Thread: VW Golf MK4 GTI Turbo (150)

You guessed it, I have owned one of these babies, and for someone of 21 I thought I was the ********. However it turned out that it was just the car that was ********. The accelerator just made the noise from under the bonnet louder, the steering wheel felt like it was connected to the wheels via a blancmange, the same blancmange that controlled the suspension. The car had so much sound deadening that it weighed as much as a dreadnought and it had traction control that was f'ing ****.

I'm really torn. I can't decide whether they're too boy-racer with their red brakes and I still don't like the rear end of the Mk5s. I think it's one of those ones that's not cool but not bad enough to be uncool. It's just a bit "meh".

But then again, I guess because of that it's uncool.

Which car are we talking about?
The newest Mk5 GTI (it has 200BHP...not 150) or the pretty poor Mk4 1.8T engined thing (150BHP)

Because although the Mk4 was crap...the Mk5 is a great car to drive.

Yes I mean the MK4, can you amend?

There you go Sir...
Ammended.

After a 16v Mk2,the mk4 GTi was the car I wanted.
My wife has one and I have not been impressed with the build or drive.
Luckliy I got an A4
I do still like the sight of a tastefully modified Mk4 though...

Nice car but didn't deserve a gti badge

Oh, Mk4! Definitely uncool.

Originally Posted by Randomjim

Nice car but didn't deserve a gti badge

Agree with that.

I like the look of the new one, would like a test drive maybe 1 day.

Yea like the mk5 but i'd want 4wd with that power

To put it simply 150 was just not enough power maybe 180 was better i never drove it. For a GTI you may as well of been driving an Astra GTE which is quicker, older & cheaper.

I had an Astra GTE! with the digital dash! Every single plastic panel on that car creaked

The motoring journalist and EVO contributor Richard Porter once talked about "liking cars too much", and said that those who suffered of this affliction were unable to talk about the Mk4 Golf without mentioning "poor body control". Speaks volumes really.

Whether the 150bhp 1.8T engine was weedy or not hardly matters when the chassis could barely cope with 100bhp.

The only mk4 Golf 'GTI' to have has to be the Anniversary editions with the Anni' styling and BBS wheels.
I still wouldn't mind a Reflex Silver version in TDI or 180BHP 1.8T now, they got it right in the end... but for the 150, it's got potential, but out the box... nah!

Sorry to bring up and old(ish) topic, I had an A3 150bhp turbo and have to say its miles ahead of the MK4 in just about every way despite supposedly being pretty much the same car.

I had a Mk4 GT TDI and it was great on the motorway, pretty dire around bends!

Prefer my Mk2's anyday.

Underpowered and too fat (not phat) = uncool. It's a VW Golf GTI so can't be seriously uncool, though.

My old VR6 was fat but it was the engine that made it cool in my opinion but the mk4 was even fatter so uncool
R32 version would be a different matter

Originally Posted by Randomjim

Nice car but didn't deserve a gti badge

What about the 2.0 8v MkIV with 115BHP - that was labelled 'GTI' too !!!

Shocking

Originally Posted by C_Audiboy

What about the 2.0 8v MkIV with 115BHP - that was labelled 'GTI' too !!!

Shocking

They used the same 115bhp unit in the mk4 2.0 GTI's also, it was shocking in the mk3, why did they use it in the mk4??

emmmmm

mkIV is mk4

Originally Posted by C_Audiboy

What about the 2.0 8v MkIV with 115BHP - that was labelled 'GTI' too !!!

Shocking

*Random geeky comment*

Did you know.. only the UK got the 2.0 badged as a "GTI"?

Originally Posted by rodenal

emmmmm

mkIV is mk4

Eeerrrrm yes, I was looking at the mk3 VR6, then read the following post lol

My bad.

Originally Posted by VeeDub Geezer

*Random geeky comment*

Did you know.. only the UK got the 2.0 badged as a "GTI"?

