Opinions on VW Bora ?

TempestSabre

Seem to be about 7-9k from what I've seen. Whats interesting is where most of the cars of that age and price have 60-100k you see a few with much lower mileage, but yet scruffier, from some dealers. Ummmmm.

lomb

if its 4500 then as far im concerned its clocked $hit(although i stand to be corrected), 90% of 7 year old cars on irish roads are rubbish.
mine has just hads its timing belt/tensioner/water pump 60000 mile service done with receipts, new brake discs/pads with receipts, new boot lock, rear wiper motor...run on fully synthetic oil from day one, even the original rear michelins are on it still virtually unworn, fronts replaced with new michelin enegys only

not the usual tat me thinks... il let u guys know how i get on, might flog it on boards and carzone if no good dealer offers are forthcoming.

colm_mcm

Of course you must get as much as you can for it! and there are people out there who will pay over the odds

Silvera

I was considering buying a Bora back in August but after a lot of research I decided against it!
e.g. gearbox failure happens much too often for my liking !!

See www.honestjohn.co.uk (look up 'Bora' in the 'Used Car reviews' section).


I went for a '03 Astra in the end - only €11,500 for a one owner, 29k, FOSH car !

Silvera
(Ex-Panel Beater)

TempestSabre

Have to say I like those Astra. Driven a few and they drive very nicely. The TD is pokey enough.

Benny-c

Drove a Bora (1.4L) for 3 years (company). I was very disappointed and was glad I wasn't paying for it. It's way underpowered, extremely dangerous for overtaking:eek:

I was doing 50kmls.pa and it wasnt able for the high mileage, it had a succession of oil leaks & suspension problems.

Not a happy customer:(

TempestSabre

Of course theres always the choice of NOT overtaking...:D Its only dangerous if the driver makes it dangerous. The car doesn't decide to overtake on it own...:D

pontovic

Benny-c wrote:

Drove a Bora (1.4L) for 3 years (company). I was very disappointed and was glad I wasn't paying for it. It's way underpowered, extremely dangerous for overtaking:eek:

I was doing 50kmls.pa and it wasnt able for the high mileage, it had a succession of oil leaks & suspension problems.

Not a happy customer:(

I heard the 1.4l engines in them were crap, especially the early 1999 models. The 1.6 I've been told is alot better though and newer bora's have better engines in them. ive also been told that they are boring to drive, is this true ?

TempestSabre

pontovic wrote:

I heard the 1.4l engines in them were crap, especially the early 1999 models. The 1.6 I've been told is alot better though and newer bora's have better engines in them. ive also been told that they are boring to drive, is this true ?

The engines ok. Its just that the cars are very heavy. An engine with more torque is better suited to a heavier car.

colm_mcm

the 1.4 in the Bora is no worse or better than the equivelant in the Focus or Astra, although it gets shown up by a Corolla with 20bhp more. However the VW unit is very refined,this makes up for its lack of pace

TempestSabre

colm_mcm wrote:

t...VW unit is very refined...

...Needs posh petrol...:D

I'd say the jap ones are better especially the Hondas.

colm_mcm

TempestSabre wrote:

...Needs posh petrol...:D

I'd say the jap ones are better especially the Hondas.

the honda one isn't great, a bit dead by their standards. In that class, the only lively 1.4's are the corolla and the now defunct Rover 25 / MG ZR, I've driven pretty much all of them at some point and I'd say the slowest would be the Golf/Bora/Leon/Octavia, Megane, and Lanos/Kalos

on the posh petrol, the VW 1.4 often sounds like it's "pinking"
can't justify spending even more on petrol!

TempestSabre

Refined or lively. I've never heard any say the VW was lively. The VW 1.4 100BHP is ok, but they're rare enough. Any Honda 1.4 I ever drove was smooth and revy.

Try to find a VW engine in this list...

http://www.ukintpress.com/engineoftheyear/previous04.html

lomb

vw 1.6 102 bhp engine is pure rubbish. the 1.4 is a better engine as its 16 valve double overhead cam, versus the old eighties type single overhead cam 8valve in the 1.6. in fact i test drove a new audi a3 with the 8valve 1.6 yesterday and found it to be the worst car id EVER driven. pile of rubbish..
looks like the 1.6 fsi engine then for mum, and this only comes in comfortline
@ 27500 euros. even if i got 7 grand for the 99 golf (which some here think excessive) its still going to cost 20 grand to upgrade.

vw are jokers, just shows u the brand image they have that they can sell a mid eighties engine in a 2006 car at a price thats not cheap, and if u want a half way modern engine(the 1.6 fsi) ur up to 27 grand, just a few grand short of the GTI, which is an awesome car by any standard. crazy vw...

