vw golf mk5 1.4 75BHP vs 80BHP

RedDeadMarshal

is there a major difference in the earlier 75BHP mk5 and the 80BHP mk5?

Mycroft H

Either way 80bhp in a heavy car like the golf is pathetic.

Veloce

5 BHP

RedDeadMarshal

Veloce wrote: »

5 BHP

apart from that is it more economical? does it feel more powerful?

spank_inferno

RedDeadMarshal wrote: »

apart from that is it more economical? does it feel more powerful?

Barely noticable.

losing weight would probably improve performance just as much :pac:

RedDeadMarshal

spank_inferno wrote: »

Barely noticable.

losing weight would probably improve performance just as much :pac:

hmm yeah but do you think it's a good car for a teenager?

spank_inferno

RedDeadMarshal wrote: »

hmm yeah but do you think it's a good car for a teenager?

Any car is good for a teenager, so long as it's cheap to run.
The above example Golf is no more or less suitable than any other car

The most expensive car is no safer than a €300 1ltr micra if the person behind the wheel is a poor driver..

Mycroft H

RedDeadMarshal wrote: »

hmm yeah but do you think it's a good car for a teenager?

An old shape micra; cheaper to run, service, insure, tax etc etc. And more reliable.

Pj!

spank_inferno wrote: »

The most expensive car is no safer than a €300 1ltr micra if the person behind the wheel is a poor driver..

Well that's not really true. Some cars are obviously safer than others.

The best of drivers can meet a poor/drunk driver.

I'd rather my teen in a Golf than a Micra.

djimi

RedDeadMarshal wrote: »

hmm yeah but do you think it's a good car for a teenager?

Not if youre getting quoted nearly four grand for insurance its not

RedDeadMarshal

djimi wrote: »

Not if youre getting quoted nearly four grand for insurance its not

yeah I got quoted 3800

RedDeadMarshal

Pj! wrote: »

Well that's not really true. Some cars are obviously safer than others.

The best of drivers can meet a poor/drunk driver.

I'd rather my teen in a Golf than a Micra.

yeah that's what my parents think too a lot of people seem to recommend city cars like a Nissan Micra or a Toyota Yaris to people like me but nobody buys them I have seen a few lads in mk4 and mk5 Golfs, They just don't bother with cars like those I only seen one teenager in a Yaris he's in my school and after a month owning it he already managed to crash it the whole front wing was damaged and then bogged down and not resprayed. I guess some people don't value their valuables and not many lads can afford a golf as a first car so i'm lucky My parents only want a golf for me since they are reliable, well at least in my family we never had any problems with any of the the tdi or petrol Volkswagens

Pj!

Presume they are the same models as discussed here on a UK forum.

RedDeadMarshal

Pj! wrote: »

Presume they are the same models as discussed here on a UK forum.

No thank you for your help and time though they are comparing the 75 to the 90hp fsi model which is driven by a chain instead of a belt they discontinued the 1.4 fsi in 2006 and launched the completely new 80bhp N/A engine which I am comparing right now to the 75hp

George Dalton

There is virtually no difference between the 75bhp and the 80bhp. They are effectively the same engine.

RedDeadMarshal

George Dalton wrote: »

There is virtually no difference between the 75bhp and the 80bhp. They are effectively the same engine.

I have only driven the 75BHP normally and I can't say whether it's punchy or slow so that's why i'm asking here whether there is a big difference in the 80BHP model are you sure they are the same? have you driven both? I have popped the engine cover of the 75BHP and it has rust spots all over the engine I know it's an old car but the 80bhp doesn't have any rust and seems to be made out of aluminium. I heard a few problems on the 80bhp but never have I heard or read any problems with the mk5 75bhp you can even Google it and there is no problems stated in the forums or anywhere. So I don't think they are the same engine because I think 80BHP has an aluminium engine block and the 75BHP has a steel/iron engine block which is heavier and more reliable.

Mycroft H

RedDeadMarshal wrote: »

I have only driven the 75BHP normally and I can't say whether it's punchy or slow so that's why i'm asking here whether there is a big difference in the 80BHP model are you sure they are the same? have you driven both? I have popped the engine cover of the 75BHP and it has rust spots all over the engine I know it's an old car but the 80bhp doesn't have any rust and seems to be made out of aluminium. I heard a few problems on the 80bhp but never have I heard or read any problems with the mk5 75bhp you can even Google it and there is no problems stated in the forums or anywhere. So I don't think they are the same engine because I think 80BHP has an aluminium engine block and the 75BHP has a steel/iron engine block which is heavier and more reliable.

