Mk3 8v felt to have more low down torque than the 1.8t, which it would have as at low revs the 1.8T is off boost.
Likewise, love my mk3. The only thing id change it 4 would be a mk2 16v or a g40! Has anyone else had a go in a mk5?
Agreed! Hoisted by his own petard! Only if you always change up below 1500rpm The 1.8T has more than 50% more torque from 1900-4500rpm than the old 8v! Cheers, Drew. Edited by: drew
Didn't feel like it!!!!!!!!!!!!!! MK3 seemed to pull out of junctions better, especially if i was pulling out in 2nd etc.Just seemed move flexable low down. Long live the mk3!!!
Well fair enough if it suits your driving style. You may have hit on the achilles heel of turbo'd cars though, from a standing start (without a full blown racing start), pulling out of junctions can be awkward if the engine is below the boost point. Cheers, Drew.
f**k me guys - excuse my gramar. What I meant was the MK5 is way better than the MK4. Also the MK5 is way better than the MK3. Is that better? Who gives a f**k about comparing the MK4 to MK3??? thats not what this is about Jesus!
We'll excuse your spelling too. The ride on the mk5 1.6 FSI I drove was very good, but it wasn't tuned for handling or roll control and was still very soft compared to mk4s I have driven. It wobbled and slopped all over the place, but it was a base model. I thought the interior was pants compared to the mk4 though. The plastics are much more 'Ford' than 'Audi'. If I could liken the mk4 interior to a Marks and Spencer Washbag, the mk5 was something from BHS, superficially the same to look at, but without the quality underneath. Here's hoping the mk5 GTI will be good though. I hope they up it beyond 200bhp though, otherwise it will be at the back of the pack (again). Cheers, Drew. Edited by: drew
200 bhp but still managing 0-62mph in 7.1secs, that doesnt put it at the back of the pack. Plus an impressive 280Nm of torque at just 1800rpm! You know full well that BHP means nowt. Edited by: Rob.gti
It's got to be better than its peers. Compare to the Mk1 for instance, its original peers back in 1976 were: Ford Escort RS2000 : Unrefined and uneconomical Triumph Dolomite Sprint : Way more expensive Renault 17TS : Never heard of again Colt Galant GTO : Likewise Alfetta 1.8 : Rusted away In 1983 they were: Ford XR3i : Slower and poor handling Ford XR2 : Still on carbs... Citreon Visa GTI : Enough said Colt GLX Turbo : Rubbish Renault 5 GT Turbo : Faster, but fragile and really uneconomic MG Metro : Don't make me laugh Fiat Strada : Good competitor, don't mention rust. Alfa Romeo Cloverleaf : If you're being generous, don't mention rust either Nowadays the Golf is up against... Ford Focus : New one coming out, old one was awesome Vauxhall Astra : No longer a joke, next gen engines Peugeot : These chaps know their handling Renault Clio : Has the pace of an R32 now Honda Civic : The best hot hatch today Seat : Why buy a more expensive Golf? New Mini : Awesome, a properly modern day mk1 Golf Alfa : Looks better, but it's italian In it's day the mk1 blitzed the opposition during it's entire lifespan. So did the mk2, other than the 205 GTI. The mk3 failed miserably, the mk4 raised the game in terms of interior appointments, and the mk5? It's going to have to be pretty special to make the grade and take back the GTI crown lost back in 1992. Lets hope they manage it. Cheers, Drew. Edited by: drew
I have - had one for a few hours one afternoon. I've also owned a Mk 3. IMO the Mk 5 handled well but obviously not as well as the R32 and I can't really see how Rob can say the Mk 5 drives better What everyone wants from a car though is personal preference though so maybe that's how he likes his cars. The Mk 5 wasn't a bad ride though, quite a bit softer than the R32, still pretty chuckable round bends/roundabouts, pretty torquey etc. However, to give a proper review I would have to drive the equivalent Mk 4 to compare it to - there's not much point comparing it to an R32. Comparing it to a Mk 3 I would say the Mk 5 is probably slightly better than the Mk 3 in standard form. Play around with the Mk 3 and it would be better than the Mk 5. Aesthetically, the Mk 3 interior looks much better quality than the Mk 5. As does Mk 4 interior. I think VW nicked the dash from their Skoda brothers by the looks of it - it just seems to look a bit more cheap and nasty than all the other VW's. Edited by: Golfgirl
