Thinking of buying one for the missus, what should i look for and any body owned one, are they any good?
Crap questions i know but would like info if poss
Cheers Ian

 

Only driven one once - but that was enough. Think mini-Merc (comfortable, swift, image) and you are about there. Handling is awful, so front heavy, very thirsty, quick-ish, but not enormously quicker than the 16v GTi in the real world.

If its a bargain then fine, but otherwise - could do better. You will probably find a newer Alfa 145 Cloverleaf will be cheaper and is far more entertaining and quicker in most circumstances.

 

my mate has an early k plate one, done 105k, head gasket went, spent 500 having it profesionally fitted and tuned, one month later gone again, now has been told engine waterways are completly corroded and needs new engine, aparantly the early ones suffer from it! ouch!

 

My mate had a K reg VR6 for about 2 years and he was very happy with it. Fairly good performance and decent build quality. He bought a MY01 WRX before Xmas and now wishes he had bought one a lot earlier instead of the Golf!

Edited to say that there are loads of mods available for the MK3s, companies like Dubsport usually sell decent examples.

Alex

[Edited by alexf - 3/17/2002 4:23:47 PM]

 

I was looking for a VR6 and heard about the engine problems on early cars (92-95) and so ended up with a Mk3 GTI 16v.

Wasn't much slower than the VR6, but it was lighter and better on fuel. The VR6 has 174 BHP but is a heavy brute, mine has 150 BHP and due to being lighter it a nicer drive.

Mike

 

Buy her a Corrado VR6, the ultimate VW. much much much better than the golf vr6. More powerful(2.9, 190+bhp), fantastic fwd handling, looks better and more exlusive. the list goes on. the only main drawback is that they are more expensive than the golf vr6's.

and no, I'm not selling mine

 

I had an L reg one b4 trading it in for my Scoob. Very cheap (3.8k - 2 years ago at auction), ran it for a year between 100 and 125k miles and got my money back on it. It was a bit unreliable electrically, but mechanically very strong. Has an excellent noise and was much, much quicker than my mates Mk 2 16v. Never was completely happy with the way it handled, a friends Corrado seemed better. Had to flog it when I was dusted by a Scoob and while they arent Scoob quick, they dont exactly hang around. I'm pleased I had it for the time I did. If you take a pax out who isnt used to scooby-type performance, their eyes tended to widen a (little) bit. Averaged 25 mpg whilst being driven pretty hard. HTH.

[Edited by kwakman - 3/17/2002 8:36:04 PM]

[Edited by kwakman - 3/18/2002 1:21:52 AM]

 

I had one for a bit.
Corrado is far better.
I liked the engine. Felt nice and quick 197bhp(5 gears)- although not, it feels quicker than my mates V6 4motion 204 bhp(6 gears).
Handling and brakes felt very poor for the performance. Therefore not a good performance car in my book. If you stiffened the springs ect then would probably have a good motor on your hands.
Hope this helps
Steve

 

Heavy lump of expensive crap

 

Thanks all,
It is a M 95 so possibly could be fooked engine. Is the general concencus that a Mk3 16v is a better car to go for?
The other option she wouldn't mind is a Bmw 318is or 325 coupe. At the moment she has Peugeot 306 dturbo so anything is better than the tractor! She likes driving my P1 but we cant afford the costs of 2 scoobs
Ian

 

Nozzer,
I drive a VR6 highline and yeah they are heavy but they handle more than well enough unless you are on the edge, very cumfy and the engine is exceptionaly torquey.

As to the GTI comment off the mark there is only a little in it, but in the real world once moving the VR6 is in it's element lot's of roll on acceleration, It will beat a std GTI without breaking a sweat. It really depends on what you want, if you want a quick car that you can drive for 500 miles in and get out and still feel pampered then it's the kiddy if you want a hot hatch by the GTI. The Corrado is the better car IMHO but there is not that much in it !!

Good luck, oh and as for the engines put Vr6 into a search engine and get in touch with the VR6 owners club, post 95 the lumps are good for at least 500k and they have plenty running to prove it.

Phill

 

I've got the autocar road test for the vr6 and 16v Gti - there is a big differece in speed. 0-60 VR6 6.9sec/ Gti 8.0sec 0-100 VR6 18.1 sec/ Gti 22.8 sec. Both were reviewed as very good cars and ragged on the limit. Fuel econemy was crp on the VR6.

 

Suppose it depends on where you are reading it... I read 7.2 for the VR6 and 7.8 for the 16v, with top speeds of 138 (vr6) and 134 (16v)

Have to say though, the VR6 had a far nicer soundtrack than the 16v!!

Still, I'm happy with the 16v for now... until I get some cash together for a real beast of a car - has to be sub 5 secs to 60!!

 

Those figures make them sound close mike16v. They aren't, the VR6 is substantially quicker on the road due to a very usable torque spread. The 30-70 times might be a better real life bench mark. Has anyone got them?

 

In case the Corrado VR6 is still in the frame....
most places state the 0-60 about 6.4secs (although evo quote 6.2)
30-70 is 5.7secs (compare this to other cars with similar 0-60, most of them are at least a second off this!)
top speed about 150.
not sure about the 1/4 mile and 0-100 but certainly a lot quicker than the golf. and will keep up witha 260bhp scooby import on the motorways above 80 (unless my mate's isn't giving 260bhp of course!)
180lb/f torque and is goes in any gear at any speed although rev it to get the real power, all in all great flexibility.