Anyone out there owned a Golf Mk3 GTi 2.0 16v or VR6 in the past?

So have you ever owned a Golf Mk3 GTi 2.0 16 v (the 150 bhp one) or the VR6?

How did you find it:

1. Reliability
2. Performance (acceleration, top speed, roll on).
3. Hamdling (comfort, road holding, feedback, any grin factor?)
4. Fuel Consumption
5. Was it modified at all?
6. Anything specific to look for?

Looking at getting one as a cheap 'Ring wet weather car/bike tow machine/every day hack when I head out to Holland (with its expensive second hand cars).

Thanks.

[fizzwheel]

I had a 1995 16v GTI

1. Reliability was good in general I had two faults on it in the 5 years I owned it. The coil went and it wouldnt start, also the ECU failed on it and it made the car stall for no reason when hot in traffic. The ECU was expensive to replace IIRC £500 + labour.

2. Top speed was about 140 ish. Mine had a performance filter and free flow exhaust though. Top gear roll on wasnt much cop unless you were pulling 4500rpm or more. But bang it down a gear into 4th or 3rd and it used to pull very well. A bit like an IL4 as opposed a V twin I guess

3. Handling, again mine wasnt standard and had been lowered 40mm all round, It handled very well, could really throw it around, it IMHO was one of the best handling cars I owned. However it did have a tendancy to understeer on the throttle in the wet and I also managed to provoke it into lift off oversteer as well, but all very predictable that it was going to go so I used to have fun with it. Comfort was compromised due to the lowering kit, but I'd trade that off for the gain in handling. I never drove a standard one but they always had a reputation for being a bit soft.

4. Fuel consumption, cr*p !!! 22 - 25 mpg around town, if I was good 32 - 33 on the motorway, best I had was around 36 - 37 but that was driving like a granny and I liked to enjoy the performance.

5. Yep, Free flow Cat back stainless exhaust and filter, also modified with MK IV Golf look headlights with bulb upgrade.

6. Not really no, Just make sure it has VAG service history and the cambelts have been done at 30K intervals ( I think ) Also dont run it on cheap tyres it eats them. Mine had budget tyres on it when I bought it and the fronts lasted 10K I swapped to Goodyear Eagles and got 15 - 17K out of the fronts and it handled better especially in the wet. Also it was heavy on pads and disks and it ate a set of front disks in the first 40K it had done before I got it and they are vented on the front and its not cheap to replace them.

Mind had a factory fitted sunroof as optional extra, P reg onwards came with front fogs as standard and air con is an option as it the sunroof.

Boot is a good size and you can carry alot with the back seats down to.

Personally I reckon the 16v is a better buy than a VR6. VR6 has only 25bhp more albeit with more torque, but the motor is heavier so the handling is compromised a bit IMHO. If you go VR6 its much heavier on fuel so you need to factor that in. If you can find a Highline VR6 model with the 2.9 VR6 motor as opposed to the 2.8 it has a few more ponnies and also the spec is better, full leather, heated seats, air con etc.

I put 40K on mine before some tw*t in an Audi A3 drove in the back of it and wrote it off by bending the chassis. I was guttedk, best car I ever owned and I'd buy another one tomorrow if I could find the money to do so.

Theres a specific forum for GTI, google VW Club GTI or something like that it was worth reading last time I loooked.

Edit - Couple of more things I test drove a VR6 before I bought my 16v, the VR6 definately whoops the 16v for top gear roll on so I reckon it'd probably make a better towing car. But ironically the one I test drove I saw in the garage I was due to buy it from with the gearbox on the floor in pieces and I'm sure I read at the time that the VR6 had a weak gearbox but I might be wrong on this. Also the insurance wasnt particularly cheap as IIRC the 16v is group 17.

I had a completely standard mk3 gti (sorry but only 8v) but I'll give my views on it anyway. I loved my car. I put a good 30k on it in a year. eventually I got rid of it due to it starting to cost too much (cost 1200quid 2yrs ago on a L reg)

anyway the car handled well for a standard car. as said very very predictable power off oversteer, used to have a great laugh on wet roundabouts.

pretty practical boot space could fit lots in. speed wise it was good as a fast everyday car. I never felt it was blistering, but was good enough.

advantage back here is you can get lots of cheap parts thru lots of specialists and places like euro car parts.

I would have another in a second!

http://www.golfgti.co.uk

All you need to know is here, good write up by Fizzwheel BTW.

Paul

Cheers for the above info guys, I've had a look on the forum above, pretty good, but again it's like asking on an SV forum if you should get an SV

Good to get a subjective opinion.

A little more research required on my part in the VR6 vs 16v option.

[Viney]

If you run a VR6, you will need shares in Opec! They drink fuel like its going out of fashion! A mates stock VR6 driven normaly will on average return somewhere around 18-20mpg. On a run he gets about 30ish if hes gentle. Performance, stonking.

His brother has a modifed VR6, supercharged i believe, thats mind warpingingly fast but returns on a recent track day, 6mpg! Daily, around 12mpg!

Mad. Both great cars though.

have u considered buying a cheaper 8v model but then getting the engine changed over to the mk4 1.8l 20v turbo engine?

I think this can be done quite easily, considered it myself. that way u get a better turbo engine that's good on performance and ok for normal driving.

I want my golf back now. I'm off to look up some gti's on autotrader!

I've had golfs the last 20yrs, I've strayed at times, but always come back.

I currently have a MK3, which in my opinion put on too much weight after the MK2.

Golfs are reliable and the build quality superb, however towards 100,000 miles they are going to have some issues as you'd expect, depending on how well it had been looked after.

The 8v is a nice family car which has enough power to make you smile.

The 16v will make you grin, but you need to rev it, a bit like IL4 bikes. All round it will cost you more money.

The VR6 will give you more power and torque all round, but will cost you even more money as previous posts have indicated.

My preference, if I was to change, would be for the 20V turbo engine.

Some of the diesels are extremely torquey and very quick.

I would always recommend Golfs but make sure it has a good history, there are piles of sh1te out there but some good bargains if you take your time.

Paul

16v 2.0 Mk engine is underpowered, in an overweight chassis. 135bhp or something lame.

Mk3 is the worst golf, go Mk2 old skool, or Mk4 GTi.

VR6 is the engine to have, but don't expect to be blown away, your still looking at 7 secs 0-60 and 140-145 top end. As said, thirsty engine, and although its an ok engine, for a 2.8, its nothing to shout about.

Mk4, TDi130 is a good car, plenty of torque, not all that fast, but good on juice/power compromise. 1.8T is ok, but many have been thrashed, find a good one and it'll be the best lump.

I'd look at the 8v Mk2 GTi. Engines are only just starting to loosen up at 80+k, light weight, good chassis, average engine, but plenty of low down torque.

[fizzwheel]

Originally Posted by Daimo

16v 2.0 Mk engine is underpowered, in an overweight chassis. 135bhp or something lame.

No its not its 150bhp. The 16v from the MKII as also fitted in the Corrado is 137bhp its also a 1.8