Advertisement
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

vw golf mk5 1.4 75BHP vs 80BHP

2

Comments

  • #32
    bazz26
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 51,877 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #33
    colm_mcm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,328 ✭✭✭✭colm_mcm


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


  • #34
    HurtLocker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 655 ✭✭✭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.


  • #35
    RedDeadMarshal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 203 ✭✭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?


  • #36
    CGolf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23 ✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    recyclebin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,574 ✭✭✭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.


  • #38
    RedDeadMarshal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 203 ✭✭RedDeadMarshal


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


  • #39
    colm_mcm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,328 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #40
    JohnBoy26
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,525 ✭✭✭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 :)


  • #41
    RedDeadMarshal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 203 ✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    RedDeadMarshal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 203 ✭✭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


  • #43
    bazz26
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 51,877 ✭✭✭✭bazz26


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


  • #44
    RedDeadMarshal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 203 ✭✭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.


  • #45
    colm_mcm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,328 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #46
    RedDeadMarshal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 203 ✭✭RedDeadMarshal


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


  • #47
    George Dalton
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,728 ✭✭✭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.


  • #48
    166man
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,569 ✭✭✭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.


  • #49
    RedDeadMarshal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 203 ✭✭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


  • #50
    RedDeadMarshal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 203 ✭✭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.


  • #51
    colm_mcm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,328 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Mycroft H
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,306 ✭✭✭Mycroft H


    RedDeadMarshal wrote: »
    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.

    lol :D

    They are dead. My 95 clio leaves them for dust in the straight and in the corners. VAG fanboys love them, I laugh at them :pac:


  • #53
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,785 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    BX 19 wrote: »
    Either way 80bhp in a heavy car like the golf is pathetic.

    The Golf isn't a heavy car, its a small car.

    Still, it is a dreadful lack of power for any car.


  • #54
    RedDeadMarshal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 203 ✭✭RedDeadMarshal


    Jesus. wrote: »
    The Golf isn't a heavy car, its a small car.

    Still, it is a dreadful lack of power for any car.
    yeah there is only a 200kg difference between a mk5 golf and polo and its under 1.5 tons so I wouldn't class it as heavy thank you for your understanding


  • #55
    Leonard Hofstadter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,531 ✭✭✭Leonard Hofstadter


    Jesus. wrote: »
    The Golf isn't a heavy car, its a small car.

    Still, it is a dreadful lack of power for any car.

    Whether it's 75, or 80, it's still a sh1t amount for a NA 1.4. There are 1.2s with more power than this!

    At the end of the day, the NA 1.4 is just a pile of dirt; too slow, unreliable and crap gearboxes.

    Oddly enough, the 1.4 TSI 122 bhp is very reliable.


  • #56
    MuppetCheck
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,830 ✭✭✭✭MuppetCheck


    RedDeadMarshal wrote: »
    yeah there is only a 200kg difference between a mk5 golf and polo and its under 1.5 tons so I wouldn't class it as heavy thank you for your understanding

    Terrible power to weight ratio though.


  • #57
    colm_mcm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,328 ✭✭✭✭colm_mcm


    An avensis is lighter FFS :eek:


  • #58
    Leonard Hofstadter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,531 ✭✭✭Leonard Hofstadter


    colm_mcm wrote: »
    An avensis is lighter FFS :eek:

    Yes, and a 1.6 in one of those wouldn't pull you out of bed, and they've got 110 bhp!


  • #59
    Mycroft H
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,306 ✭✭✭Mycroft H


    RedDeadMarshal wrote: »
    yeah there is only a 200kg difference between a mk5 golf and polo and its under 1.5 tons so I wouldn't class it as heavy thank you for your understanding

    It's heavy for a small car. My clio is a full 450kg lighter and has more bhp (from a 8v design thats round since the Renault 19). :D

    Get real. Buy the 1.8t petrol if you want a bit of poke in that car. It's still not going to be great even at that.


  • #60
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,785 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    colm_mcm wrote: »
    An avensis is lighter FFS :eek:

    Than a Golf?! Seriously?!!

    Now that is a surprise.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,785 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    BX 19 wrote: »
    It's heavy for a small car. My clio is a full 450kg lighter and has more bhp (from a 8v design thats round since the Renault 19). :D

    Your Clio would be a class below though mate to be fair. The Clio would be comparable to the Polo.


Advertisement
Advertisement