RB5201

Having now sold my scoob I have decided on getting a golf tdi, the 150 version, seems to meet my needs, avaliable with 5 doors for when we have kids (next year so my wife tells me!!) reasonably equipped, fun to drive and good on fuel.

My budget is about £8500, for this it looks like a can get a 53 plate, but for this money the mileage is around the 80k mark, lower mileage cars, are still holding £10k price for the same age. Should I be put off buying a car which has covered 80k in 3 years, or should I try and find the extra money for a lower mileage example. Also is there anything else I should be looking out for??

Any thoughts or opinions welcome.

Thanks.....Rich

Chip Sengravy

2.0TDi eats 'undertaking tossers' *** on the motorway

amazing grunt from 80+

talizman

iTrader: (1)

I've went from a string of Scoobs (6!) to a PD 150 and haven't looked back.

I got a black 3 door, and even though I have a 10 month old I have had no problems re space.
Mine is a 52 plate and has covered 65k miles. The 60k service is the dear one, so if you buy a car under 60k be prepared for a bill of £400-£700 (timing belt, service and maybe water pump)

Fuel consumption is superb, averaging 40mpg about town (not hanging about ) and 55-60mpg on a relaxed motorway run. I get around 450 miles for a 55 litre tank compared to 220miles for my Scoob's 60 litres!
There are records of 750-800 miles on a full tank in a PD 150!

Don't be scared of a higher mileage car providing its been cared for and serviced at regular intervals.

I reckon for your budget you could pick up a 52 plate with around 60k miles, hopefully having had the big service! A dealer will charge close to £10k for the same car.

I've had mine Revo remapped to 190bhp/295 lb/ft and it pulls like a train I've stuck on a set of 18" RS4's and I'm well happy. Build quality, running costs and grin factor are first class. Really can't see past the torque of a TDi motor now!

antz

Not wanting to sound like the profet of doom but...........

I know of several Golf 150 Pd's (one was an Anni) that have eaten the lobes on there cam shafts at about 80k.

If you search the net this seems to only affect the 150pd and not the 130 for some reason. VW have made a number of recommendations within the dealer network including "encouraging" owners to come off variable servicing and onto a fixed mileage interval routine. Some say that 7k in the maximum that you should leave the oil in a 150 for, even when using the correct spec fully synth 5-40 PD specific engine oil. In the first case I know of VW made a good will payment to cover the parts cost of a new cam etc, but that still left the owner with an £800.00 labour bill. The second engine that I saw had been removed and completely replaced as the owner had not noticed the engine getting nosier and nosier. The swarf that came out of the sump was amazing, mainly can lobe metal after the case hardening on the lobes had worn through.

LG John

Have you driven one!! Seriously it was about as boring a car as I've driven!! I also think there are more interesting oil burners of that size now including the Leon and Ibiza Cupra TDI's and the Skoda TDI's. These are faster, as well equipped and better value for money IMHO

Christ

Leave the Seats and Skodas well alone, stick with the Dub




Dammed fine cars, especially when Remapped...

LG John

...and pay over the odds for the badge. If you buy the Dub its because you can't afford an A3, get someone to hold your hand and you can take it a stage further in the value for money vs image stakes

talizman

iTrader: (1)

So going by your theory then you'd buy a Seat cos you can't afford a VW?

Or you'd buy a Skoda cos you can't afford a Seat?

Christ

You cant get a PD150 A3.. pay over the odds?? Had mine for 2 years, put 30k on it and lost £1k on it...

And youve no idea what I can or cant afford...

LG John

Note the

Torpid

My thoughts after 20K miles driven in one.

The PD150 MKIV isn't a 'fine car' by any standards. It's 'white goods' on wheels.

While it has the feel of a nice trinket and is ostensibly built like fort knox compared to a MKV it's just plain '****' to drive.

It's a car for people who don't like driving. BTW it cost me less than a grand to do those 20K miles and I still wouldn't have another!

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

If VWs are so well built, how come their cars are not even in the top ten for reliability? Yet another myth then.

