I was really looking forward to it, but talk about disappointed, im not sure if it was a dud, but there was no power in it at all, my old mans Skoda diesel has got much more poke, now I know they are heavy, but the revs were just not picking up quickly enough, my old mk2 was so much faster. Goon have to drive another one I think, I was so disappointed Edited by: AxlFoley
must have been a dud mk3. they have more bhp, more bhp per tonne and more torque than than mk2 but.... bigger so not as fun to drive as the mk2
Well I loved mine to bits and had it for 3 years. No torque and needed thrashing but it's one that grows on you if you learn to drive it properly. Dropping to third at 80mph on the Motorway to blast off repmobiles was always good fun too. 16V handles better than VR6 as standard and is MUCH better on fuel. It's firmer and better balanced. VR6 great with sorted suspension though.
i used to own a mk3 16v.....they're just the same to drive as a mk2 16v (of which i've driven 2) in that you have to seriously rev the poo out of it to make it go. either u got a dud or you didn't rev it enough!
Sounds about right to me, though to be fair they are a bit quicker than they feel. You never get that 'charge' that you experience in the mk1 or mk2. No they don't. More bhp yes, but much more weight. (And they are 150bhp as standard, though most have a bit more) Cheers, Drew. Edited by: drew
Yep it's 150 but they are very often 160+ when run in. 133lb/ft of torque but a flatter peak than the mk2. Mk2 a bit quicker but needs more thrashing.
yeah the mk2 16v is deffo quicker, although the mk3 is much more refined and nicer to drive especially on the motorway and has a better top end. both of them suck at low revs though.
Although an ABF owner, they're a bit of dud engine really (maybe not when they were released) but just comparing it to our Clio 172 mill (yes I know the french build quality isn't as good as VW's!), a standard one feels so lame. I'm actually warming to a 24v VR in the Ibiza (might be the first one?) as I think even tuned to feck, the 16v is pretty crap in a street-weight car. Yes, yes, there's plenty of quick 16v's on here but they're either in Mk2's or in cars with as much interior as the guts of a chain smoker... We never got the Mk3 16v here (only the Ibiza 16v), so all I can think is that with the extra 150 odd kg to pull, the Mk3 must feel dead flat. VW really hadn't got the NA motor thing going - thank god the R32 mill came out edit: I'm awaiting the FSI 2.0 16v, should be v. interesting, although blunted by keg MkV Edited by: H8SV8S
Is 17BHP / tonne quite a significant difference? I'm possibly looking at a MK2 8v... Will it really be that much quicker? Tom
i thought the mk2 had 127 bhp per tonne and the mk3 had 129 bhp per tonne, source: www.evo.co.uk oh well at leat the 0-60 and top end on the mk3 are better
Evo figures are well known for being all over the shop. 0-60 is better on the mk2 16v in reality, (7.9 against 8.3) though the mk3 16v does have the best top speed of any GTI at 134mph. In gear and 0-60 the mk3 16v is actually slower than the 1.8 mk1. Cheers, Drew.
So the manual you've got assumes the 2.0 8v GTI weights the same as the 2.8 VR6? No chance, it weighs loads more.
Well...subtract even more performance from the heavier mk3s then. They're still slower than you might expect. Cheers, Drew.
