better (fun vs. comfort) transport and each probably the best on the market in its respective time.
My 1991 mk2 and 1992 G40 are the only cars I look back on with much fondness.
-
That basically leads back to my first post.
The 40 year old ones tended to rust and later ones are just mass produced & full of cheap electronics that are a time bomb.
Which is best?
Each has its day as to whether it would be better (fun vs. comfort) transport and each probably the best on the market in its respective time.
My 1991 mk2 and 1992 G40 are the only cars I look back on with much fondness.
As i said late mk1s and the mk2s were well built, over engineered , and well waxoyled. Used very little electronics and were very simple construction.
Later models 1992 on were built to a cost and had more and more electronics making them less and less reliable. (ive been designing electronics for a living for 20+ years so know whats happens in that side)
To be honest i have on more than one occation looked at buying a mk2 GTI and doing a full nut and bolt bare metal rebuild on it to use as a reliable daily. Simple reliable mechanical design. Cheaper and less money loss than keep buying new cars.
Infact i went to the point of buying one a few years ago a 89 16v small bumper but when i went to collect it it was far from as described and promised so i backed out.
-
Yes, I think I can remember you posting up about that one a while back.
I've never been a fan of the 1.8 16v.
I prefer the injection system on it but the 2.0 drives much better. The 1.8 needs to be worked all the time and gets tiresome.
The trouble with getting a mk2 now is the silly inflated prices older cars are currently fetching. Totally belying condition too.
And having worked with electronics all my life from college, university placements, cars and everything from X-ray machines to current generation trackers (my latest 'project' at work) that purport to be driving aids and also route planners I know 100% what you mean and agree where you're coming from!
-
The silly prices and lack of free time at the moment are why im not doing it just yet.
An engineer whos worked with me for the past 3 years use to work at Bosch in Germany lets just say we have had some interesting discussions over the years...
A QA friend of mine once told me about car manufacturers dictating to suppliers they wont pay more than pennys for items ( 7p an item for a horn, thats a true example) it makes you think.
-
From the book VW GOLF GTI 1976-1986
MK1 1.6 GTI 1976 0-60 9.6 0-100 35.3
1981 0-60 9.0 0-100 33.9
MK1 1.8 GTI 1983 0-60 8.3 0-100 24.1
Mk2 1.8 GTI 1984 0-60 8.7 0-100 26.6
1991 0-60 8.7 0-100 29.9 (what car 1991)
Mk2 1.8 16v 1986 0-60 7.8 0-100 23.2
Mk3 2.0 8v
mk3 2.0 16v
mk4 1.8 20v
mk4 2.0 8v
mk4 1.8t150
Mk4 1.8t180
Mk5 GTI
mk5 ed30
Mk6 GTI
Mk6 Ed35
Mk7 GTI 230 2013 0-60 6.5 0-100 16.4 (autocar)
Im sure others can fill in from 1992-2015
-
My Mk2 16v has only ever let me down once. A faulty earth caused it to die as I rolled into Doncaster one day last year. The thing that surprised me was that I got several offers of help from total strangers who loved the car, wanted to look at it and talk about it and one guy actually towed me in his A4 Avant to the garage. That would never have happened with the Mk6 and just shows the affection in which the Mk2s are held.
The Mk6 had the manifold issue but otherwise the car was fine in nearly 60k miles.
Which is better? To say my Mk2 is 25 years old, it's tremendously reliable and great fun to drive but I loved the 6 too, especially after I had it mapped. Ultimately though, as I sold it to avoid the ticking time bomb tensioner issue, I'm going for the Mk2 as I don't think it's good enough for a manufacturer of VW's size to release an inherently faulty product as they did with the Mk6 - that's just not good enough!
-
With 40 years of GTI I thought I'd look at the progress of the GTI from MK1 TO MK7.
The figures I found were as follows:-
MK1 110BHP 0-60 9.0s 103lbft Torque 810kg 135BHP/Tonne
MK7(3 door) 220BHP 0-60 6.5s 258lbft Torque 1400Kg 157BHP/tonne
So over 40 years it seems the power to weight ratio( I thought it would be a lot higher) :shocked: is nothing compared to the increase in the torque figures which I find rather interesting. What do you think?
Be careful about comparing weights. VW uses (and has done since the MK 4) the EU method that includes 68Kg for the driver and 7Kg of luggage. So for example the MK7 GTI at 1349 Kg is actually 1274 Kg without this allowance. Many manufacturers including Audi don't use this system. So an Audi TT is declared to be 1230 Kg but needs 75Kg added to make a like for like comparison with a Golf for power to weight reasons.