My money would go on a SEAT.

My lad's had his Ibiza for three years, and it's only had one thing go wrong, a window motor.

Alcazar

Torpid

No it's not a myth, the MKIV is ostensibly one of the best built cars ever made in it's class. Cabin quality, fit and finish are streets ahead of most other cars. What that car suffers from is poor design and thus reliability- window carriers being just one example (made of plastic, window drops down into door-oh!). Skoda, Seat and Audi are all in the same boat because all including the VW's are just built out of the same parts bin.
My own feeling on why they get such different ratings in reliability surveys is probably down to the factories where they are built. Skoda are reckoned to have the most reliable of all the 'VAG' cars, they also have the most modern factory and tooling. I think those two facts are related. Plus consider the way problems are resolved, you'll be hard pushed to find anyone worse than VW customer services and their dealers. They make IM look like customer service gods.

Blueblaster

Great, another thread on diesels. I have a new Civic Diesel and it is an excellent car in every respect bar one. It is not a driver's car. The engine is very heavy and the whole car is set up for cruising rather than going sideways at 100mph.

The opinions on the Golf seem to range from one extreme to the other. Which camp you fall into depends on how you like to drive. If you want a car which you can hurl around bends then you'll need a traditional performance car. However, if you get your thrills from a solid burst of acceleration down a sliproad before you cruise along in the outside lane then you are most definitely a diesel man.

One thing I have found is that I now drive much more slowly everywhere I go and I now rarely use my car's 140bhp. Bearing in mind what I have said above, I would look seriously at a newer, lower mileage, lower power Golf diesel for the same money because most of the time you won't use the extra power. Also, unless you are determined to get a VW I would strongly suggest looking at other manufacturers. Diesel technology has come a long way so you will need to check exactly which engine is in each car you are considering. But other than that there are some excellent cars out there, made by less snobby manufacturers, that would probably serve you a lot better than the Golf.

Welcome to the world of diesels . You can't argue with 600 miles for 40 quid - it leaves you loads of cash to spend on other exciting things.

Torpid

Fuel really isn't that much of an issue though compared to the other costs of motoring. At least not in my opinion. Depreciation is, which is where the PD150 I had won above all others. Can't think of many motors that allow you to do over 20K miles and cost about a grand in depreciation.

You're right though about one thing, if you get your driving jollies from out accelerating other cars down sliproads then the new 'high power' diesels are great fun. Personally I found 2K's worth of revs,a huge lunge forward and change up yet again extremely boring, which is why I wouldn't have any diesel car except maybe a 6 cylinder new BMW unit with 4 k's worth to play with.

Blueblaster

One word on depreciation. The Golf did extremely well for two reasons. First it was a Golf. Second it had the best diesel engine by miles. Everyone has now caught up and there are loads of great diesels out there. Provided you don't buy something really stupid you should get decent residuals on just about anything.

RB5201

Having decided upon a golf, should I spend a bit more and get the newer shape (04 onwards?) or save a few quid and stick with 52/03/53 models?

Apart from a slightly newer car/slightly different shape what else would I get with the newer model.

Thanks fot the comments so far, seems people either love or hate the golf!!

Timo.

Most people in the know say the 130 bhp is the better engine. I have heard the 150 having some nasty problems.

If you chip the 130/150 you almost get the same result so whats the point in forking out for the more expensive 150??

Thats the way I look at it when I bought my 130 bhp 6 speed sport. It was a superb car but I got rid after 6 months to get a 4motion bora which was just awessome. Handly in the wet, far better than my subaru is at the minute. It just gripped, gripped and gripped.

T.

Torpid

The MKV is actually reasonable fun to drive so I'd go with that. MKIV's have the worst chassis of any car I've driven, kind of remind me of a MK1/2 Vectra ie wooden, chassis flex, axle tramp.

paul2070

I bought one last year after several other cars,and i have to say that the performance was excellent(in some places,i.e.midrange it was as quick,if not quicker then my Focus RS was),and the economy was also excellent(my best was 53.4mpg),however,it was not really a drivers car,even after i put a set of coilovers on it,and when i follwed them up with some 19's(which looked stunning ),the economy went down to around 35mpg(according to the computer ).

