vw golf

lexluther

Hi all. I am thinking of buying a vw golf 1.4 1999 baseline with 89k on the clock for 1800 euros.
Can anybody tell me if these are a reliable motor or should i steer clear.

Regards.:)

sean1141

the older 1.4 (99-01) are a ball of crap.. stay away. the newer ones are slightly better but i would still avoid.. they all tend to get troublesome around the 100k mark.. a diesel would be a better option. you you should get a 98-00 one for around 2000. also consider a bora (golf with boot) these usually go for a few quid less.

lexluther

thanx for the advice, i might just pust the boat and go for a 98 accord 1.8 liftback. they seem to be bulletproof. or would a focus be better than either cars i mentioned?

thanx guys

Stevie Dakota

Far from a reliable motor, the 1.4 is as soft as putty, expect it to be burning oil like a madman. 1.6 engine is more robust.

lexluther

lexluther wrote: »

thanx for the advice, i might just pust the boat and go for a 98 accord 1.8 liftback. they seem to be bulletproof. or would a focus be better than either cars i mentioned?

thanx guys

Focus is better than a Golf of that era, not a patch on the Accord though.

sean1141

if your willing to pay the tax on a 1.8 a gti golf might also be worth a look

lexluther

Well my budget is 1700 euros so i think maybe a 98 honda accord the 97 model might be better? ive heard there pricey on fuel?

cheers for the input lads.

lexluther

opinions on this car please? thinking of buying this motor.
http://www.gumtree.ie/dublin/41/62490541.html

cheers lads.

omb0wyn5ehpij9

lexluther wrote: »

opinions on this car please? thinking of buying this motor.
http://www.gumtree.ie/dublin/41/62490541.html

cheers lads.

My advice.....go see the car first. You seem to be just picking out a car and deciding you want to buy it before you have even seen the car

bazz26

I had one of those Accords as a company car years ago. Great bus that never left me down and only needed regular servicing and tyres.

That particular example I am not sure about, the fake Type R badge and the modified exhaust would put me off. Also €1400 is way too much for it considering it is almost 13 years old.

I would rather spend that money on this one:
http://www.driving.ie/usedcars/index.cfm?fuseaction=car&carID=201039199726197

Mr.Success

Stevie Dakota wrote: »

Far from a reliable motor, the 1.4 is as soft as putty, expect it to be burning oil like a madman. 1.6 engine is more robust.

Hey im also looking out for a vw golf but the 1.9 tdi's are always a bit pricey,
I notice the odd 1.6 petrol models, are they reliable? What bhp would they be?
Also i notice sdi models going cheap, what do you think of them?, i know they are low bhp but are the engines reliable?

lomb

The 1.4s are very good cars. The 1.6s I would avoid as they are painful to drive(8 valve engine that hates to turn). I think the 02 on ones were much better though. Night and day difference. The early ones suffered from throttle flap clog up whcih results in lumpy running, The latter ones had electronic throttle and a raft of other mechanical upgrades and they dont suffer from the lumpy running problem.

My 03 with 75k miles on it did burn oil but not alot maybe half a litre every 4k or 5k miles say. I always ran it on 5-40 fully synth and changed it every 10k miles. Golfs tell you when the oil level is low so nothing to worry about (Not oil pressure this comes later). Engine still like new tbh. Probably dont suit 'Irish' servicing though:D

racso1975

Re: sdi engines i honestly believe unless your 90yrs+ or your driving ms daisy stay clear. The engine might be reliable but the unresponsive acceleration will break your heart!

sean1141

lomb wrote: »

The 1.4s are very good cars.

no they are not!!

zilog_jones

Expect to return about 30-35 MPG (on a good day) with a 1.8 VTEC Accord. The 1.4 in the Golf/Leon/Octavia is woefully underpowered, so expect that to be bad on petrol too, even if it is running well.

lomb

sean1141 wrote: »

no they are not!!

They are actually and frankly they are better than most bog standard cars. I thought it better than the focus 1.6. Better seating position and just a nicer car hard to explain. Have you ever owned a post 2002 one? Enough power for driving along, a free revving, quiet, very economical unit and light so goes easy on the suspension bushes and shocks. Sure theres zero power for overtaking but than this suits mosts people anyway. The suspension on heavy diesels is probably knackered at the miles where the 1.4 would be like new.

The 1.6 is WORSE as it wont rev if its life depended on it. Very course unit.

lomb

zilog_jones wrote: »

Expect to return about 30-35 MPG (on a good day) with a 1.8 VTEC Accord. The 1.4 in the Golf/Leon/Octavia is woefully underpowered, so expect that to be bad on petrol too, even if it is running well.

