VW Golf or Ford Focus

[ShiWarrior]

i paid 5K for a 2009 1.8 Zetec in 2014 (5 years ago) with roughly 45K

no problems with mine, its done me really well

 

[ShivP]

I had a mk5 golf 1.6. Was ok but felt so slow. I'd go for a focus given the choice unless you can get hold of a 122hp 1.4 tsi mk6 golf. Supposed to be pretty decent.

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201910243647032?onesearchad=Used&onesearchad=Nearly New&onesearchad=New&minimum-badge-engine-size=1.4&model=GOLF&year-from=2009&radius=1500&postcode=gl60te&price-to=4500&advertising-location=at_cars&make=VOLKSWAGEN&sort=price-asc&aggregatedTrim=TSI&page=1

That is probably one of the worst engines VW have ever made.

 

[Liquidfox]

Oh and rear passenger lighting. There is none.

That was an optional extra. No, I'm not kidding either!

 

[ShiWarrior]

That is probably one of the worst engines VW have ever made.

really ?

is that the same engine in the Leon FR ? (2012+)

 

[wijcc]

In 2009 I paid £1600 or £1700 for a 2001 1.6 petrol ghia model with 60K miles on it. Been driving it since its on 147k miles now.

 

[Fluke?]

dp

 

[Fluke?]

That is probably one of the worst engines VW have ever made.

Never heard that about the 122ps version... The 1.4 160ps in the GT was supposed to be unreliable but the 122 used in the Golf SE, Match etc and the Leon was supposed to be pretty good.

 

[ShivP]

Never heard that about the 122ps version... The 1.4 160ps in the GT was supposed to be unreliable but the 122 used in the Golf SE, Match etc and the Leon was supposed to be pretty good.

Oh ******** yes, forgot the 122 doesn't have the supercharger.
In that case the 160PS version is the one to avoid as that is twincharged

 

[Nasher]

The 1.4 seemed to have some variations which were a bit dodgy. The 1.4 in the Polo GTI was :/

 

[Armageus]

The 1.4 seemed to have some variations which were a bit dodgy. The 1.4 in the Polo GTI was :/

yep that was the 160PS twincharged one