Having long considered lots of cars, varying from Audi A3's, Ford Focus, Vauxhall Astras and 1998 -> 3 series. I keep coming back to the Golf, though there is a slight question mark over its reliability.
I have read numerous reports on problems with window failure and coil pack issues.
Can anyone tell me how this affects the 1.8 20v (NON TURBO) as many reports seem to state that it only affects the turbo (with regards to the coil packs), but that doesnt sound right to me, as the 20v is the same engine but with a turbo stuck on?
Also why did VW drop the 1.8 20v in 2000 and left the only petrol model the dire 2.0 8v.
I took the 2.0 8v out for a test drive the other day and the engine was harsh and slow,(it actually put me off going through the rev range as it sounded so terrible) in 3rd it barely accelerated. Found it very hard to fault the rest of the car however. I actually consider the plastics in the golf to be better than the 1998+ audi a3 and bmw 3 series compact (latest one), with the audi coming a close second.
Also I have heard about premature cambelt failure at about 70k-80k, surely the cambelt change should be before then, anyway?
Any further details would be greatly appreciated.
|
|
Keith,not sure what your budget is,but i think after paying top money for this golf you will be rather dissapointed.The reliability issues are over hyped a little i think,however, the golf is a soggy drive,and vastly underpowered,and the vw dealerships are useless as well as expensive.The golf is regarded by many as a ultra reliable "last for ever" machine but this is just not the case.
|
I have a '99 turbo 1.8 GTi owned since new. No problems to report (apart from a couple of headlight bulbs) and I have been very please with it. I think the coil packs only affected certain years/models - might be worth checking with VW.
Out of preference I wouldn't buy a non-turbo version - the performance is just not good enough (and there isn't that much price difference in the 2nd hand market). The turbo version has proved to be very reliable (esp in the 150bhp guise) and is used in many VAG cars.
I believe vw replaced the 1.8 non turbo with the very old 2.0 due to emission regs.
I hope this helps.
|
Thanks for the replies
I was only looking at getting a 99 1.8 20v (one of the latest cars for the golf with this engine)and that would have cost about £6000. I have since been doing some research into it and it appears that this engine also has problems with water pump failure due to a plastic propeller, as well as rain coming into the car due to some drainage issue, windows collapsing due to plastic clips, premature cambelt failure, ecu problems e.t.c e.t.c the list goes on. I think I will leave it, shame as it would have been a great little car if VW had spent what was effectively a few pounds to get it right. A turbo always sounds good but I would afraid of repair costs on one of those!!.
Looks like its back to the E46 3 series, bit more cash but I suppose worth it for the piece of mind.
|
Overhyped and not that reliable.
Plus, come on. It's a GTI with 115bhp. It's pretty damn slow by anyones standards let alone a car with GTI on the tailgate. You can do so much better than a VW for £6000 if you are after a GTI car.
£6000 for a 5 year old mass produced mid specification hatchback? Honestly, thats really quite silly. You could get a 2001 Focus 1.8 Zetec for that and it'd be better than the Golf all round. Well, it wouldn't have the 'perceived' reliability and 'prestige' as the Golf, but who wants perceived anything. Actual is what counts, and I'd wager a Focus is more reliable in the real world than a Golf.
|
I totally agree with you Michael, I knew before I asked that VW quality was no-where near what they are perceived to be (been saying it for years to my friends), I just didnt realise that the problems extended quite this far!.
I looked at a focus, I know it handles e.t.c but the plastics that are used inside totally put me off it, bit too run of the mill and I would be worried about resale values.
I am now thinking about a 1998-1999 E36 BMW Coupe, as that has an excellent reputation for handling and good build quality.
Though I am just about to delve further into the build quality issue in a second, by looking at the "car by car breakdown" and other resources. *X fingers its OK*
|
Problem with the E36 is that its a car from the last century and good as it was, this now shows. It was designed in the late 80's and the interior etc is quite dated now. Good cheap cars but I wouldn't be happy throwing £6000 at one.
If you want a BMW what about the lovely E39 5 Series?
|
I was really only looking at something Golf/ 2 door 3 series sized.
The e36 series dash is dated, but I think it can be seen in much the same light as an old 911 (I am obviously not suggesting they are the same kind of car), it may be dated but in some strange kind of way, it actually adds and is part of the car.
I will check the insurance and see one in the flesh before I decide.
It is unbelievably hard to find a car that matches my needs.
£6-8k for a 3-6 year old car.
3 door
Medium (golf level of perceived reputation) to premium (BMW e.t.c)
Low depreciation
Reasonable insurance
Handles and performs
Nice dash and exterior looks great
as well as reliability.
The new mini cooper is pretty high up on that list, but the prices are silly for a 3-4 year old car and I think a large price drop is inevitable, once people get bored with it, like the new beetle (though the Mini is actually a good car, where the beetle wasnt, so that will probably save it?
|
|
From experience the 1.8 20v is more refined than the 2.0 8v though is less gutsy at low revs making it feel slower unless it is reved, it produces 125 hp (v 115 for the 2.0) at the top end which is respectable for a 1.8. Although, perhaps, neither fully justify the GTi tag I reckon the 1.8 20v would be a reasonable car to own.
|
From experience the 1.8 20v is more refined than the 2.0 8v though is less gutsy at low revs making it feel slower unless it is reved, it produces 125 hp (v 115 for the 2.0) at the top end which is respectable for a 1.8. Although, perhaps, neither fully justify the GTi tag I reckon the 1.8 20v would be a reasonable car to own.
Although it would have been preferable to have a true GTI experience, I wouldnt have minded the slightly uninspiring handling, as otherwise its pretty much what I am looking for. Then problems arise with the 1.8 20v showing an alarming amount of very serious faults, as well as problems with the rest of the car, door seals, leaking roofs (due to the drainage tubes being cut to short or they block easily), windows collapsing, electrical problems e.t.c
If the golf mk4 was reliable, even with its slightly uninspiring handling. I would have bought it, as its not and I really dont want to run the risk of the water pump or cambelt going when it feels like, its just not an option anymore :(
|
The Golf is gutless and soggy. Try a Seat Leon Cupra - a great car and with proper performance.
--
\"Nothing less than 8 cylinders will do\"
|
I wouldn't go so far as to say an alarming number of serious faults; that's over-egging it a bit.
The two issues with the 20 valve motor are a limited number of reports of pre-80k cambelt failure and the cost of any work that requires head-off investigation/repair - with five valves per pot it pushes the labour rates and parts cost up.
I have an 84k mile Passat 20V and had the cambelt replaced as a precaution at 76k. Because of a minor seepage from the head gasket I've had that done too. Cost £350.
No other issues with it. But not cheap when the biggies need doing. Will make a nice car for the next person who has it because Muggins here has already stumped up...
|
If the golf mk4 was reliable, even with its slightly uninspiring handling. I would have bought it, as its not and I really dont want to run the risk of the water pump or cambelt going when it feels like, its just not an option anymore :(
Go for a 2.0 Focus, a great drive, quicker than either Golf mentioned, probably better built and cheaper to service/insure etc.
|
Go for a 2.0 Focus, a great drive, quicker than either Golf mentioned, probably better built and cheaper to service/insure etc.
Although it handles and performs well, its a bit to run of the mill, the "visible" build quality and plastics used leave a lot to be desired and it depreciates fast. Admittedly a great car for driving dynamics, but not for much else (for me). The Focus has its problems with reliability, but what car doesnt.
|
|
