Is the golf MK4 a good buy?

thegoodlife

Hi I'm thinking of buying a golf Mk4 but my brother has told me that they arent as well built as the mark3, I had a mK3 before and its been by far the most reliable car Ive had.

homer90

Have a look on vagdrivers.ie
Lots of advice to be had there .

sleepysniper

thegoodlife wrote: »

Hi I'm thinking of buying a golf Mk4 but my brother has told me that they arent as well built as the mark3, I had a mK3 before and its been by far the most reliable car Ive had.

The MK4 Golf had the same quality build if not better build than the A3 from the same timeline. (This isn't the case in the newer models tho)

Also look at the TDi range as the 1.4/1.6 arent anything to be looked at really.

thegoodlife

Thanks guys. good to hear, I would only buy it diesel anyway. Ar the diesel models ok?

VolvoMan

The Mk4 is a well built car, just not that reliable. The 1.4 litre in particular is a pile of crap.

The Mk3 Golf wasn't that well built a car by the way.

sleepysniper

thegoodlife wrote: »

Thanks guys. good to hear, I would only buy it diesel anyway. Ar the diesel models ok?

I have the 90bhp TDI and Iv never had a days trouble with it, but the MK4 is known to give electrical faults as far as I know. I know some one else that has one and he got the airbag and ABS light up on the dash! I think its just luck if you manage to get one without the electrical faults. Even so I'd imagine the faults wouldn't be a big job to fix as alls required is to bring the car to the main dealers or some specialised indy's and they hook up the ECU to a VAG-COM and just reset the faults. (Provided the faults are just electric and not mechanical!)

thegoodlife

"The Mk4 is a well built car, just not that reliable. The 1.4 litre in particular is a pile of crap.

The Mk3 Golf wasn't that well built a car by the way."

Whenever I say well built I mean realiable, I mean like I had my Ml3 golf for about two years driving it every day then I sold it to my brother and He really drove the **** out of it for a further year and it still never gave any trouble. Great car I kinda miss it now



"I have the 90bhp TDI and Iv never had a days trouble with it, but the MK4 is known to give electrical faults as far as I know. I know some one else that has one and he got the airbag and ABS light up on the dash! I think its just luck if you manage to get one without the electrical faults. Even so I'd imagine the faults wouldn't be a big job to fix as alls required is to bring the car to the main dealers or some specialised indy's and they hook up the ECU to a VAG-COM and just reset the faults. (Provided the faults are just electric and not mechanical!) "

Now that you mention it I remember seeing one in a car auction and it was going for very reasonable money cause the dash was lit up like an x-mas tree.

I think the passats have the same issue the Mk3s didnt have a lot of electrics in them and they worked fine then when they started fitting the new models with elctrics they all startin havin problems...

EPM

Just do a search here...

Alanstrainor

thegoodlife,

There is a "quote" function for a reason, it makes posts so much easier to read, it'd be a good idea to use it.

ta,

PrettyBoy

VolvoMan wrote: »

The 1.4 litre in particular is a pile of crap.

Please elaborate.

I've owned a 1.4 (2003) for the last three years and it's been extremely reliable. The only bit of trouble I've had in almost 50,000 miles was when one of the cylinder heads went, got the four of them replaced that day. Mind you, that happened a year after I bought it.

tommmy1979

PrettyBoy wrote: »

Please elaborate.

I've owned a 1.4 (2003) for the last three years and it's been extremely reliable. The only bit of trouble I've had in almost 50,000 miles was when one of the cylinder heads went, got the four of them replaced that day. Mind you, that happened a year after I bought it.

One of the cyliner heads went .. that doesn't make sense.. there's only one cylinder head. Anyway, your mk4 is one of the very late models, the early ones from 98, 99 had some major electrical gremlins and the engines appear to have been manufactured from chocolate.

bazz26

PrettyBoy wrote: »

Please elaborate.

