Golf MKVI

.Longshanks.

These are suppose to be the first official pictures of the new mark VI. Not surprising the front looks like the Scirocco

colm_mcm

the rear lights look dreadful IMO. The doors are very Passat-ish, a step back visually from the Mk5 I'd say.

pburns

Looks more like a Golf 5.5 than a Mk 6...

.Longshanks.

AFAIK the glass and roof hasn't been changed.
And it'll look even worse on 14" wheels with plastic hubcaps....

ronnie3585

It's a bit meh to be honest. The front looks like the new Scirocco with its hair pulled back. The rear lights aren't great either, they look out of proportion with the back of the car. The interior looks nice though.

Zonda999

I, for one like it.It really is just a mk5.5 because the platform is exactly the same as the mk5, which is a good thing because that platform has the best mix of comfort and agility in its class.I'm not convinced the production model will be 100% exactly the same as this.I think the front should be slightly curvier and the rear lights should be a bit smaller.My main hopes for this car, though are under the bonnet.Hopefully we'll see, from launch, the all new 1.2TSI and 1.6TDI engines in action.These should be extremely competitve in terms of co2(Band B for the entry petrol and Band A for the entry diesels) which should mean fair pricing in this country

Bluefoam

Bland,

It has been designed to cut production costs of the current model because they can't make enough money from them.
Expect even worse build quality, low spec and high price.

Typical VW...

qz

Front is definately better than the back. Nice alloys in the first picture.

Barr

Its a very average looking car although I'm sure this will not deter the usual Golf buyer

Stevie Dakota

Comatose styling. VW is obviously terrified of messing with a proven formula, but I can't help thinking buyers these days want a bit more fair.

ronnie3585

Stevie Dakota wrote: »

Comatose styling. VW is obviously terrified of messing with a proven formula, but I can't help thinking buyers these days want a bit more fair.

VW are probably of the opinion that if it ain't broke why fix it. It would be nice if they were a bit more adventurous like Honda were with the Civic.

JoeA3

The rear lights look like they were lifted from the Toureag parts bin... seem out of proportion with the rest of it. Side profile looks very similar to the current car, just the doors have been re-shaped a bit and door strips removed too... watch out for door dings

As others have said, this is more of a MK 5.5 than an all-new model.

I like that new steering wheel though! And that brown leather looks good, interior is otherwise same as Scirocco!

Plug

Looks way nicer than the V IMO:)

Mr Benevolent

Wow, almost ugly. Not a big Golf fan but this really is bland. Looks like they merged the worst parts of the VW bin.

Biro

Stevie Dakota wrote: »

Comatose styling. VW is obviously terrified of messing with a proven formula, but I can't help thinking buyers these days want a bit more fair.

"buyers" might want a bit more flare, but Golf buyers don't... they just want a Golf, and that's what they'll get in this, more of the same, updated just enough.
Interior is an improvement, rest is sameness.

bazz26

Underwelming to say the least.

The folks who style the Golf must be the laziest designers in the world. Will appeal to previous and current Golf owners though.

Ferris

It was taking twice the time to build a MK5 Golf than it did to build a Focus or an Astra. The Mk6 will have a simpler independant rear suspension appearantly and different non-independant suspension for the US!

The standard MK5 was bland as bland imo and needed to be a GTi or TSi to look any way special. MK6 looks margainly more distinctive but it'll be interesting to see how the GTi looks.

siralfalot

my god, thats the most bland & boring looking thing I've seen since, well the Nissan Tida, I can feel myself turning beige just by looking at it.

antodeco

Longshanks100 wrote: »

I have to say, the rear looks very a3esque

Zonda999

Ferris wrote: »

It was taking twice the time to build a MK5 Golf than it did to build a Focus or an Astra. The Mk6 will have a simpler independant rear suspension appearantly and different non-independant suspension for the US!

The standard MK5 was bland as bland imo and needed to be a GTi or TSi to look any way special. MK6 looks margainly more distinctive but it'll be interesting to see how the GTi looks.

