Golf V6/4Motion - Opinions + Experiences?

randal

randal

randal

Soldato
Joined
1 Oct 2006
Posts
14,715
Toying with getting one of these for my next car, missing VW engineering too much. Not to mention torque, VTEC is fun and sounds great at full chat but is starting to wear a bit thin now.

Has anyone owned one of the 4Motions? What are they like as daily drivers - fuel economy, servicing costs, performance?

Anyone had any particularly nasty experiences or on the flip side any particularly good ones?

Cheers
 
Not driven one of these but have driven the A3 3.2 which is similar but loads faster.

Bit meh, really. Really quick (Which the Golf 4motion is absolutely not) but the 4Motion stuff doesnt change the fact it handles like an overly front heavy FWD car. For a hatch it was great but thats a bit like being top of the class in Special School.Plus VW engineering isn't exactly a plus point.

There are better 6 cylinder cars.
 
Sadly the 3.2 is a little out of my range, hence the "baby R32" 4motion. Plus the g/f is vying for an A3 next so I think I'll go for something slightly different.

Weight wise, it's still 100kg lighter than the Honda I've got and has around 20bhp more. To be honest I'm not looking for anything quicker per say, I just miss torque and haven't tried had a 6 cylinder lump before.

Incidentally, what 6 cylinder alternatives did you have in mind?
 
Something like a 3 Series or an Audi A4. Perhaps an ST220. Suprised its 100kg lighter than a Honda with VTEC - which Honda?
 
5th Gen Lude, which weighs in about 1500kg - the Golf is about 1400kg from Googling. Fun things like 4WS, AC etc.. must really add up.

I'll be totally honest, I've never really liked the 3 series and I think the 5 is a little too big for me. Fords aren't my thing, but I hadn't considered the Audi. Might have to look into that route.
 
I've got a 53 plate V6 4motion. It's great as a tourer - heated leather, all the toys, winter pack (the headlight washers, etc), auto dimming rear mirror, rain sensitive wipers, sports pack (slightly stiffer suspension and nicer alloys), etc (not all standard so check the exact equipment). I really love the torque and it pulls from 6th at 30mph if necessary. On the motorway it's great.

But to be honest it's not a "drivers" car. The handling is ok but not a patch on the mk1 and mk2 golfs I've had. It's quite heavy and the big engine causes understeer. But the engine makes up for that. It pulls very strongly :) and then keeps going :) and going :) Fuel economy is ok on long journeys but not great about town. Well it is a 2.8 v6 so no surprises there. I've got a wife and two kids so it's great from that perspective. But the boot is quite small due to the 4wd.

Servicing isn't too bad. It's been reliable. Service costs are high but it doesn't need them very frequently as it has variable services of up to 20k - so overall the average cost is fine.
 
[TW]Fox;10516590 said:
Not driven one of these but have driven the A3 3.2 which is similar but loads faster.

Bit meh, really. Really quick (Which the Golf 4motion is absolutely not) but the 4Motion stuff doesnt change the fact it handles like an overly front heavy FWD car. For a hatch it was great but thats a bit like being top of the class in Special School.Plus VW engineering isn't exactly a plus point.

There are better 6 cylinder cars.
Click to expand...

Are you sure they are really quick compared to the Golf, I know it is common to share engines amongst the companies but Audi have not shed much focus on the 3.2 V6 A3 and the price is silly as well as you can get the S3 and excluding the sound it is much better, of course you can get the R32 cheaper as well.

On top of that they changed the 0-60 times from 6.9 to 6.5, although I think it is claimed at 6.2. Anyway, if we are talking new R32/A3 I would probably recommend the Golf, claimed around 6.4 seconds but that is still insanely fast and a remap would shed half a second easy.

The DSG box is nice to live with and responds at every position you leave your foot at, my friend owns one and he is happy with it. Fuel economy is not great if you put your foot down a lot but he can get around 25 mpg around town if he drives normally.

If you live with a FWD A3 and compare it to the 4WD Golf you really do feel the difference, I guess it is different if you just test drive it!
 
zain said:
Are you sure they are really quick compared to the Golf
Click to expand...

Yes, becuase the 4Motion Golf is a Mk4 with 100andsomethingbhp versus 250bhp in the A3. I'm not saying they are a useful comparison (Although the A3's are getting cheap), merely that I'd driven the A3 and the Golf was hardly likely to be better.
 
