what are your thoughts on these, gonna sell the sportline and want something a bit newer and quicker. never been that keen on the mk3 but theyve grown on me lately and after having mk1's and 2's for so long i fancy a change. are they pretty quick? ive drivn 8valve mk3's and have always been quietly impressed. also i want a dark metallic blue with low mileage, air con and preferably leather, what will this cost me?
I am fan, had 2 MK3's and loved them both and they were extremely reliable compared to the 2 MK2's I have had. Thinking about getting one myself!
If you get a good one then I think they're great. I thoroughly recommend the Koni shocks & Eibach springs combo which transforms the car. As for price, it varies, have a look!!
just been on autotrader, can get them very cheap, seem like good value at the moment, around 2k seems to buyy a pretty good average mileage but may have to spend more like 2800 for low mileage and a few toys. hopefully get good money for mine then i can really start looking. any other cars for that sort of money that may be a bit fun to drive??
Well I'm happy with mine , quick enough to have fun with yet stills returns good fuel economy . As pictonrod says get the suspension sorted - you won't regret it. They vary alot price wise, and i know when i was looking there weren't many (none!) that i remember seeing with air-con & leather. Cheers
Yep, happy with mine and only had it a few months. Will be for sale in a few months though... time to move on
I`ve got a good one, never regreted buying it, as said, get the suspension sorted(Eibach/Bilstein+polys on mine) and it`ll be cool
my mk3 16v was extremely reliable, standard was rolling roaded at 160bhp, 140lb/ft, and had 101k when i got it, sold it at 123k, only ever problem i had was ignition coil melted, thats it, but its a common fault. I must say, its the best all round VW for performance per . If you were impressed with the mk3 8v, u will be shocked by the 16v, its far quicker. I kept up with my mates 255 V6 clio to 120, was only a few car lengths behind, they love to be thrashed, and never moan about it buy a good one, and you wont regret it!
a VR is a completely different car, if you want more torque/noise, get a VR. i chose the 16v cus they are more chuckable around the twistys, better on fuel, cheaper to buy and run, and there's no perforamce difference at all.......
just my opinion, but no point gettin the 16v....if you want out and out performance get the vr6, if you want ease of use around town get the 8v. both the 16v and the vr6 need winding up, but the vr6 isn't as bad at low rpms and is quicker at high rpms. the 8v is mega at low rpms, but runs out of puff.
VR6 owners always say that Andrew VR6s are also gutless in the midrange for their capacity let's not forget But that's more the stupidly long gear ratios fault. Claire's mk3 16v used to go really well, I just hated that nasty idle hang up between gearchanges that they seem to do though Edited by: G_V_K
the valver is a good car imo...been driving mine for 2 yrs now and no issues at all...although fairly quick, you do need to drive it hard to get the performance out of it...would recommend the car but try for a late model ('96 on), as VW had solved all the niggles that came with the earlier models and the trim (out and in) is slightly improved. Edited by: mike.e
I think it's a great car, especially now it's so cheap. Fast (I'm sorry but it IS quick), reliable, subtle, practical and cheap to look after unlike the wallowy VR which was designed as a cruiser, not a back road blaster. The suspension is too soft and needs sorting (I have about 10 times more confidence cornering in the R32 than my old 16V) but apart from that, they're good. Decent brakes as standard too unlike the mk1 and 2. Get one and spend a few quid on the suspension and you'll have a winner.
You never quite get used to that Gary, the way to think about it is the car is heeling and toeing for you That's my story anyway and I'm sticking to it...... All VR6 owners who haven't owned a 16v cr@p on and on about how useless they are. Ignore it. Those who've owned both tend to realise that although you do get advantages from a VR6 you pay for it at the pumps. My 16v refused to go below 30mpg except at donnington where I managed 9.... Oh, and if it misfires, sell it that day.
if i was buying a mk3 again tomorrow, i'd look for a late 97 or 98 16v. I prefer the way 16v's drive, hence the reason i bought a 9000rpm ITR......
Nowt wrong with the valver. As standard they handle best of the MK3's IMHO. But as we know all MK3's aren't the best handling cars from the factory. The engine is strong at the top end but where the 16v's are best is on the wallet. Not too expensive to buy, insure or run when compared to the VR. If you've got the money and want speed, get a VR. If you've got a budget and wanna use it on a track, the valver is a good choice. If you drive round town all the time.... just get an 8v. I paid under 3k late last year for mine and it had 59k on the clock.
My mate just bought a VR6 after owning a 16v, he reckons the VR6 makes up for the 16v in the low down revs. Not much of a jump in performance especially considering from going 2.0 to 2.8, and I've driven both.
