0 to 60 in a GTI 8v 2.0

I wouldn't have a Mk3 tho' if it didn't have a VR6 in it. It just dosen't seem right revving the nads off a Mk3 valver.... it just sounds like it shouldn't be done! It's just not comfortable for me. The 8V I thought, did drive slow and I just would't entertain it! Sorry 8V owners! The VR seemed just right - plenty of power, no effort to get the power, and despite what people say about it being nose heavy (which i think is crap) it handle's very well on the right suspension. It's still no GTI though. That's what I have a MK2 for.......

 

Mk3 vr and mk2 gti - lucky sod - I do miss my mk2 [:^(]

Well said Phil........people slate the vr without going in one with the suspension sorted (which most people uprate on the golf anyway) but its not a gti like the mk1 or 2 as you say. You can feel the extra weight of the mk3 even in the vr until you extract a few more ponies IMHO.

 

Ahh, but what you have to understand is that for those of us who are young and have zero no claims bonus, a VR6 is too expensive to insure. The 8v is slow, but at least its got a gti kit on it, decent brakes, and compared to a GL/Driver/CL/etc... it is still a hell of a lot better/faster, with more standard kit as well.

The 8v mk3 is good to insure for the exact reason: its slow. Which gives people with insurance problems access to a half decent car. Would u have a GL over an 8v? No. Would you have a VR6 over an 8v? yes.

As to the badge engineering question, I think that it was done on the mk4 quite obviously, but the mk3s? The mk4 2.0 didnt have the uprated suspension, and was easy to badge as a gti as there was no extra bodykit for the 1.8t. I think the 8v mk3 is a gti, with the brakes/suspension/bodykit/seats/etc... but in an insurance friendly slow package. Thats the reason I bought one.

Doesnt seem so bad when you look at it that way. I didnt buy one over a 16v/VR6, I bought one over a driver/gl/cl/etc....

 

Nice One mate. Good response.

 

I hate to take a leak on everyones chips here with the mk3 but here goes



The list is in :

ins grp/year/0-60/topspd/bhp/price/funny comments

I like the mk3 comment

 

edit, ignore me.
Edited by: Jeff

 

Its not a weight problem but a power problem - now thats sortable! MKIIs indeed - Nice car - Yes, fast -Yes but not as half as comfy as a MKIII!In saying that I never have should have sold my Jetta! [:^(]

 

Golfblokemk2 : You can quote 0-60 times till the cows come home but they have little meaning in many situations (ie. I have a test of the mk3 that breaks 9 secs to 60 from VW Mag - so what). In gear is where you feel it most. Also, I could not get over 120 when my mk2 8v was standard yet alone do 125!

If the point your trying to make is mk3's are slow, not gti's etc etc, a stnd mk2 8v is slightly quicker than the mk3 8v in my experience (big deal - not much) it just 'feels' more responsive to drive. See SIMMA's & G60Dub's comments for why all people dont drive mk2's

 

PS - Im bored and could give a rats ass about mk2 vs mk3 but sorry to continue this thread

 

So why bother...Schnoooogens

Also its not my fault if your Mk2 couldnt get the 125..mine can

And if you ever raced two standard mkii and mk3 youd see the massive difference...anyway im bored and coundnt give a rats ass about this but sorry to continue this thread