I used to get 48-52 on long runs believe it or not, 38 in the city on the 1.4 golf.

Guy:Incognito

lomb wrote: »

. Have you ever owned a post 2002 one? .

Are they not the same weedy 75bhp right up till 04? (actually till 08 in bog standard 1.4)

unkel

The 1.4 petrol in a '99 VW is probably the worst petrol engine compared to any of the main competition of the time. It doesn't last (even with perfect maintenance), is tappety and noisy after a few years, even on low use and it eats coil packs for breakfast. And it uses oil - a very bad sign

The 1.6 petrol of the same era had already been around for decades. Nothing to write home about, not very frugal, but solid and reliable it sure is

Don't get me wrong now, the fact that same ancient 100BHP 1.6 petrol was used up to a few years ago in a premium Audi car is disgraceful

Alanstrainor

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Are they not the same weedy 75bhp right up till 04? (actually till 08 in bog standard 1.4)

I have an 03 Polo that has the 1.4 75Bhp engine. And it's woeful. Drinks oil and drinks petrol. Mine is a low mileage example, with less than 26000 miles.

lomb wrote: »

I used to get 48-52 on long runs believe it or not, 38 in the city on the 1.4 golf.

I get 20mpg out of my 1.4 Polo. No matter how slowly I drive i can't manage 25. Mine is an auto however. I would find it hard to believe that a comparable manual would achieve twice the mpg.

sean1141

lomb wrote: »

Better seating position.

nothing to do with the engine

lomb wrote: »

and just a nicer car hard to explain. Have you ever owned a post 2002 one?.

yes.. well not a golf but a seat leon which is basicly the same car

lomb wrote: »

Enough power for driving along, a free revving, quiet, very economical.

they are no way econimical. the car is way to heavy for a 1.4

lomb wrote: »

light so goes easy on the suspension bushes and shocks..

they are not a light car

lomb wrote: »

Sure theres zero power for overtaking but than this suits mosts people anyway..

thats true!

lomb wrote: »

The suspension on heavy diesels is probably knackered at the miles where the 1.4 would be like new..

a diesel is only about 100kg hevier

lomb wrote: »

The 1.6 is WORSE as it wont rev if its life depended on it. Very course unit.

never drove one.. nor do i ever want to lol

lomb

Alanstrainor wrote: »

I have an 03 Polo that has the 1.4 75Bhp engine. And it's woeful. Drinks oil and drinks petrol. Mine is a low mileage example, with less than 260000 miles.



I get 20mpg out of my 1.4 Polo. No matter how slowly I drive i can't manage 25. Mine is an auto however. I would find it hard to believe that a comparable manual would achieve twice the mpg.

It does actually, I did 7 happy years in it, very economical, I remember 54mpg on a run down the south welsh coast. How did mine not drink oil or petrol
Owned from new and properly cared for;)

Guy:Incognito

Alanstrainor wrote: »

I have an 03 Polo that has the 1.4 75Bhp engine. And it's woeful. Drinks oil and drinks petrol. Mine is a low mileage example, with less than 260000 miles.

.

Add over 100kg to your boot and youll get the Golf version experience.

It's nearly 2 secs slower to 60 than the Polo too.

C4Kid

Have to agree with Lomb on this one, it's possible achieve 40+ MPG in the 1.4 but for the most part I can only reach about 39-40 through combined city & motorway driving.

lomb wrote: »

It does actually, I did 7 happy years in it, very economical, How did mine not drink oil or petrol

Mine was regularly serviced & takes a little oil from time to time, not as much as stated in the book especially considering theres a slight leak which isn't causing any harm and I only discovered it after 5 months when it went for a service.

savagecabbages

My first car was a 1.4 mk3 golf, (i know its not the same engine as the mk4).
This thing had 178,000 miles on it when i parted ways with it. indestructible comes to mind. Other words i can use are slow, comfortable, built like a tank, economical, slow and cheap! It served its purpose well.

I'd describe the mk4 golf as a solid well built car. At lower spec its not a drivers car. Its a family hatchback, not pretending to be anything else. I'd also rate it top of its class in terms of interior quality. Cant speak for reliability myself, few friends have had 1.4 and 1.6 mk4s most have had no problems but those who have wouldn't treat a car very well... They'd wreck any car.

They also hold their value better than rivals, and aren't mad expensive to insure for a young driver.