J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

Drove a GTI turbo today and was dissapointed, felt flat and a bit weedy. Nice car and lovely interior but way to sensible and grown up. I am sure it is as quick/quicker than my MK2 but I wouldnt swap (financial arguments notwithstanding), dont know how they call it a GTI and I much prefer the Diesels (never thought I would admit this) and the cornering wasnt much fun either.

I was considering buying one but I dont think I will bother now !

NACRO

I had a drive in a friends early 1.8T a few yrs ago and felt really let down (I had a MK2 Gti at the time). It really wasn't that much faster upto 70MPH and was far less fun to drive.
I guess for under a grand you could get one chipped and sort the handling but stock they aren't very "hot hatch" like.

SlowBoy

iTrader: (1)

I always thought the point of these was more mid range acceleration. The mk III's were similar - a bit of a turning point moving away from hot hatch image which was left to other marques. As you say, now more 'grown up' than before. Still, huge potential.

Wouldn't mind an R32 though.

16vmarc

Until the turbos spinning they are abit flat, was it a 150 or 180 u drove?

rallycol

iTrader: (4)

A bit flat! Try re-arranging these words into a popular sentence,skin, pudding ,rice,wouldn't,off ,pull,the,a.

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

It was a 150 and I was expecting it to make my mk2 feel like a right old donkey but made me appreciate it all the more, it was certainly refined but a bit lacking in substance. No particular turbo shove to speak of. I suppose it may be down to mine having a Magnex system and a K and N which makes it sound all snorty giving the impression its faster than it is, it also has proper suspension and decent tyres so its difficult to compare the handling, a fairer contest would be standard vs standard and I suspect that a chipped one may give it a little bit of edge, also it was only a couple of miles so you dont get chance to appreciate a car properly in such a short distance but there was no 'wow' factor and no way I would buy one, considering how the first time I drove a standard mk1 I nearly wet myself in appreciation I think VOlkswagen have lost their way somewhat.

I know what you are saying about the performance, mine will hold one up to about 75/80 and then aerodynamics and extra power take over and they pull away.

What I want is something with a bit of attitude and an edge to it and to be honest most modern cars leave me cold with the exception of one, guess what that is (hint, whats the name of this site ?)

SlowBoy

iTrader: (1)

lol at rallycol!

Mk 1 & Mk II golfs have that rawness that was lost in the Mk III & IV. It's a little like the scoobs, but much more apparent with the Golfs. Why not just stick with a modded Mk II? Or, thought about a Teg?

Simon S3

I owned one for about a year and loved it!

Remember, it only has 123 bhp/ton against 127 bhp/ton for a Mk2 16v.

16vmarc, you say it needs the turbo spinning before it goes? That`s not really accurate, peak torque (155 lbft) is produced at 1750 rpm so it`s gutsy enough low down.

It`s horses for courses I guess.

mike16v

I am looking at a 5 door Mk4 turbo to replace my Mk3 16v. I know it is more refined than my Mk3, and that my Mk3 would murder it on the open road, but that is due to my mk3 having a miltek system and K&n along with Koni adjustables. Again, this is comparing a modded car with a standard car.

I know that once the 1.8T has been chipped (£500 gives you 195+ bhp and around 235lb/ft.... big difference!) I will have a big smil eon my face. I wanted to get a Scoob, but just can't face the running costs, so I am happy to settle for something as well built as the Golf, and then make it a bit quicker...

*Sonic*

Understeer city too on the Golfs

And dont even attempt to drive them in the wet or snow

I had one as a company car, ok in a straight line, but thats about it for me, nice comfortable, refined, quiet etc making them decent motorway crusiers, but for me, absolutly nothing else, I actually hated driving it in the wet or snow

16vmarc

Yesh i kno simon but if end up in the wrong gear theres no power until u get back into that rev range.

Simon S3

OK, here goes again.

It produces it`s peak torque (155 lbft) from 1750 rpm.

Torque is very important for acceleration. Because the Golf 1.8T produces torque so low down the rev range, changing down a gear and revving the nuts off it isn`t required.

Oh, and I never had any problems in the snow or the rain.

mike16v

I had my sisters boyfriends 1.8T GTI for about an hour last night... when I left the house it was dry and they car was great to drive. When I was taking it back, it was pissing down and.... it was still great to drive. Never had any problems in either the wet or dry.

I loved it, and will be getting one next

n one

iTrader: (5)

I had one, even had it remapped to 210bhp, it was still s4ite, wish I`d kept my Mk2 G60, then came to my senses & bought a Scoob.

ianc

Its the right engine, it's just in the wrong car...

(zips flame suit then runs and hides )

Ian.
(Octavia 4x4turbo, 222bhp, 231lb ft, 0-60 6.4, 42.8mpg)

SlowBoy

iTrader: (1)

Yeah, like scoobs don't suffer from understeer

Mk II G60, now there's a nice Golf.