BrianD3

colm_mcm wrote:

the 1.4 in the Bora is no worse or better than the equivelant in the Focus or Astra, although it gets shown up by a Corolla with 20bhp more. However the VW unit is very refined,this makes up for its lack of pace

The Astra 1.4 has around 15 bhp more than the VAG 1.4 IIRC. The Ford Focus and VAG units develop about the the same power and both are pathetically slow. Yet VAG and Ford are still fitting these engines to their latest models which are heavier than their predecessors. These engines lag well behind similar sized units from Rover, Renault and Toyota.

colm_mcm

TempestSabre wrote:

Refined or lively. I've never heard any say the VW was lively. The VW 1.4 100BHP is ok, but they're rare enough. Any Honda 1.4 I ever drove was smooth and revy.

I never said the VW was lively, at 75bhp it's far from it! as for the Renault, it's a lot slower in real life than figures would suggest. a lot of emphasis is put on peak bhp,

It's crazy alright that they still use these rubbish engines

TempestSabre

An 8V engine is going to have more low down torque than a 1.4 16v. If you used to revy engines you won't like a 8v. You have to remember that these cars are heavy. Put that 102bhp, 1.6 in a old mrk 1 and it would fly.

colm_mcm wrote:

I never said the VW was lively, at 75bhp it's far from it!

You don't expect a heavy car with a small engine to be lively. The Jap cars are generally lighter and have more powerful motors. What do you expect. Personally I don't find VW engines "refined".

The 1.4 astras nippy enough alright.

colm_mcm

absolutely, it's really disappointing to see new cars like the Citroen C4 and Focus. then drive them and they're pathetic. Remember the days when an Alfa 145 1.4 T.Spark or FIat Bravo GT could really fly

lomb

TempestSabre wrote:

If you used to revy engines you won't like a 8v. You have to remember that these cars are heavy.

correct, the engine was a lump of metal made from the heaviest iron vw could find. pure rubbish, i dont know how they get away with it. i floored the a3, and i dont know if it was the fact that it was very refined or what , but absolutely nothing happened! it gently moved forward!
so much for innovation, vw are going backwards. they shouldnt be selling the 1.6 in non 16v twin cam guise.

BrianD3

If you want to talk about rubbish engines, just think back to the Golf Mk3. 60 bhp 1.4, 75 bhp 1.8 (not sold in ireland AFAIK)

And it's not as if VW concentrated on making the rest of the car good, it was generally a poor effort with terrible equipment levels eg no anti roll bars on the lower models. The only good points were safety and a solid feel.

This was at a time when Rover were producing the K series which put out 103 bhp from a 1.4. Although it did eat head gaskets.

As for Renaults, my brother has the old model Megane 1.4 16v and it trounces the Golf IV and Focus Mk1 and also beats the Astra. It's about on a par with the Corolla. The new model Megane is slower due to increased weight but the same is true of all the newer cars.

colm_mcm

that said, most people i know with boras aren't really into going fast! and Ireland is about the only market with a 1.4 Bora

The 60bhp 1.4 was used in the VW Polo and Fabia until that sewing machine 1.2 engine replaced it

lomb

colm_mcm wrote:

Remember the days when an Alfa 145 1.4 T.Spark or FIat Bravo GT could really fly

theres always the GTi, still a legend and better than ever before. absolute beauty and 'only' 34k, not bad for a 200 bhp turbo, with gorgeous recaros, and super looks and handeling. she reakoned they are a theft magnet though, the dealership had 2 stolen on them.

colm_mcm

lomb wrote:

theres always the GTi, still a legend and better than ever before. absolute beauty and 'only' 34k, not bad for a 200 bhp turbo, with gorgeous recaros, and super looks and handeling. she reakoned they are a theft magnet though, the dealership had 2 stolen on them.

granted, but it's not exactly back-to-basics small engined motoring fun....

and it is 13 grand more than a 1.4

lomb

thats for sure, its still alot of money for a golf, but at least the GTi is an innovative car. vw are passing off rubbish in their lower ranked cars, and in their lower ranked audis. imagine paying 40 grand for a new audi and it being no better than a yoke from the eighties, just pathetic.

look at the japs, toyota are innovating, they have a 1.4 diesel that pushes out 90 bhp, and its a light engine to boot so the handeling doesnt suffer and also is very torquey ideal for a automatic which can be fitted to it. if only the corrola didnt look so bland it go with that. my fathers 98 corolla petrol with a 1.3 4EFE engine is an amazing engine. pushes out almost 100 bhp, and is like a minature race engine, very revy and not bad for torque either for the low capacity.

bazz26

VW have a 100bhp 1.4 petrol engine still available in the Skoda Fabia. This engine has been around for a couple of years now but is very rare on these shores. I don't understand why this unit is not fitted across their entire range instead of that pathetic 75bhp unit. Of course knowing VW they would charge a premium for this too.

