Mk3 Golf 1.4

masterk said:
Funnily enough you generalised all VW's are rubbish
Click to expand...

No, I didn't do this. I'm not stupid enough to generalise that an entire marque is rubbish, infact I frequently criticise others for the same thing. Refer to my post above this one for the reasoning behind my comments.
 
Iceman said:
Well i beg to differ my MK3 2.0 8v goes well
Click to expand...

If you're happy with the performance then great, but its by no means fast. One would expect a Golf GTi to be reasonably fast - the mk1 & 2 were good in their time, but the mk3 was slower than either and even for its day, not fast by any description.

Many manufacturers at the time made hot hatches which were comprehensively faster and better handling than the 8v GTi.

danza said:
No, that's not the engine code on mine. I can't remember what it is, but it is one digit different to any C14XX in the manual. Its a C14 Something. Maybe a C14SZ. I can't remember which at the mo, and I can't be bothered to look now! But like you say it is quite torquey at low revs, but otherwise gutless. Poor thing.
Click to expand...

IIRC the C14 series was initially available in carburettored form with adequate power (~75hp?), I think this was the C14NV.

They then slapped a cat and single point injection on it which was called C14NZ, this strangled the output (<60hp).

They also made another version with multipoint injection (C14SE?) which gave 82 or 83hp.
 
Last edited:
Iceman said:
Well i beg to differ my MK3 2.0 8v goes well
Click to expand...

Must be something wrong with my GTI then, as its slow as pig **** :confused:

I put it down to the fact that it only has 100bhp/tonne, and has a book time of a whopping 9.5 seconds to hit 60mph, guess that wasnt the reason and mine infact must be broken ;)
 
Oh, just looked on Google, there is also an X14NZ, again 60hp. Never knew about this one, and there doesn't seem to be much info as to what the difference is.
 
[TW]Fox said:
No, I didn't do this. I'm not stupid enough to generalise that an entire marque is rubbish, infact I frequently criticise others for the same thing. Refer to my post above this one for the reasoning behind my comments.
Click to expand...

"If only everything was as reliable as a Volkswagen"?

I believe you have said that many times.
 
[TW]Fox said:
Explained it several times as well - VW's entire marketing campaign was built on it in the late 90's....
Click to expand...

VW's marketing in the 50's, 60's & early 70's for the win!

Anyway, If I look at a 1.6, will that be a much better purchase, and what trim? Is just L or GL better?

Thanks again everyone. :)
 
GL is much better, same insurance group too. You want a 95+ model where there were lots of improvements, easy way of checking is if the side repeaters are oval='95+.
Dont buy a red one, especially the cherry red ones, the paint turns to pink really easily. Dragon green or purple are the desireable colours.
 
172gus said:
GL is much better, same insurance group too. You want a 95+ model where there were lots of improvements, easy way of checking is if the side repeaters are oval='95+.
Dont buy a red one, especially the cherry red ones, the paint turns to pink really easily. Dragon green or purple are the desireable colours.
Click to expand...

Tosh, my M reg is a red golf and its as red now as it ever was.
 
energy said:
They also made another version with multipoint injection (C14SE?) which gave 82 or 83hp.
Click to expand...

yea thats the one ive got, althought its no rocket, it will go if you give some beans.

to the op, maybe you could look into an MPI astra 1.4? cheap to buy, run and fix. 0-60 ~11seconds which should be better than a golf?


*edit* oh old thread :| but if you buy a 1.6 you dont get cheap road tax!
 
Last edited:
172gus said:
GL is much better, same insurance group too. You want a 95+ model where there were lots of improvements, easy way of checking is if the side repeaters are oval='95+.
Dont buy a red one, especially the cherry red ones, the paint turns to pink really easily. Dragon green or purple are the desireable colours.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply, aiming for a Dragon Green or Dark Blue. I am going to be getting a 95+ anyway, power steering & 5 gears are important to me. :)

One last question though, what are the spec differences?

e.g. between CL and L, or CL and GL

Im not too sure tbh, if you could send me to a website that'd be good, or if you can explain. Its just that I have seen some CL's with optional CD player, sunroof etc... is this just a CL specced up, or are there other differences I am not aware of. Also, do you know what was the stanard equippment for some specs?

chopchop said:
yea thats the one ive got, althought its no rocket, it will go if you give some beans.

to the op, maybe you could look into an MPI astra 1.4? cheap to buy, run and fix. 0-60 ~11seconds which should be better than a golf?

*edit* oh old thread :| but if you buy a 1.6 you dont get cheap road tax!
Click to expand...