Like you,i set a budget(9k),but could not find anything that i wanted for that budget,so in the end i paid £10,200,and had to make a 430 mile round trip to get the car in the spec(Leather,climate,5 door,sensible miles)i wanted.

In 10k the car never put a foot wrong,and i sold it on ebay 9 months later and lost £400.....................i wish i could have had a few deals like that this year

scoobynutta555

OMG, you've just opened a can of worms, 150 owners hate you saying this! I too choose the 130 over the 150

Blueblaster

Could you expand on your reasoning for choosing a Golf? By all accounts they are an expensive purchase, are poorly equipped as standard and, according to a number of posters, not that great to drive. Is it just because it is the easiest car to defend in the pub or have you made a logical, reasoned choice? There is a huge choice of Fords/Vauxhalls that are a year old and within your budget. They don't have the sexy badge, but are great cars that will serve you better than Golf.

One thing I noted when looking at the Golf was that my golf clubs wouldn't fit in the back. Is it a struggle to get a pram in there? I only mention it as it is rather relevant to your purchase

paul2070

Having owned a MKIV Golf and a Seat Leon(albeit a Cupra R),the Golf has got a very small boot(both shallow and narrow),and one of our prams only just fit in lengthways.The Leon was much bigger both in depth and length,and of course,you could buy a Leon Cupra TDI150(the last ones even had the Cupra R bodykit if that was your thing),which would certainly be newer,if not cheaper,although i have seen a couple of Leon Cupra TDI's for well under 10k with around 50k on them or less.

Christ

Let me think..
- Sports Suspension
- Quicker, with power higher in the rev range
- Front mount intercooler, lower air dam etc..
- 16" Montreal Alloys instead of 15"
- Residuals

They are the main reasons... Im afraid the 130 is second best, good though it is.

The MkIV's achilles heal was always the suspension though, the sports suspension improves things, but only the R32 handled... thats the main area of improvement on the MKV.

Chris

P.S. Prams fit in mine (previous car) ok, but its not the widest of boots.

logiclee

Please have a drive of one before you decide, compared to the Focus or the new Golf the PD150 is a poor drive with numb handling and lifeless steering.
All the sports suspension and big wheels do is make the ride overly firm.
The PD150 is also showing it's age, modern diesels are less gruff and have a wider spread of useable power and torque. I'd much rather have the refinement and power/torque delivery of a modern 2.0 16V 130/140bhp engine from a number of manufacturers than the PD150.
All IMO of course.

If you are thinking of a family check out the boot space and especially the rear legroom on the old Golf. My wifes Fabia nearly matches the old Golf for interior leg room.

Cheers
Lee

mark3evo

we went from 1 car ( Espace ) to a 03 STI for Me and a 130 tdi gti for the missus.
Paid £9,000 for a the tdi 50k miler - summary- good MPG avg 51 , comfy , quiet on motorway - numb handling - ok in wet with traction control on.

Avg fuel econ between both cars (26+51)/2 = 38.5 mpg - so i cant complain

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

You either HAVE to be kidding, or there is summat seriously wrong with the Scoob you have.

VWs 4-motion is like driving a shopping trolley, it's a joke. I could out-handle one on my pushbike. Mind it IS titanium

Alcazar

MattW

Wife has a 54 MkV Golf 140 and it is good fun to drive, plenty of power and handles well for a FWD car. Would recommend going the extra.

Mike123

Unless you car is equipped with a pass airbag that switches off I would suggest that rear leg room won't be as important as boot space unless you are planning to keep your car for over 5 years.
Kids will still be able to kick the back of the front seats when they are bigger anyway even in something with spacious rear capacity.

talizman

iTrader: (1)

As someone else has mentioned, I assume your Scoob is knackered if the above is the case?

Either that or its merely a case of the Bora not having enough power to get close to losing grip?


I love how you justify the running costs of a Scoob by averaging it against an extremely economical car!