I'd take George on his word, he runs a specialist VW garage down in Port Laoise. Knows his stuff.

Also they're not reputed to be a great engine, they tend to burn a lot of oil at high miles. Compound that with a soft gearbox. Problems tend to be exacerbated with they typical neglect to routine maintenance that the Irish car owner has.

Theboinkmaster

George Dalton wrote: »

There is virtually no difference between the 75bhp and the 80bhp. They are effectively the same engine.

Air con became standard on the 80bhp model

bazz26

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Air con became standard on the 80bhp model

I think he was referring to the engine rather than the spec.

RedDeadMarshal

bazz26 wrote: »

I think he was referring to the engine rather than the spec.

wrong air con became standard on the 2007 vw golf which was launched with the 80bhp engine so even the poverty spec golfs got a/c while on the earlier 75bhp 1.4 models it was an option so he was right.

Theboinkmaster

bazz26 wrote: »

I think he was referring to the engine rather than the spec.

I know, and i was referring to the spec

bazz26

RedDeadMarshal wrote: »

wrong air con became standard on the 2007 vw golf which was launched with the 80bhp engine so even the poverty spec golfs got a/c while on the earlier 75bhp 1.4 models it was an option so he was right.

The point is that the 75bhp engine and 80bhp engine are the same with maybe some very small differences to squeeze that extra 5bhp out of it. That engine was discontinued in late 2009 and replaced by the 1.2 TSi.

George Dalton

RedDeadMarshal wrote: »

wrong air con became standard on the 2007 vw golf which was launched with the 80bhp engine so even the poverty spec golfs got a/c while on the earlier 75bhp 1.4 models it was an option so he was right.

Yes but what has air con got to do with the engine? That was the point bazz26 was trying to make.

The 75bhp BCA code engine and the 80bhp BUD code engine are basically identical. They both have alloy blocks. They both give as much (or as little) trouble as each other.

If I were you I would be much more interested in the condition, spec and history of any given car rather than whether it was 75 or 80 bhp.

RedDeadMarshal

RedDeadMarshal

RedDeadMarshal

how are they the same?

colm_mcm

Well the second one looks like its a mk6 not mk5 and the first one has a big plastic cover over the engine

colm_mcm

I mean, here's a mk4 golf 1.4

bazz26

Why would VW design and develop a brand new engine with only 5bhp extra in 2007 and then replace it altogether in 2009?

RedDeadMarshal

colm_mcm wrote: »

Well the second one looks like its a mk6 not mk5 and the first one has a big plastic cover over the engine

yeah the second one is a mk6 but it's the same one as in the mk5 I could not get a picture of a mk5 one. The plastic cover one is the 75bhp and that's the only one I could get in the images.

RedDeadMarshal

bazz26 wrote: »

Why would VW design and develop a brand new engine with only 5bhp extra in 2007 and then replace it altogether in 2009?

they didn't you see it was used in the mk6 up to 2010 and then the new mk5 POLO with an upgraded ecu software which was pushing 85bhp. Ok this is getting confusing back to the golf.

bazz26

It's the same engine. Tweaks can increase bhp slightly which was the case here. VW used that engine in the MkIV Golf too.

colm_mcm

I suppose we're getting away from the point which is they're both rubbish

HurtLocker

RedDeadMarshal wrote: »

they didn't you see it was used in the mk6 up to 2010 and then the new mk5 POLO with an upgraded ecu software which was pushing 85bhp. Ok this is getting confusing back to the golf.

I've never seen "pushing" followed by a two digit bhp. I test drove an mk6 1.4. So slow and you have to sacrifice all fuel economy and rev like mad to actually get anywhere. The car is way to heavy for 75bhp or 80bhp.

RedDeadMarshal

HurtLocker wrote: »

I've never seen "pushing" followed by a two digit bhp. I test drove an mk6 1.4. So slow and you have to sacrifice all fuel economy and rev like mad to actually get anywhere. The car is way to heavy for 75bhp or 80bhp.

what?