I've owned a 1.4 (2003) for the last three years and it's been extremely reliable. The only bit of trouble I've had in almost 50,000 miles was when one of the cylinder heads went, got the four of them replaced that day. Mind you, that happened a year after I bought it.

Weak gearboxes are a common problem with the 1.4 litre, excessive use of oil is another common issue. Plenty of information on the web about them, google your friend.

thegoodlife

Alanstrainor wrote: »

thegoodlife,

There is a "quote" function for a reason, it makes posts so much easier to read, it'd be a good idea to use it.

ta,

Thanks I realised that it wasn't a good idea when I did it but I can quote you or one person but I don't know how to quote 2 people in one post if that makes sense...:o

PrettyBoy

tommmy1979 wrote: »

One of the cyliner heads went .. that doesn't make sense.. there's only one cylinder head. Anyway, your mk4 is one of the very late models, the early ones from 98, 99 had some major electrical gremlins and the engines appear to have been manufactured from chocolate.

Sorry, I'm not too knowledgeable on engines. I'll find out exactly what it was in the morning. When I was looking at Golfs I was advised only to go for 2002 models and newer. I've heard 98-01 models are widely known to be problematic so I never bothered looking at them. I guess it paid off in the end.

thegoodlife

PrettyBoy wrote: »

Sorry, I'm not too knowledgeable on engines. I'll find out exactly what it was in the morning. When I was looking at Golfs I was advised only to go for 2002 models and newer. I've heard 98-01 models are widely known to be problematic so I never bothered looking at them. I guess it paid off in the end.

Does staying away from the 98-01 models apply to the diesel models aswell?

Quigs Snr

The diesels are fine. Suspension is a little weak and the door locks / central locking are a disaster. But they are ok apart from that. Do not get a 1.4 upon pain of death, slowest car I ever had.

PrettyBoy

thegoodlife wrote: »

Does staying away from the 98-01 models apply to the diesel models aswell?

I'm not sure as I was only looking at petrol models.

NickDrake

It wont be long before some idiot comes on here telling you to buy that plastic heap of rubbish that is a Ford Focus.

Basically, post 01 mk4 is a great car. Avoid the 1.4 as it is rubbish. I have the 2002 1.6 16v and its a great engine. Great on fuel and plenty of power.

Obviously the TDI is a great engine too.

A good few of my friends have the TDI and it is very reliable as is the the rest od the car.

There are a few electrical issues but nothing major.
The thing is try and find one that wasn't driven to the death. A lot of Golfs out there are driven hard or by a female driver who wreck the gears and the clutch.

Best of luck.

dp639

bazz26 wrote: »

Weak gearboxes are a common problem with the 1.4 litre, excessive use of oil is another common issue. Plenty of information on the web about them, google your friend.

You are spot on there actually.

I drive a little 1999 1.4 Golf, its my wife's old car, she now has the family car, I took the Golf as I do very little miles at the moment.

It's got 90k miles on it and goes through a good bit of oil. Last year gearbox went in it, burst a hole in the casing, now I've a Audi A3 gearbox in it, as it was impossible to find a Golf gearbox in the scrapyards - most people told us the gear boxs are the first thing to be taken when a Golf comes into the yard.

Other than that, the car has not missed a beat in the 8/9 years we've had it. I do give the car a hard time because it is seriously under powered so it needs to be driven hard to get anywhere.

Although it keeps a hard time I do look after it, with regular servicing etc, it will die some day but all in all its been good to us, and the little 1.4's get bad press but they are what they are, a reliable but under powered car.

tommmy1979

dp639 wrote: »

- most people told us the gear boxs are the first thing to be taken when a Golf comes into the yard.

Switly followed by the rear wiper motor

cjt156

NickDrake wrote: »

It wont be long before some idiot comes on here telling you to buy that plastic heap of rubbish that is a Ford Focus.

Focus has far superior driving dynamics; handling is fantastic (for what it is) and the 1.6 and Diesels aren't too shabby. The VW Mk111 and Mk1V are far too heavy and handle like blancmange.
I'm not going to recommend the Focus, though. (I'd have a 147 from that era if I was looking for a mid-size hatch) /runs for cover...

Dave.

NickDrake wrote: »

Basically, post 01 mk4 is a great car. Avoid the 1.4 as it is rubbish. I have the 2002 1.6 16v and its a great engine. Great on fuel and plenty of power.

I have 2001 1.6 16v for the last 3years, I dont get why people are saying pre 2002 golfs are sh ite cos mine isn't.:D

NickDrake

cjt156 wrote: »

Focus has far superior driving dynamics; handling is fantastic (for what it is) and the 1.6 and Diesels aren't too shabby. The VW Mk111 and Mk1V are far too heavy and handle like blancmange.
I'm not going to recommend the Focus, though. (I'd have a 147 from that era if I was looking for a mid-size hatch) /runs for cover...

Respect on the alfa. Great car but the Golf handles badly?? What?? It handles superbly. I don't trust your judgment after that comment.

The Focus 1.6 is slow and underpowered for a 1.6 . The mkiv is not heavy. Its a hatchback for god sake. Hardly a saloon.

The Focus always felt plastic and light on the road to me but they are a godd car.

EPM

Mark IV was way too soft to handle properly. It's stable enough but the body roll takes away any enthusiasm straight away. It is a heavy car for the smaller lower powered engines though

wandatowell

Bought a 02 MK4 Golf TDI with a pretty hefty 155,000 up on the clock but she hasn't given me a moments trouble, great car and solid to dive, cant go wrong unless you get an earlier year that is.

Atomic Pineapple

I've driven a 1.4 Focus and a 1.6 MKIV Golf and the Focus is far superior handling, the 1.4 Focus is seriously under powered but then again the Golf is heavy and the 1.6 underpowered too. The Golf is extremely dull to drive, one of the most boring cars I've ever driven.

But as someone else has stated an Alfa Romeo 147 would be the car to go for, looks superb, handles the best and would be the most powerful and probably actually the cheapest.

Mr.David

NickDrake wrote: »

It wont be long before some idiot comes on here telling you to buy that plastic heap of rubbish that is a Ford Focus.

I'll happily be that idiot!

I owned a mk4, thought it was a bit **** to be honest - decent ride, awful handling and very dull.

Focus any day.

Sorry Nick.

NickDrake

Mr.David wrote: »

I'll happily be that idiot!

I owned a mk4, thought it was a bit **** to be honest - decent ride, awful handling and very dull.

Focus any day.

Sorry Nick.

Sorry David but I will have to disagree with you there. The Focus is not a drivers car it is just a big piece of plastic. The dash is awful. The 1.4 is a joke and the 1.6 only gives 100bhp which is very poor

NickDrake

draffodx wrote: »

I've driven a 1.4 Focus and a 1.6 MKIV Golf and the Focus is far superior handling, the 1.4 Focus is seriously under powered but then again the Golf is heavy and the 1.6 underpowered too. The Golf is extremely dull to drive, one of the most boring cars I've ever driven.

But as someone else has stated an Alfa Romeo 147 would be the car to go for, looks superb, handles the best and would be the most powerful and probably actually the cheapest.

Must have been the old 1.6 8v. I am surprised that you found 0-60 in 10.2 secs under powered compared to the focus 1.6 doing it in a poor 12 secs.

Alanstrainor

NickDrake wrote: »

Sorry David but I will have to disagree with you there. The Focus is not a drivers car it is just a big piece of plastic. The dash is awful. The 1.4 is a joke and the 1.6 only gives 100bhp which is very poor

You keep coming back to the "dash being awful", it's hardly a thing of beauty, but it wouldn't be something that bothers me to be honest, it's about as run of the mill as the golfs. The 1.4 is poor, and the 1.6 is better, no one is saying either engine is amazing. But the focus is the better handling car, no doubt in my mind anyway.

Henry Ford III

NickDrake wrote: »

Must have been the old 1.6 8v. I am surprised that you found 0-60 in 10.2 secs under powered compared to the focus 1.6 doing it in a poor 12 secs.

Have a look here...

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/specs/Detail.aspx?deriv=15764

Try 10 secs.

1.6 petrol is a decent motor. Zetec is a good spec. Dynamically a similar Golf is some distance behind, less reliable, and overpriced.

VolvoMan

PrettyBoy wrote: »

Please elaborate.

I've owned a 1.4 (2003) for the last three years and it's been extremely reliable. The only bit of trouble I've had in almost 50,000 miles was when one of the cylinder heads went, got the four of them replaced that day. Mind you, that happened a year after I bought it.

You were very lucky then.

The engine itself is underpowered, uneconomical and unrefined. It also has its fair share of problem and is quite simply a pig.

NickDrake

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Have a look here...

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/specs/Detail.aspx?deriv=15764

Try 10 secs.

1.6 petrol is a decent motor. Zetec is a good spec. Dynamically a similar Golf is some distance behind, less reliable, and overpriced.

Measly 98 bhp though and low on torque. Also not as good on fuel so you couldnt compare the engines really. The VW engine is in a much heavier car not a big piece of plastic.

Less reliable?? The 1.6 in the VW is less reliable?? Don't know how you came to that. My cousin is a mechanic and he says it is the very relaible engine and the problems with the Golfs anre with the 1.4 models.

Henry Ford III

NickDrake wrote: »

Measly 98 bhp though and low on torque. Also not as good on fuel so you couldnt compare the engines really. The VW engine is in a much heavier car not a big piece of plastic.

Less reliable?? The 1.6 in the VW is less reliable?? Don't know how you came to that. My cousin is a mechanic and he says it is the very relaible engine and the problems with the Golfs anre with the 1.4 models.

So to recap you were a full 2 seconds out in your earlier claim.

I'll leave all other comparisons to the professionals, who all rate the Focus higher overall.

coolbeans

NickDrake wrote: »

Sorry David but I will have to disagree with you there. The Focus is not a drivers car it is just a big piece of plastic. The dash is awful. The 1.4 is a joke and the 1.6 only gives 100bhp which is very poor

What "power" do you think yours has? I think you're mistaken whatever you think to be honest. http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/carbycar/index.htm?md=449 Check the stats. On this evidence I wouldn't be calling a 1.6 Focus underpowered. You've only 100bhp odd as far as I can see. Need a lot more power than that to haul that big rubbery dash around. :P

EPM

There's not a huge weight difference between a golf and focus. There's only 6 brake at most best between the 1.6's. That's barely noticeable if at all. And at least the plastic dash in a focus doesn't rattle like a can of nails...

bazz26

Ah, the quality of plastics used on the dashboard, a time old measurement of what quantifies a good car on the motors forum. If this were true then everyone would drive a VW. Thankfully lots of people look beyond astetics when choosing a car. Focus has been aclaimed in almost all motoring circles as the class leader in handling and driving dynamics. The MkIV Golf was never in the same league in that aspect. In fact VW used the Focus suspension set up as the bench mark when they designed the MkV Golf.

I'd buy neither in 1.4 litre as they are pathetically underpowered but if someone put a gun to my head and forced me to choose between a 1.4 Golf and 1.4 Focus I would choose the Focus everytime. Great handling would win every time over soft touch plastics or the clunk sound when you close the door.

WestWicklow1

thegoodlife wrote: »

Thanks I realised that it wasn't a good idea when I did it but I can quote you or one person but I don't know how to quote 2 people in one post if that makes sense...:o

The explanation below is reproduced from here....

http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=7164

The ability to quote from multiple posts in one reply was a much requested feature of vbulletin. Using multi-quote, you can include quotes from several people in one post. Multi-quote only works within a thread. Here is how it works:

At the bottom right of each post (except your own) you will see this graphic:

If you click on it, it will change colors indicating that you want to quote that post. If you change your mind and don't want to quote from a post you have selected, just click on it again.