I would think they left the european suspension untouched afterall.If they were to skimp on that, it could be a serious mistake!That said, i cant imagine the suspension on the back of a focus would be any less complex than the stuff at the back of the mk5 golf.The focus did still handle better afterall

Ferris

Zonda999 wrote: »

I would think they left the european suspension untouched afterall.If they were to skimp on that, it could be a serious mistake!That said, i cant imagine the suspension on the back of a focus would be any less complex than the stuff at the back of the mk5 golf.The focus did still handle better afterall

Didn't know they left it the way it was. I would agree that it would have pushed the golf back into the stone age vs the Focus.

There is no way of knowing if the golf ind. suspension is similar to the focus in complexity. Maybe Ford just have better suspension engineers/suppliers. Also manufacturers have different acceptance standards for suspension. I suspect that VW got their design for manufacture all wrong for the MK5.

Zonda999

Ferris wrote: »

Didn't know they left it the way it was. I would agree that it would have pushed the golf back into the stone age vs the Focus.

There is no way of knowing if the golf ind. suspension is similar to the focus in complexity. Maybe Ford just have better suspension engineers/suppliers. Also manufacturers have different acceptance standards for suspension. I suspect that VW got their design for manufacture all wrong for the MK5.

The reason i would expect they left the suspension alone is because i'm sure vw can realise the risk they would be taking.All they needed to do, really is change the way its produced.The mk5 golf was and is considered still the be one of best if not the best car in its class.Not only does it have the usual golf merits but for the first time it can compete dynamically with its competitors.Its beensaid it has the best compromise of dynamic ablitity and comfort in tis class

Bearcat

asthetically I am in the minority here but I like it.....I never warmed to the ugly grill of the current model and preferred the classic lines of the older models....just me.

wait till they bring out an r32 of the new model...it'll look savage.

Zonda999

Theres a lot more info on the Mk6 available today through the usual sources.

http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/Volkswagen-Golf/234341/

http://www.whatcar.com/news-special-report.aspx?NA=234338

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/autoexpressnews/225987/allnew_golf_is_raring_to_go.html

http://www.vwvortex.com/artman/publish/vortex_news/article_2395.shtml

The actual look of it is no real surprise but the biggest advances are under the bonnet.I'm disappointed that the 80bhp 1.4 is still there.I would have at least expected a slight power hike.They have improved it, though.Its more economical than in the Mk5 and has lower emissions.

There is also a 105bhp 1.6 and i am led to believe that this is the same engine as in the new fabia and ibiza.Tbh, i thought these would be replaced by a new 1.2TSI but they still may be within a year of launch.They may not be fully developed yetAll of the other petrol engines appear to be the same

As for diesels, theres conflicting information in the links above as to whether the new base 90bhp diesel engine is 1.6 or 1.9.One things for sure, though.All diesels are common rail from launch.Surprisingly, the next in line is a 2.0 CR TDI producing 110bhp.I would have thought the diesel in this power bracket to be the smaller one but none the less, it produces just 119g CO2/Km, putting it in the 100e tax band.The other diesels are the 2.0 TDI in 140bhp and 170bhp outputs.There are also rumours of a 204bhp GTD, a diesel GTi

As for the new GTi, its going to be here by this time next year wiht the same engine, tweaked to give slightly more power and be much more fuel efficient and eco friendly.I suspect it'll be the new 211bhp 2.0Tfsi audi are soon putting in the A4/A5.Thats a good thing IMO because that engine i the A4 manages over 40mpg an Co2 emissions of around 155g/Km
The next "R" golf is believed to be getting a 3.6 v6 producing over 280bhp.

It will be available in 3 or 5 door form from lauch with a new estate, plus model and cabrio following on after

omega man

I would be very suprised if the MKVI GTI did not gain an additional 30-40 BHP over the MKV.

Beta Ray Bill

Looks Like a Girls Car

E92

Good lord STILL offering antiquated 1.4 and 1.6 petrol engines, in this, a heavily facelifted car :eek:. All that said the petrol engines are likely to be of very little interest given that somewhere in the region of 85% of VWs sold are now diesel. So this complaint of mine isn't really important for this market methinks.

