Whats the best Mk1 or Mk2 VW Golf Gti to go for?

Nephew

Moving on from my last thread where I was considering buying an old VR6 Golf. I think from a running cost point of view it would be more sensible to go for a mk1 or 2 GTI instead. Of the two which one do you guys think offers the best performance? What faults should I look out for?

Thanks

Neilw

This one is quite nice

http://vagdrivers.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=15875

daedalus2097

I've only had limited experience in both, but from that I much prefer the Mk 2 - just feels far more solid, and the upkeep of a younger car is generally going to be cheaper/easier. Having said that though, they're both old cars at this stage and will cost you in time and money to keep on the road...

That Mk2 of Neilw's is some impressive piece of machinery though!!!!

Nephew

Yeah, that's a nice Mk2 but sadly it's out of my budget and I can only imagine how a LHD would be a pain in hole for car parks and tolls.

S.I.R

personally i love the mkII but yeah i wouldn't mind a mkI

bbam

Its all personal taste... I grew up wanting a MK1 GTD or GTI and I'd still love one... Maybe I never grew up... I'll get one when I'm older..;)

2 Espressi

I wouldn't go for either really, not as a daily driver, unless you are fairly handy mechanically. After all, these are 20 + yr old cars, so they require constant TLC and attention. If that's not an issue then one isn't necessarily better than the other. Personally I'd oprefer a nice 16v Mk II, but that's just me!

groupb

I'm going to shock everyone here by saying that I actually like mk1 & mk2 golfs.
If it was me the heart would say a 1.8 late mk1 gti if you could find one , but a mk2 would be easier to find and run. I don't know why you were thinking of a vr6 as the mk3 golf is a pile of s****.

Nephew

Neil is that your car in the link? Its damn nice

Dasilva94

groupb wrote: »

I'm going to shock everyone here by saying that I actually like mk1 & mk2 golfs.
If it was me the heart would say a 1.8 late mk1 gti if you could find one , but a mk2 would be easier to find and run. I don't know why you were thinking of a vr6 as the mk3 golf is a pile of s****.

Why do you rekon the mk3 Golf VR6 is crap?
I think they put a bored out 3.2 6 Litre in the current R32 Golf, do you think that is naff also? Plus if money was no object would you buy a current Golf GTi or an R32?
Finally do you think the manual is better than the DSG transmission?

Apologies for so many questions, but I'd really appreciate feedback from folks who have had experience of these cars.

Slidey

I just bought a 1990 16v 3 door Gti today.
Needs a little bit of work but it has been a while since i had a mkii and i forgot what fun they were to drive..
Will lob up a pic tommorrow if i get a chance..

zed_head

The Mk2 is the more plentiful model and also the easiest to live with. Buy
a good one and it should be relatively cheap to run. The Mk1 wouldn't be
a bad car either but some part are obsolete from the main stealer so buy
carefully. However the Mk1 is the original and to some still the best. It's
more rawer than the Mik2 and a properly maintained one is a really fun
car. It you like cars to be of a revvy nature then go for the 16v. The 8v
tends to be lazier feeling and is the better car around town (in my opinion)
as it feels torquier.
The Mk3 will be far more expensive to run due to high road tax, thirsty
for fuel and they also can drink oil. The Mk1's and Mk2's will also be the
better driver's car. The Mk3 VR6 is more refined and was designed as a
rival for the E36 BMW so it's more suited as a high speed cruiser type car.

Common faults to look out for on the Mk1's and Mk2's are: crunchy 2nd
gear, noisy (hydraulic tappets), soggy door cards and torn driver's seat
bolsters. On the Mk1's check for rust and check out the fuel filler neck
which can rust, block fuel lines and cause bad running. The distributor
unit on the 16v models can give trouble.
Not sure about the VR6 as I haven't owned one. But even a good one
can consume alot of oil apparently.

Slidey

Hey i'm a procrasitinator but I eventually took a pic!
Both of the golfs...
One a 150 tdi, the other a 1.8 16v Gti

TestTransmission

slideways wrote: »

Hey i'm a procrasitinator but I eventually took a pic!
Both of the golfs...
One a 150 tdi, the other a 1.8 16v Gti

Havent got round to payin the vrt yet? :D:D:D

Slidey

jackncoke wrote: »

Havent got round to payin the vrt yet? :D:D:D

My 'To Do' list is long and varied... maybe after July??
Its off the road 'til then

zed_head

Neilw wrote: »

This one is quite nice

http://vagdrivers.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=15875

That is some car !!!

chiefwiggum

i had a golf vr6 1993 and its an animal to run tax and insure,great car though,in the process of buying 28 yr old golf mk1 gti cabrio,if it was me i'd go for mk1,just for the driving experience and wow factor and will prob qualify for classic insurance too

junkyard

I had six mark 2 GTI's, just sold one to Onkle, and I think they are incredible, I have one nearly restored to original condition. The downside is the boyracers have got hold of most of them by now and wrecked them with modifications.

chiefwiggum

i totally agree with yu junkyard in regards to those little f*****s wreckin quality cars with neons and stupid lookin add ons and stickers like fast as f**k and rule the bends bend the rules ..little c**ts

Alfasudcrazy

I agree too - I had an awful job trying to get an original unmolested Mk II but I eventually did. This guy in Bristol is great for finding nice Gti's - both mk I & II's and is where I bought mine. Here is his website.

www.futureclassiccars.co.uk

Here is my Mk II. I prefer the Mk II to the Mk I. Its just an all round better car.
I have done some 'modding' to mine but I think (hope) you will agree that the mods are a positive improvement.