I thought there was a 2.0 badged up as just a 2.0 too tho? same engine different suspension.

I drove one of those 115bhp gti's, felt slower than my 1.6 A3 - utter rubbish cant believe it had gti written on it.

Another one - they used the 125BHP 1.8 20V VAG unit in the MkIV also and that was a GTI too! I think this was released before the turbo unit was available, and again badged only as a GTI in the UK.

Equally as weedy as the 2.0.

The 125bhp 20v non T was used in early models and i really dont know why they then reintroduced the old 115bhp 2.0 engine (albeit with a new crossflow head)

there is a reason but i cant remember for the life of me.. LOL

I dunno why they didnt just put the 125bhp 1.6 polo gti lump in them if they were gonna make a kinda 'watered down' gti - thats a cracking little engine(in the polo anyway)

Originally Posted by rodenal

I dunno why they didnt just put the 125bhp 1.6 polo gti lump in them if they were gonna make a kinda 'watered down' gti - thats a cracking little engine(in the polo anyway)

its better in the Lupo

and gets a six speed box too!

Originally Posted by rodenal

I thought there was a 2.0 badged up as just a 2.0 too tho? same engine different suspension.

I drove one of those 115bhp gti's, felt slower than my 1.6 A3 - utter rubbish cant believe it had gti written on it.

nah we never got a lower spec 2.0

Originally Posted by VeeDub Geezer

The 125bhp 20v non T was used in early models and i really dont know why they then reintroduced the old 115bhp 2.0 engine (albeit with a new crossflow head)

there is a reason but i cant remember for the life of me.. LOL

IIRC, the GTI was released with both thw 125bhp N/A and turbo models, to give buyers a choice, sort of like 8v and 16v, the N/A was later changed to the 2.0 8v engine with 10 bhp less, but they quoted the same 0-60 times?

Reason being the demand of the 1.8 block was outstripping supply? as all the VAG group cars was using the 1.8 20v engines throughout their range.

Originally Posted by C_Audiboy

What about the 2.0 8v MkIV with 115BHP - that was labelled 'GTI' too !!!

Shocking

I had a customer that came in for some denso spark plugs for one the other day and it had the bhp figures in the book. I re-read it three times because i couldn't believe how under powered it was.

How is the 2.0 less power than the 1.8?

Originally Posted by Randomjim

I had a customer that came in for some denso spark plugs for one the other day and it had the bhp figures in the book. I re-read it three times because i couldn't believe how under powered it was.

How is the 2.0 less power than the 1.8?

Stupid isnt it, especially when they had a more powerful 2.0 16v in the mk3

the 1.8 is actually a better engine too.

Originally Posted by jojo

They used the same 115bhp unit in the mk4 2.0 GTI's also, it was shocking in the mk3, why did they use it in the mk4??

'cos the 2.0 8v engine was still better than the gutless 1.8 not turbo 20v that they fitted to the 'GTI' before the 2.0 GTI.

Believe me, if you thought the 2.0 GTI Mk4 was bad...go try a 20v non turbo 1.8. Yeuck!

Originally Posted by jojo

IIRC, the GTI was released with both thw 125bhp N/A and turbo models, to give buyers a choice, sort of like 8v and 16v, the N/A was later changed to the 2.0 8v engine with 10 bhp less, but they quoted the same 0-60 times?

Reason being the demand of the 1.8 block was outstripping supply? as all the VAG group cars was using the 1.8 20v engines throughout their range.

Yes, there were both versions...
but it was nowt to do with supply and demand why they went to the 2.0 8v over the 1.8 20v NA engine...it was due to torque.

The 2.0 made less power but much more usable torque (lower down the revs) and so, with the 2.0 8v engine, the Mk4 was no slower than the 1.8 20v when pushed hard, but faster when driven normally.

Originally Posted by Randomjim

How is the 2.0 less power than the 1.8?