Buying a 1.6 does put the price up in lots of ways, but having been given all the advice I have, I think I will steer well clear of the 1.4. :)
 
Engine size isnt that important.

They might produce low power for the size but they are produced for a market who buy it.

The GTi's of old (115bhp etc) were not quick in anyway ill give you that... but we could go on and on in 40 threads about power outputs from engine sizes. 1.8's can generate anything from 50bhp to 250bhp and more either way.

Still no reason to mock... i mean BMW make a fair few modern engines of 1.8/1.9 that produce lame power compared to others yet they are not mentioned. They are however reasonable engines. Same goes for the 1.4/1.6/1.8 in the mk3 golf. Not quick, but reliable with low down grunt.
 
energy said:
Most 1.4's 10 years ago (and from before that) managed at least 70hp; Fiat Uno 1.4i.e.S (72hp), Renault 19 1.4 (80), Clio 1.4 (75 - same engine as 19 but with cat), Peugeot 106 1.4 (75), Nissan Micra 1.3 (83hp IIRC), Toyota Starlet 1.3 (80hp IIRC) those are all I can remember off hand... They all weigh significantly less than a Golf III, and were reasonably fast for what they were...
Click to expand...

Speed isn't everything. A lot of those cars won't survive the same mileage as the Golf. For example the uno's would have dissolved in rust very quickly. The french cars will be all sorts of electrical problems. The only real alternative is a Japanese car. Which if they are not crashed will go forever.

As for the 2.0 (8v) 115bhp GTI's these are great comfy cuisers and will do mega miles. The 2.0 (16v) was 150 bhp. Some people prefer the easy character of 8v's over 16v's. That goes for both the Mrk2 and 3. However this is all off topic. If someones looking for a sturdy runabout with low insurance and running costs, taking about V6's and Turbos is taking the mike.
 
Last edited:
ooo, your looking at a 1.6CL !

apparently theres 2 different ones... theres the single point and multi point injection so im led to believe ?!?!!

single point i think has something like 75bhp
multi point has something around 95bhp ???

Front-wheel drive Mk 3 Golf launched as three- and five-door hatchbacks in Feb 92. Cabriolets were launched in January 94; the Estate was introduced in March 94. Launched with choice of 1.6 (60 bhp), 1.8 (75 bhp), 1.8 (90 bhp), 1.9 TD (75 bhp), 115 bhp 2.0 and a 2.8 VR6 (which comes with traction control). A 75 bhp 1.6 was introduced in September 93 along with a 64 bhp 1.9 Diesel and a 150 bhp 2.0 16v. 1.9 TDi was available from April 94 and 100 bhp 1.6 from December 96. Standard equipment includes folding rear seat (split/fold on GL and VR6), and rear wash/wipe and 8-speaker stereo. Equipment revisions in April 92 saw all CL versions get split/fold rear seat and rev counter. GL also has rev counter, heated electrically adjusted mirrors, while GTi has sports seats, front/rear spoilers, alloy wheels and multi-function computer and heated electric door mirrors from 1992. GL Estate also has colour-matched mirrors and bumpers and black roof rails. Heated electric door mirrors on the 2.0 GTi. Avantgarde Cabriolet has twin headlamps, sports seats, electric hood (optional on 1.8, standard on 2.0), alloy wheels, sports suspension, electrically operated heated mirrors and a trip computer. Revisions in 1994 saw new style alloy wheels for GTi, and in 1997 better door locks on all models and electric headlamp adjustment on Cabriolet. Cabriolets were extensively revised. Special editions included: 1.4 ‘Ryder’ (May 93); 1.8 ‘Driver’ (September 93); ‘Match’ 1.4, 1.9D (June 94); limited edition (of just 30) ‘Pink Floyd’ Cabriolet (October 94); GTi ‘Colour Concept’, 2.8 VR6 ‘Highline’ (April 95); ‘Rolling Stones’ 1.6 hatch and 1.8 cabrio (June 95) ‘Match’ re-launched June 95; ‘SE’ 1.4, 1.8 (90 bhp) and 1.9D (December 95); limited edition GTi 8v ‘Anniversary’ (May 96).
Click to expand...

done abit more digging

The 1.6 engines (Codes AEA and AEE) are 8v and have an output of 75bhp
The 1.6 engines (Codes AEK and AFT) are higher compression and produce 100bhp
The 1.8 engines (Codes AAM and AAN) are 8v with a 9:1 compression and produce 75bhp
The 1.8 engines (Codes ABS, ADZ and ANP) are 8v with 10:1 compression and produce 90bhp
Click to expand...

guess im just fortunate that mine is one of the 100bhp 1.6's with a higher compression ratio

theres something to look out for i guess !
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom