• New Patreon Tier and Early Access Content available. If you would like to support AVForums, we now have a new Patreon Tier which gives you access to selected news, reviews and articles before they are available to the public. Read more.

Which VW?

Dom996

Active Member
Those of you in the know about MK3 Golfs. Would you go for a VR6 or the 16V GTI?

I'm looking for a combination of performance, handling, ok insurance, fuel consumption etc.

Just had another baby (well not me personally :D ), so money is a bit tight and always fancied one of the above. :thumbsup:
 

fuzed

Active Member
depends on what your wanting to spend, you can pick up a half decent mk4 nowdays... but seen vr6's at silly prices... might pick one up myself at some point for a laugh :)
 

NWhiteley

Active Member
i have had 2 golf v6's... a mk3 vr6, and mk4 4motion.
neither were that quick..... and the fuel consumption was horrific.
the noise was nice though

best bet would be to get a golf mk4 1.8 turbo. just as quick as the v6, but more economical, and easily tuned

neil


(my current car is an Audi S3)
 

Mylo

Distinguished Member
NWhiteley said:
best bet would be to get a golf mk4 1.8 turbo. just as quick as the v6, but more economical, and easily tuned(my current car is an Audi S3)



Sorry but they are just too fat and look overweight.

I'd go for a mark 2 8v GTi 3 door. A nice proper shape Golf.
If it's not fast enough to start with there are many tuners and parts available.
 
G

golfvr6

Guest
When i had my vr6 it certainly wasn't slow.
I had it chipped, a k&n panel filter and a full jetex stainless exhaust.
On a Rolling road it made just over 200bhp.
I think the 0-60 was a bit under 7 seconds, so certainly fast enough.
With mk3's and mk4's you will need an aftermarket suspension kit as standard kit is crap, you can get one easily for under 300 quid.
Don't bother getting a mk2 gti 8v, if you are going to get a mk2, get a 16v.
The 8v is slow, and it will cost a fortune to tune it to get any decent power.
 
G

golfvr6

Guest
But the problem with the 8v is its only 112bhp, and you won't get alot more without spending big money.
Get the 16v, still a fast motor by today's standards.
 

Mylo

Distinguished Member
How much power do you need? As you already know, the mk2 was not plagued with the later marques weight problems. I don’t see the need for a high revving 16v lump.
All you need is a mildly tuned engine coupled to decent suspension & brakes and you can see off much more powerful cars:)
 
G

golfvr6

Guest
The 16v has the same power/torque low down as an 8v, but has a very nice burst of power over 4000rpm where the 8v dies.
Need i say more :hiya:
 

Dom996

Active Member
As the OP who has gone from a 1600, 16v, 110BHP to 1600, 8v 83 BHP with similar weight I can say that the difference is not subtle. Bear in mind we're not even talking about big differences in power.

A multivalve engine is far more versatile and let's face it, sounds loads better.
 

Mylo

Distinguished Member
Each to there own. My mk1 cabrio has a 1.8 8v carb'd engine. It goes like a little rocket and sounded great till the manifoild started to blow.

A 27 bhp difference is pretty big and is very expensive to achieve using aftermarket tuning parts. All loads of extra power will ever do is cost you loads in tyres and fuel or may just get you points quicker.

16v or 8v the mk2 is the second best looking golf ever made.:)
 
G

golfvr6

Guest
We will have to agree to disagree on this one.
After driving a few fast golfs, i would find the 1.8 carb engine very disappointing myself, with a mere 90bhp, it must feel slow against even a gti 8v.
 

Mylo

Distinguished Member
golfvr6 said:
We will have to agree to disagree on this one.
After driving a few fast golfs, i would find the 1.8 carb engine very disappointing myself, with a mere 90bhp, it must feel slow against even a gti 8v.


you may well be right it's all about style with these cars in my book though :)
 
G

golfvr6

Guest
I drove a gti cab mk1, the only thing i didn't like about it is the awful 'left hand drive' brakes, that cross linkage was always a terrible idea :rotfl:
I assume the clipper is the same?
 

reddux

Standard Member
I can't comment on vr6's or Mk2/3 16v's but I do know that the Mk2 gti 8v I had was very cheap fun, and I'd definately have one again. Performance was quite impressive for what it was because of the low weight, comparable to the new Fiesta ST's and the like. Anyway power isn't the be all and end all, doubt there would be an huge amount difference between a 8v and 16v, and I was advised to go for a 8v (by a VW/Golf GTi enthusiast) because it was more reliable, cheaper and easier to run with more widely available parts over the 16v.

Anyway having loads of extra power probably just means you will be going a lot faster to get the same 'fun' you would from a sorted lesser powered car.
 

reddux

Standard Member
sorry, should have said engine parts specifically. Don't know how true it is, but it could be down to the 1.8 8v engine having been round for longer since the Mk1 gti and hence more units produced and parts around? something on those lines anyway...

Anyway, why not just go for a 2.0 16v Mk2? :D
 

Dom996

Active Member
reddux said:
Anyway, why not just go for a 2.0 16v Mk2? :D

Because there isn't one. :rolleyes: I once heard that they made them for the US market to give them a bit more power as catalytic convertors were fully enforced there before they were over here.
 
G

golfvr6

Guest
That is correct as far as i know. The 2.0 16v engine code 9A was fitted for the US market Golf mk2, however it was fitted in the Passat and Corrado in the UK.

Reddux, as for engine parts, both 8 and 16v have 1781cc blocks, so many parts will be the same, the main difference between the two blocks is the engine breathers, this is why you can't change blocks on 8 and 16v engines.
VW were still making 1781 blocks up to recently, the only change has been they don't use cast iron, they now use aluminium.
 
G

golfvr6

Guest
Just to add vw only used the 1781 block in the mk1 for about a year, all previous gti's were 1.6.
The 16v engine has 27bhp more than the 8v, having driven several, i can tell you there is a noticeable difference.
As for reliability, i would rate both units the same. Both 8 and 16v units are capable of doing 200k miles. Both engines are relatively easy to work on, and similar.
The only downside of the 16v is its mechanical fuel injection or known as k-jetronic, the same as the 8v up to 1988. 1988 onwards the 8v becomes full electronic digifant fuel injection.
K-jets need 98 Ron fuel, digifants can run on 95 Ron as they have knock control. This is an obvious problem.
The 2.0 16v you mentioned, engine code 9A is KE-motronic fuel injection, which is like K-Jet, but is closed loop lambda control, with a potentiometer on the fuel distributor. This is operated by the ECU, to allow the amount of fuel carried to the injectors. The injectors do not have solenoids to open them like on digifants, they open when they reach a certain pressure like on k-jets. This engine only produces 136bhp, it is detuned as it is fitted with a catalyser.
I hope all this info is useful :hiya:
 

reddux

Standard Member
Dom - Correct there weren't any produced, there are plenty conversions (with Passat/Mk3 GTI/Audi 80 bottom ends) about though ;)

golfvr6 - lots of good technical info there :smashin: I'd like to try a Mk2 16v at some point to see how it compares, it does seem there are quite a few who prefer the 8v for one reason or another though.
 
G

golfvr6

Guest
My advice would be to go for a completely standard model, whether it 8v,16v or vr6.
Too many botched jobs around, so don't touch any conversions.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Fidelity in Motion's David Mackenzie talks about his work on disc encoding & the future of Blu-ray
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom