whats a 1.4 bora like on petrol?

mink_man

thinkin of buyin a 00 bora or the likes and wonderin what are they like on petrol?
heavy? light?

Fizman

Well I recently sold my '00 Golf that was my first car and I had driven it for just over 3 years. Same engine in it and I used to average about 400 ish miles to a full tank. Sometimes I could get 450+, and other times around 360, obviously depending on conditions and a heavy foot (one thing I almost always had as it's a sluggish engine tbh). Perfect for a normal runner of a car though so if you don't mind not having too much poke, there are worse cars out there.

mink_man

thanks fizzman, so your golf was fairly ok on petrol?

statto25

Fizman wrote: »

Well I recently sold my '00 Golf that was my first car and I had driven it for just over 3 years. Same engine in it and I used to average about 400 ish miles to a full tank. Sometimes I could get 450+, and other times around 360, obviously depending on conditions and a heavy foot (one thing I almost always had as it's a sluggish engine tbh). Perfect for a normal runner of a car though so if you don't mind not having too much poke, there are worse cars out there.

The bora's body is way heavier than the golf so the MPG would be a fair bit lower too. The engine is way too underpowered for the weight of the car. I would just go with a golf if your looking down the volkswagen road.

mink_man

thanks statto, its either a golf or bora i was lookin at, golfs are pretty dear for 00/01 thought but they do hold their value well...would 400 miles to a tank be good or bad compared to other cars?

Fizman

Ya I would have regarded it as being ok on the juice, but Statto does make a valid point regarding the body weight. I travel with work and did a lot of mixed driving. To be honest it gave me very little trouble in the 44k miles I did with her, and in comparison to other petrol car of the same class, it would be in or about the same I reckon, not that I have driven many others at this stage mind!

statto25

Its ok but you wouldnt be going anywhere too fast to get the milage from a tank. The 1.4 engine can have a lot of trouble with engine and gearboxes. If you could stretch I would get a 1.6 petrol or a 1.9tdi golf/bora. They are far more reliable than the 1.4 engine.

mink_man

well its my first time gettin insured and im a young male so insurance would be too much for 1.9 especially....any other cars like golfs that you could suggest

Also, how much would 17" rs8 alloys be worth? one of the cars has them.....and its bein sold for 1650, 1998 golf

samsemtex

hmmm...not enough boards regulars posting here. I would avoid a 1.4 Golf/bora like the plague. Terrible engine. Not sure about the Bora but that era Golf was a shocker reliability wise so I'd imagine the Bora is not much better. Get the 1.6 if you must get one. I wouldnt touch them though. Terrible car.

mink_man

samsemtex wrote: »

hmmm...not enough boards regulars posting here. I would avoid a 1.4 Golf/bora like the plague. Terrible engine. Not sure about the Bora but that era Golf was a shocker reliability wise so I'd imagine the Bora is not much better. Get the 1.6 if you must get one. I wouldnt touch them though. Terrible car.

how come theyre so deer though of they're that bad a car?

tossy

statto25 wrote: »

The bora's body is way heavier than the golf

is 50kg's way heavier?

The real point is that 1.4 engine is useless,maybe ok if you want to get a year or so and walk away,but if there is anything near 100k on the clock then walk away.The gearboxes are also another weak point especially with so many being fitted with heavy and crap replica alloys wheels.

The only 1.4 golf/bora i'd consider buying is the stereotypical 'one granny owner used for the commute to mass that has never had big replica wheels fitted.

Zonda999

samsemtex wrote: »

hmmm...not enough boards regulars posting here. I would avoid a 1.4 Golf/bora like the plague. Terrible engine. Not sure about the Bora but that era Golf was a shocker reliability wise so I'd imagine the Bora is not much better. Get the 1.6 if you must get one. I wouldnt touch them though. Terrible car.

Not a terrible car at all to be fair, just a poor engine. Quite a good car really from that era, get a diesel one and theyre fine. E.g, a corolla petrol from that age will have a better, more reliable engine, but in every other way a golf/bora is a nicer car

mink_man

Zonda999 wrote: »

Not a terrible car at all to be fair, just a poor engine. Quite a good car really from that era, get a diesel one and theyre fine. E.g, a corolla petrol from that age will have a better, more reliable engine, but in every other way a golf/bora is a nicer car

would a 1.6 diesel have the same insurance as a 1.4 petrol?

mink_man

bump

CosmicJay

mink_man wrote: »

would a 1.6 diesel have the same insurance as a 1.4 petrol?

1.6tdi's are classes as a 1.2 in petrol money.

1.9tdi's are classed as 1.4's if I remember correctly.

Some of the more powerful ones are classed as 1.6's.

samsemtex

mink_man wrote: »

how come theyre so deer though of they're that bad a car?

I have known quite a few people who have had these and the amount of problems they had were shocking. Electrics failing left and right such as the heater, electric windows, mechanical problems. I dont know the exact problems they had as it wasnt my car so i didnt really care. There are lots and lots of reported faults with them.

Just look at the honestjohn page for them

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/carbycar/volkswagen/golf-iv-1998/?section=bad

Thats longer than any of the pages I have seen on that site. Even Alfa's dont have a list of problems as long as that Golf and people make them out to be the cars from hell. Would you consider a 147 for example? Probably not because of the image they have when in reality a Golf is even worse.

As for why are they so dear? People in this country have this idea in their heads that Volkswagen = quality. Despite the fact that VW have put out some of the least reliable cars on the road in recent times. The last Passat for example was terrible and beset with problems. Worse than any Renault but it still escapes that image. How? I have no idea.

daveharnett

mink_man wrote: »

would a 1.6 diesel have the same insurance as a 1.4 petrol?

Costs nothing to ask them. As you have found, the bora is good value compared to the equivalent golf. As others have said though, that engine is fairly poor.

mink_man

CosmicJay wrote: »

1.6tdi's are classes as a 1.2 in petrol money.

1.9tdi's are classed as 1.4's if I remember correctly.

Some of the more powerful ones are classed as 1.6's.

tdi? so a 1.6 straight would be less than a 1.4 then? no?

CosmicJay

mink_man wrote: »

tdi? so a 1.6 straight would be less than a 1.4 then? no?

Ooops sorry. Whenever I see diesel I just think turbo diesel.

A straight naturally aspirated diesel would be cheap as chips for insurance I would say.

mink_man

CosmicJay wrote: »

Ooops sorry. Whenever I see diesel I just think turbo diesel.

A straight naturally aspirated diesel would be cheap as chips for insurance I would say.

not when its being insured by a 19 y/o male with a provisional although im goin doing my full test this summmer!

CosmicJay

mink_man wrote: »

not when its being insured by a 19 y/o male with a provisional although im goin doing my full test this summmer!

Ah I see. Its the provisional.

Im hopefully getting a 1.9tdi bora soon and its actually less than a 1.4 petrol. Quinn Direct tpft for only 1800.

Is that 1.6 diesel an old volkswagen by any chance?

mink_man

CosmicJay wrote: »

Ah I see. Its the provisional.

Im hopefully getting a 1.9tdi bora soon and its actually less than a 1.4 petrol. Quinn Direct tpft for only 1800.

Is that 1.6 diesel an old volkswagen by any chance?

well i was just talking in general....you can get a 1.6 diesel mk4 golf though?

CosmicJay

mink_man wrote: »

well i was just talking in general....you can get a 1.6 diesel mk4 golf though?

No unfortunatly.

Slowest mk4 is the 1.9litre straight diesel SDI.

I mean really really slow. Would be good for insurance I would say.

tossy

CosmicJay wrote: »

No unfortunatly.

Slowest mk4 is the 1.9litre straight diesel SDI.

I mean really really slow. Would be good for insurance I would say.

Great Engine will literally go forever and do around 3 thousand miles to a tank, but dangerously slow! takes around 16 secs to hit 100,so lethal for pulling out of junctions,driveways etc.

mink_man

tossy wrote: »

Great Engine will literally go forever and do around 3 thousand miles to a tank, but dangerously slow! takes around 16 secs to hit 100,so lethal for pulling out of junctions,driveways etc.

thanks, any idea on insurance for a 19 y/o with provisional or possiblly full licence? would it be rape material??

mink_man

oh ya and anyone want to locate a 1.9 diesel mk4 for 2k or less for me? :P

PaulKK

CosmicJay wrote: »

1.6tdi's are classes as a 1.2 in petrol money.

1.9tdi's are classed as 1.4's if I remember correctly.

Some of the more powerful ones are classed as 1.6's.

Sorry just have to reply to this.. please don't post if you have no idea what you're talking about.


Firstly, you can't get a 1.6TDI MK4 golf.

Secondly you can't make a general statement like the one above, what do you mean "classed as" anyway?

A 1.9TDI was avaliable in a number of power outputs, 90bhp, 110bhp, 130bhp and 150bhp.

Any 1.9TDI, in my opinion, will feel a lot faster to the average driver than a 1.4/1.6 petrol golf.

mink_man wrote: »

oh ya and anyone want to locate a 1.9 diesel mk4 for 2k or less for me? :P

You won't get a diesel golf with less than 170K miles on it for less than 2k.
They are possibly one of the best cars for holding their value that you can get.

If thats your budget and its your first car, I suggest you don't bother getting a high mileage diesel, get a corolla or something.

tossy

PaulKK wrote: »

A 1.9TDI is avaliable in a number of power outputs, 90bhp,100bhp 110bhp,115bhp, 130bhp and 150bhp..

Fixed that for you.

PaulKK

tossy wrote: »

Fixed that for you.

I bow to the VAG expert

I'm not driving one anymore so not as much in tune these days.

Theres a 105bhp too though isn't there?

tossy

PaulKK wrote: »

I bow to the VAG expert

I'm not driving one anymore so not as much in tune these days.

Theres a 105bhp too though isn't there?

Nope 105bhp was mk5.

mink_man

oh and yer man that said 1.9 tdi he says tdi even though he means straight, it was a slip of the finger!

CosmicJay

PaulKK wrote: »

Sorry just have to reply to this.. please don't post if you have no idea what you're talking about.

Firstly, you can't get a 1.6TDI MK4 golf.

Secondly you can't make a general statement like the one above, what do you mean "classed as" anyway?

Well if you looked he never asked about it being a golf. He asked about what would the insurance be for a 1.6 litre diesel.

Alot of Insurance companies insurance companies insure a diesel equal to a petrol engine around 70% its size. So a 1.9tdi with an output close to a 1.4 would be insured for the same price as a 1.4. Obviously if your going for a PD engine over the 115bhp your going to get hit hard on insurance.

Not to mention the hideous loadings insurance companies have put on the diesel golfs.

Lets actually take some figures into account. Quinn Direct will insure me on a Pd 115 Bora for the same price as my first car. An 8v 1.4 Polo.

Or maybe Im just wrong? I was always told take away 30% of the diesels engine capacity. Then the price would be around the same as a petrol of the remaining cc's. Aslong as it is close to its output.

With regards diesels being faster than a 1.6/1.4. The 1.4 definitely but I think the only ones faster than the 1.6 are the pd 130 and 150. Unless you get a remap. Or a hybrid.

Oh and Mink Man check out quinn direct for insurance. On an Sdi the insurance would be 2k on a provisional and 1500 on a full.

mink_man

CosmicJay wrote: »

Well if you looked he never asked about it being a golf. He asked about what would the insurance be for a 1.6 litre diesel.

Alot of Insurance companies insurance companies insure a diesel equal to a petrol engine around 70% its size. So a 1.9tdi with an output close to a 1.4 would be insured for the same price as a 1.4. Obviously if your going for a PD engine over the 115bhp your going to get hit hard on insurance.

Not to mention the hideous loadings insurance companies have put on the diesel golfs.

Lets actually take some figures into account. Quinn Direct will insure me on a Pd 115 Bora for the same price as my first car. An 8v 1.4 Polo.

Or maybe Im just wrong? I was always told take away 30% of the diesels engine capacity. Then the price would be around the same as a petrol of the remaining cc's. Aslong as it is close to its output.

With regards diesels being faster than a 1.6/1.4. The 1.4 definitely but I think the only ones faster than the 1.6 are the pd 130 and 150. Unless you get a remap. Or a hybrid.

Oh and Mink Man check out quinn direct for insurance. On an Sdi the insurance would be 2k on a provisional and 1500 on a full.

thanks a million man, you know your stuff!

bazz26

OP, I would avoid the 1.4 litre Golf/Bora of that vintage. It is not a very reliable engine, the gearbox is also very soft on them. You could be looking at some very expensive repair bills. If you cannot opt for the 1.6 for insurance reasons then I suggest you look at something else like a 1.4 litre Ford Focus. Just as slow as the 1.4 litre Bora or Golf but at least the Focus engine/gearbox are not generally troublesome.

mink_man

bazz26 wrote: »

OP, I would avoid the 1.4 litre Golf/Bora of that vintage. It is not a very reliable engine, the gearbox is also very soft on them. You could be looking at some very expensive repair bills. If you cannot opt for the 1.6 for insurance reasons then I suggest you look at something else like a 1.4 litre Ford Focus. Just as slow as the 1.4 litre Bora or Golf but at least the Focus engine/gearbox are not generally troublesome.

someone told me the 1.9 sdi's are rubbish? anyone say why they are?

bmw535d

theyre sows on petrol..save a bit more and go for the 1.9tdi or you will regret it

Zonda999

mink_man wrote: »

someone told me the 1.9 sdi's are rubbish? anyone say why they are?

They're biblically slow alright, probably why you were told that. I would recommend one over a 1.4 petrol though.Road tax would be 200€ more but you'd almost certainly make that up on fuel, they are extremely economical if you're not in a hurry, probably do over 70mpg. If you're frustrated and just kane it though, it would be less economical than a 1.9tdi

Leonard Hofstadter

1.4 Golfs/Boras are one of the worst cars in existance, has anyone noticed how they all sound like a bag of spanners after about 7-8 years? The knocks and rattles coming from 02/03 1.4 Golfs/Boras these days is scary, it is no wonder that practically all the 1.4s reg'd before 01 are well gone to the scrapyard(most oldish Golfs left are 1.6/diesel), best place for them really:).

mink_man

what ye think of gettin a 01/02 berlingo? cheaper insurance and light on diesel?

Vertakill

My mate had a 1.4 petrol Bora and it was seriously slow and had major reliability issues so I really wouldn't recommend them.
His began burning oil like a motherfuker at one point and I have a feeling that's not too uncommon with them.

If the 1.9TDI version is roughly average (or slightly below) for speed/acceleration... just imagine what the 1.4 petrol would be like in the same chassis.

If you insist on a small engine for tax/insurance reasons, get a smaller/lighter car that's 1.3 or 1.4 petrol.

mink_man

its lookin favourable towards a berlingo!

mink_man

bump