newish golf or old golf

grahamor

Hi,

I am looking to buy a VW golf in a few weeks. Ideally i only want to spend around 2.5k to 3k on it but i reckon i might be better off buying a 2000 one for about 8.5-9k because it would be less hassle running it and i could sell it in a year or 2 for a good price.

What do you experts think ?

Also, im 25, had my full licence to nearly 5 years but never been insured. Does anyone recommend any insurance agencies for me.

Thanks

how much would tax be on a 1.4 ???

kluivert

The insurance would be cheaper on the 2000, as the older a car gets after a certain amount of time the more risk is attahed to it.

Can i recommend a Seat Leon.

kluivert

Ok trying to clear this up for awhile now.

Buy a new Skoda 1.9TDi and sell in three years time, residuals 50%
£12680, after three years residual is £6340 = reduction in value = £6340


Buy a new Golf 1.9TDI and sell in three years time, residuals 60%
£17000, after three years residual is £10200 = reduction in value = £6800

Not much of a difference between the two. £560.

£560 after three years is the extra cost of having a premium brand. Thats £186 a year.

So is it better off to go for a premium brand car.

All the above figures have been taken from "What Car" Magazine.

kluivert

Dude sorry didnt mean to post that here

lomb

grahamor wrote:

Hi,

I am looking to buy a VW golf in a few weeks. Ideally i only want to spend around 2.5k to 3k on it but i reckon i might be better off buying a 2000 one for about 8.5-9k because it would be less hassle running it and i could sell it in a year or 2 for a good price.

What do you experts think ?

Also, im 25, had my full licence to nearly 5 years but never been insured. Does anyone recommend any insurance agencies for me.

Thanks

how much would tax be on a 1.4 ???

im selling my mothers cared for 1999 golf comfort, only problem is i cant let it go till the new one comes which will be about 5-6 weeks.
details are in my sig below. looking for as close to 7 as possible, u wont get a better 1999 one .
you should get diesel like economy out of it, i manage 45-48 on a country run in my 2003 one. tax is 292 per annum.

colm_mcm

I don't reckon a 2000 golf is going to be a lot more reliable than an older one,
Mk4 Golfs aren't exactly the last word on reliability.
I don't think it makes sense to spend 7 grand more on the off chance that the older one might be troublesome.

lomb

the mkiv is a FAR superior car, the MK3 which ive driven is not a good car, with a crap 8valve engine and a clonky gearbox. a corolla would be a better option if money was limited.to sum it up the mkiv is new'er' technology , the mk3 is old technology.

colm_mcm

the Mk4 may be higher tech (75bhp from 1.4 - wow!)
but the mk3 should prove to be just as reliable and much cheaper to own.

I think most people would agree that Mk4 golfs are overpriced, and as the original poster is just looking for a cheap car, it would be very hard to recommend a mk4.


(have you heard of the Skoda Octavia etc. etc....)

lomb

the old one was a 60bhp unit and if u know about the differences between a 8v and a 16valve engine you will know the 60bhp will feel like 45 bhp. the vw mk3 was one woeful car, built in the dark days.
japanese stuff of that era was far superior technically, id rather a mazda, honda or toyota anyday over a mk3.
if the op is on a budget id suggest buying something cheap and reliable, id say he could get a 99 primera for a couple of grand believe it or not:)

colm_mcm

grahamor wrote:

I am looking to buy a VW golf in a few weeks.

if it's a choice between a golf or a golf, a primera mightn't really count!

I'd say go for something japanese as well, but some people just love golfs!

lomb

colm_mcm wrote:

I'd say go for something japanese as well, but some people just love golfs!

then u are always going to have to pay for the privilage:p
to the op id go jap if u are on a budget, most cars lose 1500 a year until they reach near zero, the only way around this is to buy a car for 1500-2000 ie a 97/98/99 japanese car and drive it into the ground and then light it up when u are finished with it:D

colm_mcm

Mazda 323 / Toyota Corolla would be two good choices, both can be bought cheaply and re sold for similar money when you're finished with it. will be far more reliable than anything else anyone can mention (this isn't an invitation for someone with a citroen xantia to say that they've done 600,000 miles without incident)

lomb

the post 98 on corolla particulary in saloon is a great car, bit heavy on fuel but the engine is willing and the handleing safe and predictable, looks good also (in saloon)

colm_mcm

lomb wrote:

looks good also (in saloon)

the liftback is a bit of a pig alright!

lomb

colm_mcm wrote:

the liftback is a bit of a pig alright!

u can say that again:D

bazz26

colm_mcm wrote:

the liftback is a bit of a pig alright!

