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