Corrado G60 15' BBS alloys.
Corrado G60 hubs and calipers (new 280mm front discs and pads)
16V tinted glass all around.
Neusome short shift gear changer and new gear linkages.
16v Rainbow trim seats front and back (junked the tartan trim seats that were in it.

... well that's it really. Some pics :pac:

zed_head

That's one of the nicest Mk2's I've seen in a long while ! Quite a rare colour
too. Very very tasty and original looking. Well wear !

CJhaughey

Lovely GTi!
I have a real soft spot for the MkII Golf, really simple and well built cars.
Parts aren't a problem and fuel economy is surprisingly good for a car with that much performance.
Does it have PAS?

Alfasudcrazy

Yes - this one has the PAS - unlike my first Gti which I owned in the 80's. It also had wide 205 tyres which ensured it was like a lorry to steer at low speeds.

Ah .... GIV 708 where are you now.

zed_head

I used to have one identical to that.............86 C 2138.

blackbox

If it's style you want, it has to be the MkI. A beautifully proportioned car.

The MkII was very "ordinary" and heavy looking by comparison, even if it had better rear suspension & handling.

:cool:

zed_head

The Mk1 is probably the better driver's car......lighter, more nimble and
more raw feeling but the Mk2 is far easier to live with. It has marginally
better brakes (discs are the rear !) and the post '87 fuel injection
(Digifant) is smoother. It's also a roomier car and a bit more refined while
still entertaining on the road.
The Mk1 will always be seen as the ultimate collectors Golf though. Also
some parts for the Mk1's are now obsolete.
I'd love a minter Mk1 but a person would stand a better chance of finding
a decent Mk2.
Hmmmm how about a Mk2 G60 ?!?

klaus23

zed_head wrote: »

The Mk2 is the more plentiful model and also the easiest to live with. Buy a good one and it should be relatively cheap to run. The Mk1 wouldn't be a bad car either but some part are obsolete from the main stealer so buy carefully. However the Mk1 is the original and to some still the best. It's more rawer than the Mik2 and a properly maintained one is a really fun car. It you like cars to be of a revvy nature then go for the 16v. The 8v tends to be lazier feeling and is the better car around town (in my opinion) as it feels torquier.

I'm on my second Mk2 and have driven Mk1s and would agree with the above. You gain on the Mk2 with better (but not perfect) rustproofing, parts avaliablity and the option of the quicker 16v (my weapon of choice), but with the Mk1 you get more petrolhead kudos.

If you're going for a Mk1, pay the premium and buy an original Campaign (run-out 1.8 model, also called 'Pirelli Edition'). If you're buying a Mk2, save yourself the hassle and pick up an NCT'd car in Ireland, there's plenty on VAGdrivers these days.

The great thing about these cars is that from a mechanical point of view, they're very easy to work on, even for a novice. There's also a specialist in these parts, the recommended Autowerks in Midleton, Co. Cork.

zed_head

Tell us more about the 16v Klaus ! I've always had a soft spot for those
myself.

klaus23

zed_head wrote: »

Tell us more about the 16v Klaus ! I've always had a soft spot for those
myself.

There's a lot written about the difference between the two but unless you've driven both cars it's very hard to describe what sets them apart.

In my humble opinion:

The 8v has a lovely linear power delivery that allows you to just leave it in gear and pot around town or hack around country lanes, but it can feel a little lost on the open road. The 827 engine is a tried and tested design that lasted from the 1970s up to the modern day Passat, and I also deep down think that the single cam suits the car best.

However...

The 16v is a modern twincam engine which seems lazy at low revs, comes on cam agressively and screams towards the 7200rpm redline. It is genuinely quicker and when kept on the boil feels like a much faster car. It was introduced by VW to counter the new contenders to the 80s hot hatch throne, specifically the 205 1.9 GTi and has been shown to - when healthy - generate more than its claimed 139bhp. It does come at a cost, parts such as timing belts, ignition leads etc. are more expensive and 020Y gearboxes (with a taller top gear than the 8v) are by now hard to come by - mine (fitted with a Quaife LSD) cost over £500.

The debate rages endlessly but if you could get an extended drive in both cars you would get a better picture of what the main differences are. To me the 16v was the ultimate hot Golf (G60 excluded) that wasn't bettered until the Mk4 R32.

Your other option is an 8v with a hot-ish cam that gives the best of both worlds, I drove a car with that setup and it was lovely.

zed_head

Ah you misunderstood !!!
I meant tell me more about your 16v !!

I've had both types myself.
My last one was an 8v though with a Piper 285 cam, gas flowed head, 4 branch manifold and a Scorpion system. That cost a few €€€ but was a nice motor. My 16v was standard though.