119 g/km from the 2.0 TDI 110 is identical to that of the BMW 118d it should be noted(though the BMW has an additional 33 bhp). How much is the betting that the world and his mother will be queueing up for the 1.6 with a measly 90 bhp though here of course:rolleyes:?

Good to see that the antiquated PD lumps have finally given way to the common rail units. This clearly is important for us.

If they could get that new engine from the A4 2.0 TFSI 211 in the Golf VI GTI then you would have an engine that develops no less than 51 lb ft of torque more than the Golf V GTI, so that will please all the torque lovers around here:D. Now if they can get it into 20% VRT(and they should be able to since Audi managed it in a much bigger car) it would be some car to have in this country.

Holsten

Horrible... just horrible.

Why would anyone get this when you could get a Scirocco?

Zonda999

E92 wrote: »

Good lord STILL offering antiquated 1.4 and 1.6 petrol engines, in this, a heavily facelifted car :eek:. All that said the petrol engines are likely to be of very little interest given that somewhere in the region of 85% of VWs sold are now diesel. So this complaint of mine isn't really important for this market methinks.

119 g/km from the 2.0 TDI 110 is identical to that of the BMW 118d it should be noted(though the BMW has an additional 33 bhp). How much is the betting that the world and his mother will be queueing up for the 1.6 with a measly 90 bhp though here of course:rolleyes:?

Good to see that the antiquated PD lumps have finally given way to the common rail units. This clearly is important for us.

If they could get that new engine from the A4 2.0 TFSI 211 in the Golf VI GTI then you would have an engine that develops no less than 51 lb ft of torque more than the Golf V GTI, so that will please all the torque lovers around here:D. Now if they can get it into 20% VRT(and they should be able to since Audi managed it in a much bigger car) it would be some car to have in this country.

Very disappointed with the basic petrols as well tbh.At least the 1.6 is now the 16v unit as opposed to 8v in Mk 5.I'm just wondering here, because the 110 TDi is under 120g co2/Km, it would be assumed that the 90 bhp 1.6 TDI is also below that, wouldnt it??Would it not also have been easier to use the 1.6 to get 110 bhp rahther than an unnecessarily big 2.0??I quite like the look of it, though and it would be brilliant if the A4 2.0 tfsi makes it into the new GTi

Also, all this talk of it being cheaper to make yet still having the same rear suspension set up, makes me wonder where exactly vw have managed to cut costs on the thing.

Bluefoam

Zonda999 wrote: »

makes me wonder where exactly vw have managed to cut costs on the thing.

cheaper plastics, basic specs, more basic production methods, quality...

Zonda999

Thats the thing, though.I cant see anything in the interior that makes it look like they cut costs.Even vw themselves say that they want the interior quality to match that of the Mk4.It just looks like its been done with a mix of parts from the eos, scirocco and tiguan and they all have fine interiors.We should see before too long...

pete6296

When is it to be released in Ireland, i currently have a 07 golf tsi which i want to change next year.
I love the Scirocco except for crap boot and rear window which leaves no view, they recommend to get sensors because of design.
Pete

PattheMetaller

I like it. But then, i've always liked my golfs.

pburns

I have to say it's kinda growing on me. The Golf is the one of the few VAG products I'd consider owning. As I understand it the change is to facilitate greater manufacturing efficencies and will NOT effect quality, touch-and-feel etc. We'll see. The Mk V interior was a backward step from the IV IMO. I don't think VW will throw the baby out with the bathwater though, it's a crucial car for them.

I wonder if less complex multi-link suspension will effect the well regarded dynamics though?

brayblue24

Semi-related question here (hopefully not off topic). Currently I have a '05 Audi A4 1.9 TDi and because of high road tax(€511 annually) am now considering a new Golf 1.9TDi GT Sport to cut this out (€150 annually on the VW). I think I prefer the MKV over the MK6 TBH. Is there much difference between my current motor and this car? I've never owned a VW. The A4 is nice car if a bit tight for space in the back. Any thoughts?

