Golf GT FSI

sicruise

Has anyone driven one of these, the 2.0 litre model is 150bhp... seems powerful enough...

I'm thinking of getting one over from the UK looks like 20k to get a 2004 one brought over and vrt'd.

It'd be great to know what its like or should I just get a GTI.

MarkN

If you have the money, it's no contest between that and the GTI.

It's not a turbo engine first of all, it's very slow for a car with 150bhp IMO and it has to be worked hard.

The GTI is a FAR nicer car to be in/drive/live with not to mention the extra 50bhp and a turbo stuck on to it.

NiSmO

This post has been deleted.

layke

Agreed with NiSmo.

150BHP from a 2L engine is underpowered. If it's economy you want as well go for the 1.9 TDI as it pumps out 130bhp yet you won't use the turbo in traffic.

MarkN

layke wrote:

you won't use the turbo in traffic.

With all due respect, what in the name of jaysus did you just say?

smash

150bhp from 2ltr... I would have expected more actually considering you can get 190 from a 1.8 celica.

bazz26

Is the OP is referring to the MkIV Golf 1.9 GT TDi diesel with 150bhp or a MkV 2.0 FSi GT petrol?

I thought the 2.0 FSi n/a unit had around 170bhp.

Edit: Just checked and there is a 150bhp version of the MkV GT.

C_Breeze

steve06 wrote:

150bhp from 2ltr... I would have expected more actually considering you can get 190 from a 1.8 celica.

Yeah from variable valve timing .

150 bhp is not bad for a 2L with no turbo and no VTEC , VVTI etc

layke

MarkN wrote:

With all due respect, what in the name of jaysus did you just say?

Because a mate of mine had a comfort line model and the turbo only kicks in when you hit a certain amount of revs. When your crawling through traffic at 2000rpm you don't use a high consumption of fuel, thus saving you oodles of cash.

MarkN

The best thing any of you quoting figures can do is drive the car. Trust me, it's slow.

JoeA3

Yeah, its 150bhp from 2 litres. Generally regarded as a sluggish performer, and it sold in fairly small numbers (especially in Ireland!). I think VW are replacing it entirely with the 1.4 170/140 bhp TSI's.

Henry Ford III

layke wrote:

Because a mate of mine had a comfort line model and the turbo only kicks in when you hit a certain amount of revs. When your crawling through traffic at 2000rpm you don't use a high consumption of fuel, thus saving you oodles of cash.

You use lots of fuel in crawling traffic, turbo assisted or not.

lafors

NiSmO wrote:

This post has been deleted.

1.4gt.....That car is a bit mental to drive, slow, woosh, slow, woosh, there is no in between.

OP I'd have to agree with some others here, if you can stretch for the gti, go for it.

I've driven the 2.0FSI and wasn't too impressed, not what I was expecting from 150bhp, plus I believe they don't offer it anymore.

The 2.0TDI is a good car too, well worth a look.
Your best bet is to go to a VW dealer and ask to drive a few different models...then try not to buy the gti

MarkN

layke wrote:

Because a mate of mine had a comfort line model and the turbo only kicks in when you hit a certain amount of revs. When your crawling through traffic at 2000rpm you don't use a high consumption of fuel, thus saving you oodles of cash.

I've had Golf GTIs and other turbo cars for the last 4 years. I've covered nearly 40,000 kms in MKV GTIs and about half that in a MKIV GTI.

Firstly, if you are at 2,000 rpm in most turbo cars, you will be well into turbo land and the Golf is no exception.

Secondly, a turbo engined car generally uses MORE petrol when not using the turbo ie. below about 1700 rpm. You could not possibly drive even in heavy traffic and not use some of the turbo.

And a comfort line has no bearing on whether it has a turbo or not.

Just want to clear your post up as it is extremely misleading for someone thinking about buying a Golf with a turbo or not.

bazz26

JoeA3 wrote:

Yeah, its 150bhp from 2 litres. Generally regarded as a sluggish performer, and it sold in fairly small numbers (especially in Ireland!). I think VW are replacing it entirely with the 1.4 170/140 bhp TSI's.

The 2.0 FSi is being replaced by a new 1.8 FSi afaik.

layke

MarkN wrote:

I've had Golf GTIs and other turbo cars for the last 4 years. I've covered nearly 40,000 kms in MKV GTIs and about half that in a MKIV GTI.

Firstly, if you are at 2,000 rpm in most turbo cars, you will be well into turbo land and the Golf is no exception.

Secondly, a turbo engined car generally uses MORE petrol when not using the turbo ie. below about 1700 rpm. You could not possibly drive even in heavy traffic and not use some of the turbo.

And a comfort line has no bearing on whether it has a turbo or not.

Just want to clear your post up as it is extremely misleading for someone thinking about buying a Golf with a turbo or not.

No. The model I posted up is a Turbo Diesel. Diesel in traffic + not using turbo = better for pocket then any petrol model. I know the comfort line makes no bearing on what's under the hood I simply said my friend has a comfort line.
I'm basing this info on what I was told from a person who owned the specific model and I doubt he was lying saying he didn't use the turbo while creeping in traffic. All i'm saying in my post is that you can get a Diesel model with nearly the same bhp with better fuel economy.

MarkN

You're missing the point.

Yes you can buy a 130bhp Golf (although the 140bhp 2.0 TDI engine is more in line with the GT FSI engine) but turbos work the same way in a petrol or diesel car and you would want to be CRAWLING along to keep the engine below the power band where a turbo starts - petrol or diesel it doesn't matter and like I said, turbo cars use more fuel when not on boost.

I'm not trying to have a go at you, but it's only fair that the OP gets actual information not what a mate down the pub says. He also didn't say he wanted a diesel anything.

sicruise

It looks like an extra 7000 for a GTi bringing it over from the UK...

Which seems to be a little near... http://www.cbg.ie/Cardetail.aspx?CBGID=751763&ID=1313361&NumPics=3&Make=VW&Model=Golf%20GTI%2016V&frmFilter=

My budget is 20k... i currently have the 1.4... should I just hang out until the GTi comes in my price range then?

MarkN

Is that 20k plus what your car is worth or your budget is 20k full stop?

It's going to be late next year and a car with lots of KMS, if not the year after before you can get a MKV GTI for 20k.

JoeA3

Yeah, the first of the MK V GTI's (2005) are still going for 26-29k.... It'll be a while yet before they drop below the 20k mark.

sicruise

Dang... i'll just have to get my saving hat on... yea with my car 20k. Obviously depends on what I get for mine...

Yea think i'll hang out for the gti, the gt fsi seems like it'll just be a let down!

I thought the gti's came out in 2004 as well?

JoeA3

nahh, they would have maybe appeared in showrooms in late 2004, but I've never seen a '04 reg mkV GTI.

bazz26

The GTi is like Coca Cola. The GT is just like Diet Coke, looks similar to regular Coke but doesn't have the same taste.

MarkN

I test drove a red MKV GTI from Grange in late 2004 (I think it was either end of November or early Dec) but I have never seen a 04 plate.

lightening

I think I saw that one as well. Grange must be making a fortune, I got a new one for about 2K more than what they were looking for a second hand one!

Plug

bazz26 wrote:

The GTi is like Coca Cola. The GT is just like Diet Coke, looks similar to regular Coke but doesn't have the same taste.

Theres a new GT sport and it looks, if anything nicer than the GTI, well no actually it dosen't but its a close call:(
Personally i'd go for the 1.4GT, cheap on fuel, tax, insurance etc and has plenty of horses for the size of the engine.

MarkN

I suppose you're entitled to your opinion Plug but how you could up with that conclusion I dunno!

The red calipers which catch your eye, the 18" wheels, the side skirts, red strip on the honeycomb grill, the bigger discs and then inside - the steering wheel, tartan seats with the GTI logo not to mention the size of the side bolsters and the nice touches around the cabin like the red LED lights.. the GTI is miles ahead.

The GT has NONE of the above bar twin exhaust pipes.

Plug

MarkN wrote:

I suppose you're entitled to your opinion Plug but how you could up with that conclusion I dunno!

The red calipers which catch your eye, the 18" wheels, the side skirts, red strip on the honeycomb grill, the bigger discs and then inside - the steering wheel, tartan seats with the GTI logo not to mention the size of the side bolsters and the nice touches around the cabin like the red LED lights.. the GTI is miles ahead.

The GT has NONE of the above bar twin exhaust pipes.

I said its a close call. the GT does have the big discs, it does have a fancy grill but not like the GTI, its alloys are uique but yes I think the GTI is the better car and it is my favourite car but what i said about the cheaper prices they are better than the GTI's! but if I had enough money of course i'd buy that GTI, its a wonder that car.

Henry Ford III

I like the new GTI, particularly 3 door in white. They are horrendously expensive however.

lightening

Henry Ford III wrote:

I like the new GTI, particularly 3 door in white. They are horrendously expensive however.

You get a lot for your euro though, performance, room, comfort and looks. I nearly fell off my chair when I saw the price of the standard A4!

I got a GTI, its the bog standard one and I have never been happier with a car. Its really such a nice easy car to drive and its very responisive. The GT looks and read well, can't wait to see it in the Bourne movie, they are famous for their car chases.

Plug

Whats this bourne film?