Mk4 faster than Mk3,2 and 1 (oh and Mk3 second fastest!)

[dragongreengolfgti]

my conclusion is that my mk3 16v i sold today would beat any mk4 1.8t standard 150bhp anywhere any time as proved several times as for mk1's and 2's i don't know because i have never been able to race one !

[barrym381]

we still haven`t come to a conclusion though 

they are all sh!t 

[jamie16v]

my conclusion is that my mk3 16v i sold today would beat any mk4 1.8t standard 150bhp anywhere any time as proved several times as for mk1's and 2's i don't know because i have never been able to race one !

yep, i`d say my mk3 16v was quicker than my std 150 1.8t. i felt the difference as soon as i bought my 1.8t off dan apps and said that to him. but then the 1.8t is way more tunable. it would cost a mk3 16v owner a fortune to keep up with my 1.8t now. and i`m not comparing n/a to f/i. 
each to their own and that... i like golfs over escorts and astra`s etc.. mind you, i`d love a mint mk2 astra gte, but you`d never find one.

[barrym381]

my conclusion is that my mk3 16v i sold today would beat any mk4 1.8t standard 150bhp anywhere any time as proved several times as for mk1's and 2's i don't know because i have never been able to race one !

yep, i`d say my mk3 16v was quicker than my std 150 1.8t. i felt the difference as soon as i bought my 1.8t off dan apps and said that to him. but then the 1.8t is way more tunable. it would cost a mk3 16v owner a fortune to keep up with my 1.8t now. and i`m not comparing n/a to f/i. 
each to their own and that... i like golfs over escorts and astra`s etc.. mind you, i`d love a mint mk2 astra gte, but you`d never find one.

i know of a white c-plate mk2 gte that only gets took to the mot station every year then parked back up  guy has a 4x4 sierra sittin next to it 

[Metallix]

Tbh I would pick a mk3 vr over all the gti's because the sound of it get me hard 

wouldn`t an R32 make a simular if not better sound?

24v engines sound a bit more raspy & fary compared to the silky smooth 12v VR soundtrack
That being said they still sound awesome

[Len]

Golf   L   Engine   bhp per 1000kg
Mk4   3.2   24v           156.7
Mk3   2.8   12v           150.6
Mk2   1.8   8v G60       148.6
Mk4   2.8   24v           145.6
Mk4   1.8   20vT 180   139.6
Mk3   2.0   16v           134.7
Mk1   1.6   8v           133.3
Mk2   1.8   16v           132.3
Mk1   1.8   8v           130.4
Mk4   1.8   20vT 150   124.7
Mk2   1.8   8v           117.9
Mk3   2.0   8v           111.1

^ only a rough guide using
bhp vs weight, you can see:
the Mk3 16v isn't far behind the Mk4 1.8T 180
the Mk3 16v is ahead of the Mk4 1.8T 150
The Mk1 performs well due to being so light.

The article involves circuit driving so handling & braking come into play,
which means the bhp/weight figures are less important than with say a drag race.
They mention the vehicles are not well used examples & are not running the same tyres.
Doesn't sound like an equal playing field really.

So conclusion is that test was a load of b0llox.

AH! Some sense of the actual point of this thread!
It would be very difficult to get "equal" examples of cars spanning 20 od years!

[jamie16v]

moral of the story, you cant have your cake and eat it. youre full leather recaro interior might look nice but you`d be better off round the track with deck chairs from a mk1.

[crazy golf]

Moral of the story all golfs are relativly slow and handle poor. A 20 year old mr2 is faster then the newest r32 dsg

[VW BUSH]

Moral of the story all golfs are relativly slow and handle poor. A 20 year old mr2 is faster then the newest r32 dsg

MR2 GT Sports 2 door

7.7 secs, 137 mph, 168 bhp.

MR2 turbo (as you know only imported to Uk)
5.5 secs, 155 mph limited?, 241 bhp

Mk6 R32 DSG

5.5 secs, 155 mph limited, 266bhp

 

[JC]

so be fair, i would take a jetta over a mk2, a vento over a mk3 and wouldnt want a bora or a mk4