[TW]Fox;10519176 said:
Yes, becuase the 4Motion Golf is a Mk4 with 100andsomethingbhp versus 250bhp in the A3. I'm not saying they are a useful comparison (Although the A3's are getting cheap), merely that I'd driven the A3 and the Golf was hardly likely to be better.
Click to expand...

Ah, I am talking the two latest models.
 
[TW]Fox;10519176 said:
Yes, becuase the 4Motion Golf is a Mk4 with 100andsomethingbhp versus 250bhp in the A3. I'm not saying they are a useful comparison (Although the A3's are getting cheap), merely that I'd driven the A3 and the Golf was hardly likely to be better.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the 4motion is over 200 ponies? I'm sure someone will be along with the exact figure. So not slow, but it ain't gonna set your pants on fire.

The haldex will be usefull in winter getting off the line, but as said, not exactly a drivers car. The engine note can somwhat make up for it though, and you can pretend your going fast. :p
 
Dolph said:
I find other figures to be far more telling tbh, The 4motion isn't a slow car, but it's not a quick one either, certainly not in terms of in gear or high end acceleration.
Click to expand...

Odd. That's where I find it really good. I haven't looked up the figures but it's midrange that I find mine to be best at. Like I said before, it's a cruiser rather than a sports car but if that's what the OP is after then it's a great car. If he's after something sporty then it may not be the best for him. Love mine though :)
 
I quite like the look of them and im sure they are a nice cruiser. But wouldn't be for me. For the amount of petrol im guessing they drink you could get something faster.

One useful comment on performance. I came up against one when i was in my 1989 jetta gti 16v. Now from about 40 up to 120 i stuck bang on with it (next to him not slip streaming). I was really suprised, expected it to fly off after 80mph or so. So i'd say in real life its a touch faster than a fiesta ST or similar. So as others have already said, not bad but could be better.
 
Hmm, bit of a mixed bag then by all accounts.

Coming from the Prelude I'm liking the laid back drive, a/c etc... so I'm more in the market for a cruiser than plums out speed. Especially as my work circumstances maybe changing in the not-too-distant which could involve more travel - that may end up being the clincher. Better judgement seems to say the 1.8T or 1.9TDI remapped is a better option if not opting for the R32 on the Mk IVs.

Milgo - Only weight I could find for the Jetta is 950kg, IIRC the gti 16V KR lump puts out 136bhp = 145.46bhp/tonne. So at 1400kg and 204bhp, the 4Motion = 148.05bhp/tonne. Would explain I guess... does that sound about right to someone more in the know about calculating power figures?
 
Hades said:
Odd. That's where I find it really good. I haven't looked up the figures but it's midrange that I find mine to be best at. Like I said before, it's a cruiser rather than a sports car but if that's what the OP is after then it's a great car. If he's after something sporty then it may not be the best for him. Love mine though :)
Click to expand...

I guess it depends what you are used to. With many hot hatches these days, their 0-60 is fairly similar, but 0-100 or more can vary quite significantly. Ditto in gear acceleration times.

The important thing is that everyone's happy though :)
 
Jetta 16v's were about 1050kg but like the golfs geared to run out of revs in 5th at about 120.
Hence pretty good pull upto about a ton even vs newer stuff that should leave them standing.

Problem with the V6 is that it's too softly set up as a hot hatch, too thirsty vs a remapped 1.8T with similar power and not quite quick enough.

It was always marketed as a luxury golf, not a GTi.

Having said that, one set of coilovers, a haldex performance controller and either a schrick or VW motorsport manifold and they're lots more fun :)

Or slap the 3.2 in there for giggles

I know of one V6 owner waiting for a Passat R36 to be wrecked, so he can get dibs on the engine!!
 
To be honest you are better off getting the 1.8T on engine choice alone. But I don't know if you can get a 4motion varient with all the toys. But if you want a relaxed drive then I can't see a problems with a 4motion.

The 1.8T when remapped will be more powerful, have more torque, and be much much more economical, when compared to the thirsty 2.8.

I've gone from a VR6 (similar engine to 2.8 4motion) to a 1.8T and i'm not looking back!
 
randal seems about right to me, just a little heavier as g60dubster says. Power to weight isn't everything though. The car with the higher bhp and torque should pull off as wind resistance increases. Guess the ATW power figures are affected by the 4WD.

Back to the point, i'd vote 1.8t. Still a nice torquey progressive engine so good for easy driving.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom