MK4 Golf, but which engine?

MrSix · 10 Oct 2006 at 17:13

Bradmax57 said:
Your having a laugh arnt you, no way is a 1.6 8v golf as fast as the 1.9 PDI 130

Yes way it is.

Oakesy2001uk · 10 Oct 2006 at 17:19

MrSix said:
Yes way it is.

sorry but no! the 1.6 mk4 motor is underpowered in a heavy car, not quick at all, the PD130 however is a great engine (for a smelly diesel), which are normally much more than 130 bhp once broken in anyway, with bucketloads of torque, in a lighter polo..... I am not a diesel lover by any means, but there is no way a 1.6 8v mk 4 would be any where near as quick as a PD130 polo. (not that wither are particularly quick).

On a thread note, please don't buy a mk4 golf, they are bland, and the only plus point seems to be the badge, there are better alternatives like the focus 2.0 or TDCI. The mk 5 golf is a nice car, as are the mk1's and 2's, but the 3's and 4's were very very dull. OK if your a boring badge snob with no actual interest in driving mind.

nicRob · 10 Oct 2006 at 17:19

1.3s slower to 60 than the tdi

Balb0wa · 10 Oct 2006 at 17:21

Not that slow, 0-60 times

Volkswagen Golf GT Tdi PD 130 9.90 secs

Volkswagen Golf GT Tdi PD 150 8.67 secs

Volkswagen Golf 1.8T Gti 150 8.51 secs

Oakesy2001uk · 10 Oct 2006 at 17:25

bobbyboy uk said:
Not that slow, 0-60 times

Volkswagen Golf GT Tdi PD 130 9.90 secs

Volkswagen Golf GT Tdi PD 150 8.67 secs

Volkswagen Golf 1.8T Gti 150 8.51 secs

but golf GTI and 8.5 seconds to 60!!!! they just dont belong in the same sentace, add that to the fact that the handleing (and pretty much everything else bar the build quality) leaves little to be disired and you have a dull reasonably fast car, that does not deserve to be called a golf GTI. If it was called a "sport" or something and there was a GTI like the current one I could forgive it. Its a good job they made up with it on the Mk5.

Was it top gear/jeremy clarkson DVD that beat it with a diesel octavia estate on a 1/4 mile? or was that he mk 3?

Tommy B · 10 Oct 2006 at 17:28

Those GT times are terrible.

Sport 1.4 does 0-62 in 8.8 thanks to super and turbo chargers.

GT can do it in something like 7.7, GTI 7.2 and R32 6.4 (those figures are off the top of my head though)

ajgoodfellow · 10 Oct 2006 at 17:44

Oakesy2001uk said:
but golf GTI and 8.5 seconds to 60!!!! they just dont belong in the same sentace, add that to the fact that the handleing (and pretty much everything else bar the build quality) leaves little to be disired and you have a dull reasonably fast car, that does not deserve to be called a golf GTI. If it was called a "sport" or something and there was a GTI like the current one I could forgive it. Its a good job they made up with it on the Mk5.

Was it top gear/jeremy clarkson DVD that beat it with a diesel octavia estate on a 1/4 mile? or was that he mk 3?

AFAIK the 1.8T GTI was always called a GTI - it was the pathetic 2.0 8v GTI that was only badged as a GTI in this country. If you think 8.5 is bad try over 10 seconds for the so called 2.0 GTI

schnipps · 10 Oct 2006 at 18:27

For gods sake dont buy a golf TDi they are vastly overpriced, the 150 PD is by far the best and the turbo lag is virtually eliminated with a remap.

Stonedofmoo · 10 Oct 2006 at 19:26

[TW]Fox said:
Not true with TDCi.

Well it is. The TDCI is better but look at power options available on the Focus in the timescale in question, 113bhp isn't going to set the world on fire compared to the Golfs 150 option.

MrSix · 10 Oct 2006 at 19:33

Oakesy2001uk said:
sorry but no! the 1.6 mk4 motor is underpowered in a heavy car, not quick at all, the PD130 however is a great engine (for a smelly diesel), which are normally much more than 130 bhp once broken in anyway, with bucketloads of torque, in a lighter polo..... I am not a diesel lover by any means, but there is no way a 1.6 8v mk 4 would be any where near as quick as a PD130 polo. (not that wither are particularly quick).

On a thread note, please don't buy a mk4 golf, they are bland, and the only plus point seems to be the badge, there are better alternatives like the focus 2.0 or TDCI. The mk 5 golf is a nice car, as are the mk1's and 2's, but the 3's and 4's were very very dull. OK if your a boring badge snob with no actual interest in driving mind.

Since when were we talking about a Polo? I never knew they made a Polo 1.9 TDI PD130.

Plus, it's a PD130 for a reason, it doesn't "gain" extra ponies once you've broken it in.

I've clocked a 9.6 second 0-60 (That's with everything in Fox

) plus i've driven both mine and the PD130 TDI Golf, hence why I can say mine will keep up.

Not only that, but i've had a play with my mate in his PD130 and the only thing his could do was out brake mine.

Diesel · 10 Oct 2006 at 19:56

MrSix said:
Plus, it's a PD130 for a reason, it doesn't "gain" extra ponies once you've broken it in.

I'm led to believe that they come out of the factory with more than 130 'ponies'.

Bradmax57 · 10 Oct 2006 at 20:00

MrSix said:
Yes way it is.

I just wish i still had my 130 to prove you severly wrong LOL your mates must be a pill! 0-60 figures top speed mean bugger all, its driving that matters and with the torque of a 1.9pdi your 1.6 petrol would be crushed

Bradmax57 · 10 Oct 2006 at 20:01

Diesel said:
I'm led to believe that they come out of the factory with more than 130 'ponies'.

indeed, out of many reviews etc i read before i bought mine many were tested at approx 143+

MrSix · 10 Oct 2006 at 20:02

Diesel said:
I'm led to believe that they come out of the factory with more than 130 'ponies'.

I'm not.

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/specs/data-detail.aspx?deriv=21556

What possible other reason could they have for calling it a PD130?

Bradmax57 · 10 Oct 2006 at 20:08

MrSix said:
I'm not.

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/specs/data-detail.aspx?deriv=21556

What possible other reason could they have for calling it a PD130?

VW are always very reserved on what figures they publish, end of........

MrSix · 10 Oct 2006 at 20:13

Okay then, well mine has 100bhp according to them, and it was RR'd at 108...so if we apply that to the PD130 @ 8% increase on what they quote the PD130 should have 140.4bhp.

Don't forget Brad, mine is the 8v unit too, which produces 140.3NM of torque (which seems to be your favourite thing about the TDI's), so perhaps you "Crushed" the lesser 16v engined 1.6's in your monster?

Bradmax57 · 10 Oct 2006 at 20:20

MrSix said:
Okay then, well mine has 100bhp according to them, and it was RR'd at 108...so if we apply that to the PD130 @ 8% increase on what they quote the PD130 should have 140.4bhp.

Don't forget Brad, mine is the 8v unit too, which produces 140.3NM of torque (which seems to be your favourite thing about the TDI's), so perhaps you "Crushed" the lesser 16v engined 1.6's in your monster?

but thats less than half the torque of a 130pd??? anyway all i know is i had a a3 1.6 petrol before my golf and it was nowhere near, so somehow your golf with the same engine and transmission would have wiped my a3 1.6 sport :confused:

, and perhaps your rolling road was out lol, anyway im not going to argue the point any further as I know its simply not possible, maybe your friends 1.9 was actually a sdi? oh and another thing how can the 16v 1.6 be lesser than the 8v when it has more torque and bhp?

Bradmax57 · 10 Oct 2006 at 20:29

Bradmax57 said:
but thats less than half the torque of a 130pd??? anyway all i know is i had a a3 1.6 petrol before my golf and it was nowhere near, so somehow your golf with the same engine and transmission would have wiped my a3 1.6 sport , and perhaps your rolling road was out lol, anyway im not going to argue the point any further as I know its simply not possible, maybe your friends 1.9 was actually a sdi?

Torque isnt just my favourite thing about tdi's its everyones thats what there all about torque and economy

Pants · 10 Oct 2006 at 20:46

Torque means nothing. It's all about the BHP, and the Diesel still have more of that too. It would win a streight line race, even if it's a bit heavier. I'm sure the stats will back this up.

Torque on a diesel however does not help win races as the long gearing kills off the so called advantage. They have to have long gearing due to the low revs that peak power is produced. Sorry it's a pet hate of mine people going on about uber diesel torks!

Anyway, what do people make of the 2.8 MK4 4 Motion. Does it have and uprated suspension etc, big breaks, or any particular advantage over the lesser models?

(edit: I exagrate a little... it does not mean nothing but won't help in the case of a diesel. As I find diesels still have a very narrow power band so the torque "brag" is also let down by the powerband. High torque on a petro turbo for example can be advantageous as it would have a massive powerband and help pickup quicker after a gear change / coming out of corners etc... This has been a disclaimer to pre-emptively stop the pedantics amoungst us!)

Bradmax57 · 10 Oct 2006 at 20:51

Pants said:
Torque means nothing. It's all about the BHP, and the Diesel still have more of that too. It would win a streight line race, even if it's a bit heavier. I'm sure the stats will back this up.

Torque on a diesel however does not help win races as the long gearing kills off the so called advantage. They have to have long gearing due to the low revs that peak power is produced. Sorry it's a pet hate of mine people going on about uber diesel torks!

Anyway, what do people make of the 2.8 MK4 4 Motion. Does it have and uprated suspension etc, big breaks, or any particular advantage over the lesser models?

Torque means nothing? where on earth did you read that, its all about a good balance of both, and as far as the long gearing goes thats why the pd's were given a 6 speed box, dont get me wrong im not a massive diesel fan in fact ive only had one.

The 2.8 4motion is a cracker but then again your limited to what can be done with it (if thats your thing) a 1.8T tuned can quite easily beat one but the v6 growl is always going to beat it