I have read alright with interest that VW have produced a 1.4 supercharged turbo charged petrol unit producing 168bhp which is pretty amazing and are going to fit it to the Golf but I cannot see this replacing the entry model and sold at a realistic price. It will probably cost similar money to the GTi.

Speaking of the 1.6 8 valve engine in the A3, the same engine is also in the A4 which surely must be dog slow as it is even heavier than the A3, honestly paying €35k (before you start adding options) for this is a disgrace. The 1.6 FSi is not even available in the A4.

I can only assume Audi/VW are marketing this model to people who are more interested in paying for the badge than what is actually under the bonnet.

TempestSabre

Yeah but those Rovers and Fiats die an early death. The boring old VW's do mega miles exactly because they are not over stressed. VW do inovate for example..

http://www.vwvortex.com/artman/publish/article_319.shtml

You all know the problem is the taxation on cars. The strip Irish cars to the base level to reduce the price. Its just that Ireland is the only place the consumer puts up with it. While you might slag off VW, Rover are gone and Fiat are in trouble. So they must be doing something right.

maidhc

bazz26 wrote:

Speaking of the 1.6 8 valve engine in the A3, the same engine is also in the A4 which surely must be dog slow as it is even heavier than the A3, honestly paying €35k (before you start adding options) for this is a disgrace. The 1.6 FSi is not even available in the A4.

I can only assume Audi/VW are marketing this model to people who are more interested in paying for the badge than what is actually under the bonnet.

Yes it makes no sense, but you really have to blame the purchasers, not those that supply the demand. BMW have been doing similar for years with small engined 3 Series.

I think the same can be said for the 1.4l VW engine. I dont doubt that it is a crappy engine compared to the Toyota, but people seem to buy plenty of them. If people didnt, VW would rethink what they are doing. It is no wonder I am able to overtake most cars on motorway inclines in my mondeo 1.8TD, which itself is a dead sort of a thing.

VW do innovate though. I would love to see the state of Diesel cars if it was not for the TDI, or even the Mk1 Golf Diesel before it. The TDI 90bhp was so far ahead of eveything else when it was launched in ...1992?... (i.e. Toyota and Nissan had 2.0 normally aspirated lumps, etc. Toyota didnt cop on with diesels until 2000, and Nissan still put a 2.2 Diesel in the Almera Van!!)

lomb

maidhc wrote:

I think the same can be said for the 1.4l VW engine. I dont doubt that it is a crappy engine compared to the Toyota, but people seem to buy plenty of them. If people didnt, VW would rethink what they are doing.

the 1.4 is a fine engine , its no toyota engine, but its a 16v twin cam and feels lively, even if the car is a little slow(and i dont think it is that slow)

the 1.6 8v is a WORSE engine that the 1.4 16v, i honestly cant believe it was outputting 33% more power than the 1.4 maybe it was at 6000 rpm, but it sure as hell doesnt want to rev past 3000, and it felt very slow at normal rpm. 16 valves are far better engines, just like petrol is better than diesel because petrol engines rev freely. its not all about bhp and torque, the car has to 'feel' good.

TempestSabre

lomb wrote:

the 1.4 is a fine engine , its no toyota engine, but its a 16v twin cam and feels lively, even if the car is a little slow(and i dont think it is that slow) the 1.6 8v is a WORSE engine that the 1.4 16v, i honestly cant believe it was outputting 33% more power than the 1.4 maybe it was at 6000 rpm, but it sure as hell doesnt want to rev past 3000, and it felt very slow at normal rpm. 16 valves are far better engines, just like petrol is better than diesel because petrol engines rev freely. its not all about bhp and torque, the car has to 'feel' good.

You're just rev happy. Bet you had one of the rev noise things for your bicycle when you were a kid. Reminds me of Top gear. when they put a "max power" V6 clio they put up against a Classic AUSTIN HEALY in a hill climb.

lomb

So u are saying diesels are better than petrol?
come on who would drive a diesel if they werent more efficent than petrol? i have driven a 105000 euro s320cdi, and it was torquey but overall disappointing, was a 'dirty' engine, had alot of clatter, sure when u mate it to an auto, u dont really notice reviness, but i wouldnt buy one.

as regards 8v vs 16v can u explain why no one except probably vw still makes 8valve petrol engines? 16valvers breathe better, are more fuel efficent, feel better, but the downside is cost, and complexity of running a twin cam setup.

interestingly in the uk, they dont do 1.6 non fsi golfs, so it looks as if im going to import a 2005 one with a few thousand miles on it, shouldnt cost more than 22 for one that has air con, traction control, metallic paint, and tiptronic auto, not too bad i may say, screw vw ireland;)