Biro

brayblue24 wrote: »

Semi-related question here (hopefully not off topic). Currently I have a '05 Audi A4 1.9 TDi and because of high road tax(€511 annually) am now considering a new Golf 1.9TDi GT Sport to cut this out (€150 annually on the VW). I think I prefer the MKV over the MK6 TBH. Is there much difference between my current motor and this car? I've never owned a VW. The A4 is nice car if a bit tight for space in the back. Any thoughts?

So you're thinking of spending money to save a euro a day on tax?
I'm not a fan of A4's, but they're a much more comprehensive car than a golf. More refined and upmarket.

Dave147

Please keep your A4, this thing looks dreadful! Well I don't mind the front, but the rear is horrendous, looks like it's out of proportion. Also reminds me of the BMW 1 series, ugliest car on the road imo.

ronnie3585

Biro wrote: »

So you're thinking of spending money to save a euro a day on tax?

+1 good point. Keep the A4.

E92

Zonda999 wrote: »

Very disappointed with the basic petrols as well tbh.At least the 1.6 is now the 16v unit as opposed to 8v in Mk 5.I'm just wondering here, because the 110 TDi is under 120g co2/Km, it would be assumed that the 90 bhp 1.6 TDI is also below that, wouldnt it??Would it not also have been easier to use the 1.6 to get 110 bhp rahther than an unnecessarily big 2.0??I quite like the look of it, though and it would be brilliant if the A4 2.0 tfsi makes it into the new GTi

Also, all this talk of it being cheaper to make yet still having the same rear suspension set up, makes me wonder where exactly vw have managed to cut costs on the thing.

Thing is though now that we don't do taxation on engine size, it actually doesn't matter that there is a 2.0 TDI with only 110 bhp.

I'd rather a 2.0 with 110 bhp than a 1.6 with 110 or even 120 bhp.

Remember that power comes at the expense of reliability, so a 1.6 with the same power just won't have the durability of the 2.0. The 2.0 will be more reliable and will be still capable of putting out 110 bhp with 200k miles on the clock.

The engine will have a very easy life because the ECU by only allowing it to develop 110 bhp will mean the engine won't get even slightly stressed out at all. There is a reason why the most unreliable version of 1.9 TDI is the most powerful 150 bhp version after all.

As for the new 2.0 TFSI, it is actually a brand new design wholly unrelated to the one in the current Golf GTI in spite of the identical engine capacity. It is the new EA888 engine rather than the EA111 engine in the Mk V GTI.

It takes something like twice as long to build a Golf Mk V as it does to build a Focus apparently. Now the Focus has the more complex suspension set up like the Golf and you don't hear stories of it breaking down all the time. It also has a high quality interior.

This means it shouldn't have been that hard for them to cut costs for the new car.

Anyone got any idea what the CO2 emissions are like for models other than the aforementioned 2.0 TDI 110?

Also does anyone know when we will see the same engine in the Passat replacing the 1.9 TDI 105?

Junior #8

Its just ok, wont have a patch on the mk IV for popularity or stealing market share.
Clever people would go audi A3 for asthetics, and non-idiots would move away from VAG.
Its pretend quality at premium price. But Residuals are good, and thats all that matters in the auto industry anymore in Ireland

brayblue24

Dave147 wrote: »

Please keep your A4, this thing looks dreadful! Well I don't mind the front, but the rear is horrendous, looks like it's out of proportion. Also reminds me of the BMW 1 series, ugliest car on the road imo.

Ironically enough decided today to keep hold of the A4. Fair point about the €1 a day tax and the other points too. Thanks all.

pburns

Junior #8 wrote: »

non-idiots would move away from VAG.
Its pretend quality at premium price. But Residuals are good, and thats all that matters in the auto industry anymore in Ireland

Nice synopsis! I agree:)...

Everyone talks about residuals of VWs but my experience is that you pay thorough the nose for every single extra and some VW dealers will make you feel as if you're doing THEM a favour spending your hard-earned cash. It's swings and roundabouts - cut a slightly keener deal for a better value non-VAG product and it'll all balance out come trade-in time. It's not even as if they have a dynamic advantage like BMWs

And for all those complaining the MkVI is too conservative, lazy styling etc. read this: http://www.autocar.co.uk/blogs/autocarconfidential/archive/2008/08/07/new-golf-we-ve-been-here-before.aspx

It has always been thus...