CGolf

I had a 2006 1.4 75 hp and a 2008 1.4 80 hp. There was virtually no difference in performance or economy from what I can remember. The car is too heavy for those engines, but I was a teenager at the time and insurance costs wouldn't allow for anything bigger. They were both quite heavy drinkers, but I was doing a good bit of mileage on them - I got between 500 - 600 kms out of a tank.

recyclebin

Have the 2005 75bhp one as a company car. I have done about 100,000 miles in it in the last 4 years. The engine itself seems to be reliable but very slow which is not good when you need to overtake. I only really need to top up the oil after 10,000 miles but it does be due a service around then anyway.

That is not to say I have not had any problems with the Golf. The list of other problems I've had is quite long: ignition coils, throttle valve sticking, cracked exhaust manifold at the engine, bearings, clutch master and slave cylinder, the rear window washer is leaking into the boot, the electric windows have a mind of their own and like to open instead of close. The trottle pedal is plastic and hinged to the floor. Small pebbles can get stuck in the mechanism which meant 50kph on a motorway for me one time.

The handle for the open the bonnet also broke off last week so now I have a cable tie to open it.

RedDeadMarshal

How does the 2005/2006 facelift corolla 1.4 vvt-i compare to a golf in the Luna spec?

colm_mcm

RedDeadMarshal wrote: »

How does the 2005/2006 facelift corolla 1.4 vvt-i compare to a golf in the Luna spec?

The 06 luna has climate control, alloys, fogs, arm rest, leather wheel, remote stereo, side skirts, rear skirts, 4 electric windows, electric mirrors, remote locking,

It has 97hp too which is a good bit more than the golf

JohnBoy26

colm_mcm wrote: »

The 06 luna has climate control, alloys, fogs, arm rest, leather wheel, remote stereo, side skirts, rear skirts, 4 electric windows, electric mirrors, remote locking,

It has 97hp too which is a good bit more than the golf

And it's more reliable

RedDeadMarshal

colm_mcm wrote: »

The 06 luna has climate control, alloys, fogs, arm rest, leather wheel, remote stereo, side skirts, rear skirts, 4 electric windows, electric mirrors, remote locking,

It has 97hp too which is a good bit more than the golf

does it not have a/c no?

RedDeadMarshal

OSI wrote: »

Climate Control is better than A/C

my moms Toyota has both it's a top spec Tpirit model from the UK

bazz26

The 5 door Luna model from 2005/2006 has both too.

RedDeadMarshal

Anyway back to the point anything I should look out in the engine? Do they really burn oil that bad? I mean as much as a mk4 Golf? I hear they drink a lot of petrol in the 2007 onwards saloon versions but never heard of the older hatchbacks. They are heavier than Golfs too by 100kg if that makes a difference in performance.

colm_mcm

bazz26 wrote: »

The 5 door Luna model from 2005/2006 has both too.

Not 05 though, it had manual ac.
The 06 run out spec was a lot more generous.
Bizarrely an 05 strata with factory air conditioning was cheaper than a luna at the time even though it was better equipped.


OP i wouldn't worry about a late corolla giving trouble.

RedDeadMarshal

So lads you still think it's the same 1.4 engines that are in the pictures? Come on entertain me here:D

George Dalton

RedDeadMarshal wrote: »

So lads you still think it's the same 1.4 engines that are in the pictures? Come on entertain me here:D

I think you are bordering on trolling at this stage tbh.

166man

RedDeadMarshal wrote: »

So lads you still think it's the same 1.4 engines that are in the pictures? Come on entertain me here:D

Entertain you?


No.

RedDeadMarshal

George Dalton wrote: »

I think you are bordering on trolling at this stage tbh.

George you are a mechanic c'mon you got to now the difference man

RedDeadMarshal

166man wrote: »

Entertain you?


No.

that's a shame really because as it turns out the oil guzzling petrol drinking golf is the most powerful in it's class of any car. VAG engines are known for torque. It's not how much bhp its got its how it uses it.

colm_mcm

It doesn't have an egr and the ecu is different, whoop dee doo.

A Calcutta spec Golf is of no interest to anyone into cars.

The turbocharged and supercharged 1.4s are interesting, The FSI is on par with the competition, but nobody cares about the laughable standard ones