I own a Mk2 Golf Driver 1.6, im thinking about selling up to get something a bit more up to date. I do like the look of the Mk3 Golf, and was thinking of either a VR6 or GTi 2.0 16v. Just wanted to know what your sugestions were!
Yeah i was wondering on the petrol front with the vr6. My mind tends to want the 2.0 16v, just because its a engine similar to my current car.
I'm upgrading from my 1.6 Mk2 Driver to a VR6 hopefully within the next couple of weeks. I'll let you know if it's worth it
vr6 sounds good. vr6 drinks stupid amounts of fuel. 16v is just as quick, can be quicker if all done properly, and even when fiddled with, still do not drink a lot. 16v doesnt have an anchor bolted to the front sub frame
Nice, how much are you selling your mk2 drver for? So i can get an idea. Mines had a re-spray (by previous owner) in a metalic red. Got colour coded big bumpers and G60 arches, gti interior, dtm backbox, 16" Borbet C alloys 35mm gmax lowring kit.
16v if you want similar performance without the hefty fuel bill, vr6 if your loaded and want that extra bit of noise.
I'm gonna say VR as I have one, and if visiting the petrol station is something you don't like doing then don't bother. Over the winter months, ie not show season, i fill up once a week. In show season then it can be more often depending on shows and where they are
Just as quick? Figures speak for themselves... VR6 0-60 6.9secs 16v 0-60 8.1secs vr6 top speed 146mph 16v top speed 134mph You mention mods on the 16v, well with a few small tweeks, you can get well over 200bhp and near on 200lbs/ft torque out of the VR lump - look at Gary's dyno plot. Biggest prob is the long geared box, the VR6 isn't a GTI, it's a comfortable motorway cruiser, so requires some mods to make it spot on. If it were me, i'd drive both and make a decision - be prepared to love the VR sound, but also, some pretty big servicing costs.
are they VW figures or the highest 16v and lowest vr figures you could get on google? ive seen many a time how a vr will get off the line faster due to the different power delivery. so, i think we summed it up then. do you want a cruiser or a gti? lol
**sigh** not this again - you have a mk3 handbook i presume, why not go and have a look? Have you driven a VR6?
of course ive driven one, why? what wrong with the handbook? should we just start making figures up? if so, not really much point in carrying this one on. next thing youll be saying is you get 50mpg
Well you questioned my figures, I suggested you look them up in your hand book to clarify, they were from a website - i only have a passat handbook...mentioned nothing about making figures up
from 'a web site'. the only figures id use as a reference is vw's ones. my book is back home, ive recently moved etc. quoting figures from an unknown/unreferenced website is as good as making them up because we all know how wildly they can vary. the figures wont prove a lot anyway, i think everyone knows the vr6 is quicker 60, but 0-60 has never been the be all and end all of benchmarks. its down to whether you want a gti or a cruiser i suppose. is the gearing in a vr6 box the same as the 16v?
It is more like VR6 7.5 secs and 16v 8 secs Read this http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/Review.aspx?model=1015&page=7 Obviously these are Manufacturers figures but each engine runs slightly different and some are better than others.
Right, well im not loaded with money so the Gti sounds better. Would you all say they are as reliable as each other? Anything with a 0-60 less than 10secs is a bonus.
Well several car comparison sites qoute the same(ish) figures, so I'll take them as gospel for now, until someone posts differently from a vw handbook, as like you say, they vary a lot online. You said they were similar performance, where's your backup for that? Anybody got the mk3 handbook figures to hand, would be interesting to see?
exactly, i was wrong on the weight thing because of all the various figure you see on line, i happy admit to that. if i was attempting to dodge that, i wouldnt use the handbook as a reference would i, mate. what is there to prove numerically in this thread? we know the vr is quicker to 60, ive seen it with my own eyes when ive lined up against them..... but being ahead by 2 car lengths at the top of 1st gear does not justify the VR's drink problem. id rather be 2 car lenghs behind in 1st gear but still doing over 300 miles a tank lol
