Mk1 v Mk2 v Mk3 etc

[oldmanmille]

Sorry if this has already been covered but I can't find it anywhere!

I have had a Mark 3 GTi 8v golf for about two years now and it has never ever let me down and it is great. Even had it on Oulton park when i cooked brakes on the Clio 172 I was using, and it was only 12 secs slower than the Clio. It handles great for standard suspension and is very smooth on the road. Performance isnt shattering but is OK.

I now also have a Mark 1 with a 2.0 8v conversion with modded head and cams etc. Anyway, my question is: Why does the mark 3 get a slagging? What am i missing from mine that I am unaware of!

Just for information as it has puzzled me for some time now

I am thinking of getting a Mark 2 also now as I think I have the VW bug 

Cheers, John

ps: Anyone at Oulton Park on the 8th? If so, give me a holler as I am there with my lad as he is first timer for track days and we are trying out the recently purchased Mark 1.

Anyone else for trackdays? Cars and/or bikes? I'm looking to beat my bike time at Oulton of 2secs, so wish me luck 

[Len]

In standard form the Mk3 has a soft suspension and therefore does not handle as well as the earlier Mk's.
They are also heavier. So to compensate they upped the power of the 2.0 litre 16v to 150bhp over the Mk2's 139bhp.
Overall the Mk3 is the better car but it gets slated because of the weight and handling.
You cant get ABS and air-con in a Mk1 or 2 Gti.

[mk2mark]

2secs is a pretty good time

[gibby]

The mk3 came at a time when the hot hatch was a dirty word for insurance companies and so it was built for comfort rather than performance, it also came about when the safety standards changed so in order to satisfy the tests it became heavier due to reinforcement etc. In reality the 8v mk3 should never have been badged a GTI but from what I can gather it was done purely as a marketing tool and to give VW a representative in the "sports car" market.

VW knew they got it wrong at this point and tried to bridge the gap between the 8v and the VR6 by upping the power and putting out a 16v version. 

This bit is purely my opinion and it's not a dig at anyone, but personally the styling and the looks of the mk3 doesn't even compare to the mk1 & mk2. As I say, that's my opinion and if you disagree with me then I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

[golfpro]

I think it was the drastic change in shape thats done the most of the damage. Cars were goin away from the boxy squareness of the mk1 and 2 and the mk3 was the outcome. That on top of the extra weight, under powering and rubbish ride at first.

I grew up with the mk3 as the new gti and therefore always wanted one. Its a quality car thats just very different to what went before it.

[Daz...]

You cant get ABS and air-con in a Mk1 or 2 Gti.

Yes you can

[Agreeable Slick]

MK3 in standard form is sloppy, underpowered, overweight, and ugly. It shouldn't really wear a gti badge, if we are all honest. VW pulled a real stinker in terms of the mk3 GTI and paid for it, as they are only now getting their name back for producing a good gti again (the mkV) Too much emphasis was created on comfort.

Edit: you can tell gibby and i have the same book. 

[golfpro]

Edit: you can tell gibby and i have the same book.

and that i have a mk3 

[Len]

Daz - come on then tell me! Topher said the same thing and he came up with a Rallye, which I'm sorry is not a GTi - its better like the VR6 is better etc.

I have always said I prefer the shape of the Mk 2. But will probably never have one.

I like my Mk3 as it is and wouldnt change to any other Mk.

(thats not strictly true as I am planning some changes to mine! )

[Agreeable Slick]

VEry few of them came with air con, but some did have it, they were the run out models, I.E. G & H plates. (was usually the valvers)