*Sonic*

My scoob doesnt suffer from that much understeer

my old MY99 Sport pi55ed all over Golf Gti Turbos especially in the twisties

Golf was only marginally quicker in a straight line

camk

Sorry a 2L n/a Impreza sport beats a Golf Turbo....please

[Edited by camk - 9/22/2003 7:09:04 PM]

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

'revving the nuts off it isn`t required'

Thats where I went wrong then, keep the revs down and it flies I suppose.

Simon S3

For the third time...............

The torque peak (155 lbft) is produced at 1750 rpm on the 1.8T compared with 124 lbft @4600rpm for Mk2 16v GTI and 133 lbft @4600 rpm for the Mk3 16v GTI.

........So, it doesn`t really need thrashing to get it going!

Flat 4x4

.... I can vouch for that.

I migrated from Classic+Tek2 to Jabba 1.8T 4x4 with 220bhp in a Skoda. I find that I don't 'need' to go above 5k because the torque and gear ratios (lower than the Golf or vRS Octy) suit it that way.

By the way, from experience, I agree that a well driven Sport would not be far behind a 150 (165?) 1.8T on any road with bends in it !

camk

thats a bit different from pissin all over them through the 'twisties' . I've still got my doubts, 150 GTi 0-62 is 8.6Seconds @150BHP, 2L Scoob Sport is 9.7Sec @114BHP. I'm not sure about the weight difference but carrying 4WD drivetrain surely won't make the sport lighter.

Flat 4x4

Camk

I have two road tests where the Sport dipped below 9 seconds to 60. I owned a new Sport for 30k before moving on. Of all the cars I've owned, the Sport's chassis and light weight meant that I could drive it close to the limit without every exceeding mine.

You may have your doubts, but on anything other than duals or motorways, I can guarantee that a standard classic Sport would be right up with a standard MkIV 150 GTi. SORRY !

Buy a Skoda with the same engine and better suspension instead - its more fun losing BMW's that way !

(4x4 0-60 6.5 145mph 30mpg 220bhp 245lb/ft in a Skoda)

ScoobyJawa

Where do people get this impression from? I know of quite a few MKIV Golfs that have had to go back several times for faults...... They are no better than any other car in their class.

[Edited by ScoobyJawa - 9/23/2003 10:22:55 AM]

camk

do you take your timing gear on all road tests The figures I used are official manufacturer's times, its likely VW are being equally conservative.

Quote 'my old MY99 Sport pi55ed all over Golf Gti Turbos especially in the twisties'

This is not really the same as

Quote ' I can guarantee that a standard classic Sport would be right up with a standard MkIV 150 GTi. SORRY'

anyway 114BHP versus 150BHP 31% advantage
Torque 172Nm 210NM 22% advantage
Kerb weight 1130(4Dr Sport) 1256Kg 11% disadvantage......


So not a lot in it and any advantage is not really to the Scoob, but its hardly 'pissing all over', is it ? That's the point.

mike16v

And a chipped Golf will have 220-2400lb/ft at approx 2500RPM

Flat 4x4

Camk

Not sure what we are arguing about here - I'm certainly not defending the guy for "P***ing all over xyz", more that I'm saying that the Sport is a close match on the right roads. It was underpowered compared with my Turbos that followed, but more fun at lower speeds !

By the way, have you ever wondered why Subaru reclassified the Sport's output from 115 to 125bhp for the 99MY ? Because it was already putting out 130bhp. The 1.8T engine output IS conservative, I agree - mine was at 164 on the rollers before it was Jabba'd.

*Sonic*

camk

if you had read my post I said I had a MY99 Sport, which was the 125bhp version, so I dont know where you get your figures of 115bhp from, actually I do, but I'll let you figure that out

As far as pi55ing all over Golf Gti Turbos MY00, I could, and did on many many occasions, even on dual carriageways that had roundabouts in them

8 guys at work had said Golfs in standard trim, I had a Sport MY99 in std trim

not one of them could ever keep up with me, or get near me on the twisties - FACT

Several of the guys drove my Sport, and where amazed at how much better it was on the twisties than there Golfs

I used to drive the Sport to the absolute limit (it was a company car, and I put 125k miles on it in less than 3 years) I darent drive my current Turbo to the limit as Im not that good a driver, but the Sport was so easy to do, the Golf Turbo I had however, I could not get to grips with except for straight lines

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

"........So, it doesn`t really need thrashing to get it going!"

Cos it aint going to get going whatever you do !

Maybe it was below par, you can go on about torque peaks etc but it didnt feel like I thought it should, should imagine a chipped one would fly as it did feel constrained, like it needed something and I suspect a chip, exhause and air filter may be what it needed.

I dont think I could get use to a standard car nowadays, I need the noise, crackle on the overrun etc etc

I drove a chipped S3 and it was extremely quick but a bit clinical and serious, lacking in any kind of character, that what impresses me about the Impreza, its defintely a character.

Flat 4x4

J4cko

I think its an age thing.

I thought I'd really miss my last Impreza when I sold it (I bought it back once, I liked it so much!), but hand on heart, I didn't.
The classic model is an exciting car - with some compromises on comfort and costs, and you eventually move on. The engine self-destructing (fortunately under warranty) may also have helped make up my mind !