Work your way through the tread, selecting all the posts you want to quote from in your post. Once you have done that, you are ready to compose your message. Click on "Post Reply" and you will get the new post window with all the messages you picked to quote already quoted.

And that's how to do a multi-quote.

HTH

thegoodlife

WestWicklow1 wrote: »

The explanation below is reproduced from here....

http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=7164

The ability to quote from multiple posts in one reply was a much requested feature of vbulletin. Using multi-quote, you can include quotes from several people in one post. Multi-quote only works within a thread. Here is how it works:

At the bottom right of each post (except your own) you will see this graphic:

If you click on it, it will change colors indicating that you want to quote that post. If you change your mind and don't want to quote from a post you have selected, just click on it again.

Work your way through the tread, selecting all the posts you want to quote from in your post. Once you have done that, you are ready to compose your message. Click on "Post Reply" and you will get the new post window with all the messages you picked to quote already quoted.

And that's how to do a multi-quote.

HTH

Just did it, Thanks for taking the time appreciate it

high horse

NickDrake wrote: »

Respect on the alfa. Great car but the Golf handles badly?? What?? It handles superbly. I don't trust your judgment after that comment.

The Focus 1.6 is slow and underpowered for a 1.6 . The mkiv is not heavy. Its a hatchback for god sake. Hardly a saloon.

The Focus always felt plastic and light on the road to me but they are a godd car.

Was this post meant to be a joke?

Do you really think the MkIV handles superbly? The only MkIV I've driven is the GTi which should have the best handling in the range but it had woeful handling! The suspension is too soft and the car is too heavy so it lumbers around corners in a way that makes you feel you're driving too fast. If you're looking for great handling, look elsewhere.

The MkIV isn't a bad car, its just over-rated by people who think resale value is everything when it comes to buying a car.

newmills

Back on to track....i had a late 2001 mark4 tdi 90bhp.. great little car.. sold it with 112,000 miles on it and it was driving like new. Brother has the same model and year and has over 150,000 on his.. never misses a beat.
I suppose like most cars if it is driven sensibly and serviced well it shouldn't give much trouble..as a note we both don't skimp on oil..castrol gtd magnatec everytime..costs a bit more but if you like/rely on your car don't cut costs when you are looking after it.

bazz26

newmills wrote: »

Back on to track....i had a late 2001 mark4 tdi 90bhp.. great little car.. sold it with 112,000 miles on it and it was driving like new. Brother has the same model and year and has over 150,000 on his.. never misses a beat.
I suppose like most cars if it is driven sensibly and serviced well it shouldn't give much trouble..as a note we both don't skimp on oil..castrol gtd magnatec everytime..costs a bit more but if you like/rely on your car don't cut costs when you are looking after it.

I don't think anyone is questioning the reliability of the TDi engines, they are old and rough these days but they were pretty robust and trouble free in the peak of their day. The 1.4 litre which the OP is looking at though is a different kettle of fish, it has a poor track record for reliability and a potential mine field.

There are much better cars out there for lesser money except they don't carry the Golf perceived reputation of superior quality but if the OP is still set on a Golf then either the TDi or the 1.6 litre is a less risky option than the 1.4.

groupb

EPM wrote: »

Mark IV was way too soft to handle properly. It's stable enough but the body roll takes away any enthusiasm straight away. It is a heavy car for the smaller lower powered engines though

Its a lighter car than the focus model for model. Yet ford can make the focus ride and handle in a far superior way.

EPM

groupb wrote: »

Its a lighter car than the focus model for model. Yet ford can make the focus ride and handle in a far superior way.

Had that suspicion myself but wasn't bothered to look it up! I think a lot of people look at the badge and nothing else