E92

Zonda999 wrote: »

Very disappointed with the basic petrols as well tbh.At least the 1.6 is now the 16v unit as opposed to 8v in Mk 5.I'm just wondering here, because the 110 TDi is under 120g co2/Km, it would be assumed that the 90 bhp 1.6 TDI is also below that, wouldnt it??Would it not also have been easier to use the 1.6 to get 110 bhp rahther than an unnecessarily big 2.0??I quite like the look of it, though and it would be brilliant if the A4 2.0 tfsi makes it into the new GTi

Sorry to be bringing back such an old thread, but the 1.6 in the Mk VI Golf is actually the same 8 valve engine as the existing the 1.6 in the Golf V, which in turn means it is heavily based on the 1.6 the made its debut over 15 years ago IIRC.

Anyhoo the real reason I decided to post here was to post the CO2 improvements, which are as follows.

1.4 80 bhp - 149 g/km (down from 165 g/km), so it's now into VRT band C rather than D
1.6 102 bhp - 166 g/km (down from 176 g/km), so now it is in VRT band D rather than E
1.4 TSI 122 bhp - 144 g/km (down from 149 g/km), so no change
1.4 TSI 160 bhp which replaces the 1.4 TSI 140 and 170 evidently - 139 g/km with the DSG box, so a big improvement there, down to band B from the Golf V 170's band E and 174 g/km:eek:
2.0 TDI 110 bhp - replacing the 1.9 TDI 105 - there's a 128 g/km version, and of more interest to us, there is a 119 g/km version as well - so hopefully we will get the 119 g/km version and that would put it into band A rather conveniently for us
2.0 TDI 140 bhp - 129 g/km, so now band B rather than band C
2.0 TDI 140 bhp DSG - 142 g/km, so useful big improvement from the current model's 159 g/km and thus it also drops a VRT band

Hopefully this will result in either lower prices or us getting higher equipment levels, either way we're onto a winner:), and hopefully it will give Ford the kick up the arse it needs to re-introduce the band A Focus 1.6 TDCi

It should also mean that it will sell in even greater numbers than ever before, because it has a VRT and road tax advantage over its rivals.

pburns

E92 wrote: »

1.4 80 bhp - 149 g/km (down from 165 g/km), so it's now into VRT band C rather than D
1.6 102 bhp - 166 g/km (down from 176 g/km), so now it is in VRT band D rather than E
1.4 TSI 122 bhp - 144 g/km (down from 149 g/km), so no change
1.4 TSI 160 bhp which replaces the 1.4 TSI 140 and 170 evidently - 139 g/km with the DSG box, so a big improvement there, down to band B from the Golf V 170's band E and 174 g/km:eek:
2.0 TDI 110 bhp - replacing the 1.9 TDI 105 - there's a 128 g/km version, and of more interest to us, there is a 119 g/km version as well - so hopefully we will get the 119 g/km version and that would put it into band A rather conveniently for us
2.0 TDI 140 bhp - 129 g/km, so now band B rather than band C
2.0 TDI 140 bhp DSG - 142 g/km, so useful big improvement from the current model's 159 g/km and thus it also drops a VRT band

Hopefully this will result in either lower prices or us getting higher equipment levels, either way we're onto a winner:), and hopefully it will give Ford the kick up the arse it needs to re-introduce the band A Focus 1.6 TDCi

It should also mean that it will sell in even greater numbers than ever before, because it has a VRT and road tax advantage over its rivals.

You know all this talk of g/km & VRT bands makes me nervous...

Irish people will end up blowing 30 grand on a new car and make their decision based on sqeezing into a lower tax band and saving maybe €150 over the course of a year... Low CO2 cars will become the lowest depreciators and the vicious circle of crap, underpowered cars will continue as it always has for ever and ever and ever and ever...