I thought the front of that car looked more like a frog myself. Those round headlights. :eek: The designer was obviously smoking the same stuff as the guy who designed the face of the Scorpio.

colm_mcm

the front end isn't too bad, and the three and five door Corollas in that model are actually quite nicely styled, seemed they were having a bad day when they did the Liftback!

pontovic

I have a 1999 Bora that has a 1.6SR engine in it. I believe it has 103bhp. Can anyone tell me, is this an 8valve engine or a 16 valve engine ?

lomb

pontovic wrote:

I have a 1999 Bora that has a 1.6SR engine in it. I believe it has 103bhp. Can anyone tell me, is this an 8valve engine or a 16 valve engine ?

good question! i was wondering that myself, certainly vws new standard 1.6 is now an 8valve, u have to pay more for the 16valve, but this also has high pressure direct injection, straight into the compression chamber at the appropriate time instead of into the intake manifold.
someone told me their brothers 2000 1.6 was def a 16valve as it had 16v on the plastic engine cover, but the new fsi engine didnt exist then.
can u pop the bonnet and see what it says on the plastic cover and report back? another way to tell is to rev the engine hard while its stationery and then release it, then rev it again, a 16 valve revs very freely like a sweing machine, an 8valve like a tractor.

pontovic

it says 1.6sr

to be honest i think its an 8 valve

lomb

pontovic wrote:

it says 1.6sr

to be honest i think its an 8 valve

it probably is then, ud def know if it was 16valve, they tend to be very rev happy, 8valves behave like diesels in that they dont want to rev. this is most probably because 16valves breath better.
whatever about 1999 sad that vw in 2006 is producing 8valve single cam engines, the japs had 16valvers in the mid eighties:rolleyes:

edit/ looks like vw did have a 16 valve 1.6 back then see the bottom of the page http://www.channel4.com/4car/feature/topten/toptenusedcars-2246/toptenusedcars-2246-10.html

Kermitt

I bought a 02 golf 1.4 comfortline 3 weeks ago, Not sure about 1.6 but the 1.4 is a 16 valve and I'm quite impressed with performance out of it, especially in 3rd and 4th, considering how sluggish the Mk3 was. Depends on configuration of engine though. Mk2 8 valve GTi was a beast of a car.. much better than the 16 valve replacement.
As for OPs question the comfort and refinement in the Mk4 is way ahead of anything else in its class, especially in '98/'99 cars. Personally i think its worth the extra few euro as i could have bought a newer megane/corolla etc for same money. toyota would be known as more reliable but very sparse inside (as is base Golf) and megane is nowhere near in quality. Golf comfortline is a lovely car.
Just my 2 cents

lomb

indeed the 1.4 are all 16valvers, big step up on the mk3s. thats why i cant understand how vw are still running with the 1.6 8valve. i had to pay extra for the 16valve i ordered for the mother. the 2006 audi a3 1.6 8valve i test drove was an incredibly disappointing experiance.

colm_mcm

maybe it's because they're selling the car on the percieved quality, rather than on its abilities

HashSlinging

the 97 corolla is the best, IMO. I just sold one, originally bought as an alternative to the same years golf but what a car 75bhp out of a 1.3 engine. very light steering and very entertaining to drive, rock solid even up 140kph. The '00 1.8 Vtec accord that was bought to replace it isnt half as entertaining.

HashSlinging

lomb wrote:

indeed the 1.4 are all 16valvers, big step up on the mk3s. thats why i cant understand how vw are still running with the 1.6 8valve. i had to pay extra for the 16valve i ordered for the mother. the 2006 audi a3 1.6 8valve i test drove was an incredibly disappointing experiance.

1.6 8v Audi A3 ???? - source?? I think you've been ripped off

colm_mcm

HashSlinging wrote:

the 97 corolla is the best, IMO. 75bhp out of a 1.3 engine. .

the 1.3 unit introduced in 1992 and axed in 00 was actually 87bhp !

bazz26

HashSlinging wrote:

1.6 8v Audi A3 ???? - source?? I think you've been ripped off

http://www.carzone.ie/newcars/index.cfm?fuseaction=Details&vehicle_id=51164920050606&strSpecs=SSCIRL2002

From above link:
1,595 cc 1.6 litres in-line 4 transverse engine with 81 mm bore, 77.4 mm stroke, 10.3 compression ratio, overhead cam and two valves per cylinder
Performance: maximum speed (mph): 115, maximum speed (km/h): 185 and acceleration 0-100 km/h (secs): 11.9Power: 75 kW , 102 HP EEC @ 5,600 rpm; , 148 Nm @ 3,800 rpm

The same engine is also in the €36k A4.

colm_mcm

i wouldn't really go on what Carzone say. I'd check it out myself.

HashSlinging

Bazz I can tell you now that theres no way its a 8v petrol engine, 102bhp? its the 16v non-FSI engine.

colm_mcm

it's still crap for a high end car though