1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

VW Golf MK4 GTI Turbo (150)

Caesium Dec 20, 2006

?

Rate the Dub

  1. Sub Zero

    3 vote(s)
    3.8%
  2. Cool

    27 vote(s)
    33.8%
  3. Uncool

    44 vote(s)
    55.0%
  4. Seriously Uncool

    6 vote(s)
    7.5%
  1. Caesium

    Caesium My BM is fixed! VCDS Map User

    4,879
    4
    36
    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 ****.
     
  2. batwad

    batwad Member

    864
    0
    16
    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.
     
  3. Ess_Three

    Ess_Three Active Member

    5,383
    14
    38
    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 ****...the Mk5 is a great car to drive.
     
  4. Caesium

    Caesium My BM is fixed! VCDS Map User

    4,879
    4
    36
    Yes I mean the MK4, can you amend?
     
  5. Ess_Three

    Ess_Three Active Member

    5,383
    14
    38
    There you go Sir...
    Ammended.
     
  6. Stringster

    Stringster Missed gear

    390
    8
    18
    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...
     
  7. Randomjim

    Randomjim Active Member

    2,752
    3
    36
    Nice car but didn't deserve a gti badge
     
  8. batwad

    batwad Member

    864
    0
    16
    Oh, Mk4! Definitely uncool.
     
  9. james0808

    james0808 Active Member

    3,548
    4
    36
    Agree with that.
     
  10. Caesium

    Caesium My BM is fixed! VCDS Map User

    4,879
    4
    36
    I like the look of the new one, would like a test drive maybe 1 day.
     
  11. Randomjim

    Randomjim Active Member

    2,752
    3
    36
    Yea like the mk5 but i'd want 4wd with that power
     
  12. mattyboy199

    mattyboy199 Well-Known Member

    1,886
    28
    48
    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.
     
  13. Caesium

    Caesium My BM is fixed! VCDS Map User

    4,879
    4
    36
    I had an Astra GTE! with the digital dash! Every single plastic panel on that car creaked
     
  14. benw123

    benw123 Moderator

    1,863
    3
    38
    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.
     
  15. jojo

    jojo Looking for Boost! Staff Member Moderator Team Daytona Audi S3 quattro Audi A6 Audi Avant Owner Group

    28,857
    3,516
    113
    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!
     
  16. jonny_1.8t

    jonny_1.8t New Member

    9
    0
    1
    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.
     
  17. dickys3

    dickys3 Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    2,954
    2
    38
    I had a Mk4 GT TDI and it was great on the motorway, pretty dire around bends!

    Prefer my Mk2's anyday.
     
  18. JohnnyRob

    JohnnyRob Remember

    137
    3
    18
    Underpowered and too fat (not phat) = uncool. It's a VW Golf GTI so can't be seriously uncool, though.
     
  19. voorhees

    voorhees Moderator Staff Member Moderator DSG

    16,145
    1,978
    113
    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
     
  20. C_Audiboy

    C_Audiboy Vroom Vroom

    822
    0
    16
    What about the 2.0 8v MkIV with 115BHP - that was labelled 'GTI' too !!!

    Shocking :no:
     
  21. jojo

    jojo Looking for Boost! Staff Member Moderator Team Daytona Audi S3 quattro Audi A6 Audi Avant Owner Group

    28,857
    3,516
    113
    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??
     
  22. rodenal

    rodenal Active Member

    1,992
    0
    36
    emmmmm

    mkIV is mk4 :uhm:
     
  23. VeeDub Geezer

    VeeDub Geezer Ex-20v Coupe Owner

    90
    0
    6
    *Random geeky comment*

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

    jojo Looking for Boost! Staff Member Moderator Team Daytona Audi S3 quattro Audi A6 Audi Avant Owner Group

    28,857
    3,516
    113

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

    My bad. :keule:
     
  25. rodenal

    rodenal Active Member

    1,992
    0
    36

    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.
     
  26. C_Audiboy

    C_Audiboy Vroom Vroom

    822
    0
    16
    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.
     
  27. VeeDub Geezer

    VeeDub Geezer Ex-20v Coupe Owner

    90
    0
    6
    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
     
  28. rodenal

    rodenal Active Member

    1,992
    0
    36
    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)
     
  29. VeeDub Geezer

    VeeDub Geezer Ex-20v Coupe Owner

    90
    0
    6
    its better in the Lupo :happy:

    and gets a six speed box too! :icon_thumright:
     
  30. VeeDub Geezer

    VeeDub Geezer Ex-20v Coupe Owner

    90
    0
    6
    nah we never got a lower spec 2.0 :rolleyes:
     
  31. jojo

    jojo Looking for Boost! Staff Member Moderator Team Daytona Audi S3 quattro Audi A6 Audi Avant Owner Group

    28,857
    3,516
    113
    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.
     
  32. Randomjim

    Randomjim Active Member

    2,752
    3
    36
    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?:blink:
     
  33. rodenal

    rodenal Active Member

    1,992
    0
    36

    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.
     
  34. Ess_Three

    Ess_Three Active Member

    5,383
    14
    38
    '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!
     
  35. Ess_Three

    Ess_Three Active Member

    5,383
    14
    38
    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.
     
  36. Ess_Three

    Ess_Three Active Member

    5,383
    14
    38
    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.
     
  37. Randomjim

    Randomjim Active Member

    2,752
    3
    36
    Got ya, well thats cleared it up.
     
  38. TDI-line

    TDI-line Uber Post Whore Team Floret Silver quattro Audi A3 Black Edition TDi

    9,563
    1,301
    113
    Are we talking about the US GTI edition... ;)

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  39. smitch

    smitch Active Member

    1,588
    0
    36
    Had one of them, gutless piece of ****.
     
  40. Caesium

    Caesium My BM is fixed! VCDS Map User

    4,879
    4
    36
    I also had a 1.8 non turbo 20v before my turbo one, it has 125bhp and was apparently the engine from the A3!?
     

Share This Page