Because it's an old 8v engine...

Well, an old block anyway...it's the US version of the 2.0 non-crossflow as fitted to the Mk3 8v GTIs I think...a crossflow head on an old engine, first used in the new Beetle.

Originally Posted by Ess_Three

Because it's an old 8v engine...

Well, an old block anyway...it's the US version of the 2.0 non-crossflow as fitted to the Mk3 8v GTIs I think...a crossflow head on an old engine, first used in the new Beetle.

Got ya, well thats cleared it up.

Are we talking about the US GTI edition...

Originally Posted by C_Audiboy

What about the 2.0 8v MkIV with 115BHP - that was labelled 'GTI' too !!!

Shocking

Had one of them, gutless piece of ****.

I also had a 1.8 non turbo 20v before my turbo one, it has 125bhp and was apparently the engine from the A3!?

Originally Posted by A4Quattro

I also had a 1.8 non turbo 20v before my turbo one, it has 125bhp and was apparently the engine from the A3!?

Yeah you could get the A3 sport and SE with the 1.8 20V 125BHP jobbie...
.... also appeared in some A4s too.

Both my golfs were not all that really, I prefer the diesel torque from my A4!

You Audi guys are just plain mean

I have a Mk4 Gti Turbo, i admit its a bit luke warm as standard but its still very good and a great base for better things, just a simple remap and i have 195hp with no other modifications to the engine and its a very quick and capable car, add some Eibach, Konis and 312mm discs and its a great package, smooth and refined yet handles very well, just as good cruising as being thrown round the bends.

Just thought i would support the poor old Mk4, I think it took the Golf in a good direction, great interiors and refinement from a hatchback only previuosly found in much larger saloons, made all the other manafacturers step things up a gear thats for sure.

For pure performance they had the Audi and Seat brands, the mk4 was a ultra refined performance hatch, the Gti Turbo was fully deserving of the GTI badge, fantastic Recaro interior, solid (although not blistering) performance and chunky good looks.

The mk5 however regained the performance reputation, but sacrificed the interior build and quality which i love about the mk4.

I cant see that a mk4 gti turbo is uncool, the 2.0 and 1.8 na certainly deserve it though.

i'm sure you will all disagree

thanks

Tim

I had a tdi-150 .I think the Golf had a good interior with good options,but weight of the body let it down.For a gti model it still needed a remap and better suspension.Also a good stock of MAF units

I bought my mk4 Gti-t 4 years ago for 3k and was very dissapointed apart from the look of it. I think apart from the mk1, it's the best looking production golf to this day and the build quality is fantastic.

Maybe if you're unsure about them, look at it this way - 3k for the car, £600 for coilovers (which have sorted the car out very well), £800 for a turbo conversion and remap to 225bhp, £500 quid for 312mm brake conversion and that's just under 5k for a well sorted car which will do 0-60 in just over 6 seconds and 145 mph. Not bad you have to admit??

Have to agree though, from the factory, it certainly didn't deserve a gti badge

golfs have never been cool for me, pull out onto the M4 and you can see every 2 cars is a golf of some form.

It's just not a GTi.
Alright it has potential to be a good car if fettled with, but then it can hardly be classed as a GTi because of potential. The mk1 was a true GTi, quick and nimble straight off the shelf could challenge lower spec porches of the day in the twisties and then pootle off to the shops.
Apparantly they're remembered what GTi means with the mkV?

i think modified they can be awsome, but in standard form as i know as i had one before my S3, they are ****, remap, coilovers, arb's and exhaust they can perform well. Looks wise i love them, slam to the floor and BBS rims! :D

I owned 1 and i loved it tbh

i owned a GTtdi 52 plate Highline with all the gizmo's was a very quick car with the 150 but put it around the twistys, and it then become as much use as a chocolate tea pot...... but set of coilys made them look cool and feel like a GTI but as stated they didnt deserve a GTI badge out the showroom