The VW Golf Mark III - a critical appraisal

daedalus2097

Have to say it's a lovely car. Totally agree - the 1.4 is way underpowered. Even the 2.0 8-valve isn't the best for a GTi, but they're nice, solid cars. As for the hardboard in the doors? I didn't find any in mine when I changed the interior over, but they do still have the nice hefty clunk which is missing from most other cars of that era. Clutch and steering are heavy but you get used to it, and the gearbox is sometimes fiddly, but that's the case with pretty much every VW from that generation. I have to say I scoured the country to find my one (after the one I imported was written off) and I love it. The handling is quite different in the GTi - nice and tight for a car of its age, and 150BHP offsets the weight somewhat. All in all, I've found it to be very well built, solid feeling and one of the nicest cars to drive around that age.

BostonB

The GTI is a nice cruiser I'll give it that. Even if it rolls a bit. The 2.0 8 valve is 115BHP and the 2.0 16v is 150BHP. Very hard to find clean one. They nearly all been abused.

daedalus2097

Yeah, hence my first was imported from the UK as there were no decent ones for sale in this country. My second one was imported by the previous owner and needed a little work but well worth it IMHO. The 16v is head and shoulders above the 8v I reckon, but horses for courses...

JHMEG

BrianD3 wrote: »

Contrast what happens when a Golf Mk3 and a Civic EG are subjected to the same test

IIRC the Golf 1.4 CL didn't have any airbags at all. Maybe the OP could tell us if his does. (The golf in the video has 2)

BostonB

daedalus2097 wrote: »

Yeah, hence my first was imported from the UK as there were no decent ones for sale in this country. My second one was imported by the previous owner and needed a little work but well worth it IMHO. The 16v is head and shoulders above the 8v I reckon, but horses for courses...

35bhp and and a slighty lower suspension can't have made that much of a difference. Never driven one though.

JHMEG wrote: »

IIRC the Golf 1.4 CL didn't have any airbags at all. Maybe the OP could tell us if his does. (The golf in the video has 2)

Was it an option?

BrianD3

I'd imagine that airbags were optional on the CL at the start but became standard later on. Lots of Mk3s did have airbags and safety was a selling point of the car. Also, the Mk3 did equally well when previously tested without any airbags.

JHMEG

BrianD3 wrote: »

I'd imagine that airbags were optional on the CL at the start but became standard later on. Lots of Mk3s did have airbags and safety was a selling point of the car. Also, the Mk3 did equally well when previously tested without any airbags.

Last 1.4 CL I drove was a '95.. it def didn't have any airbags (just checked with the owner).

crosstownk

IIRC, airbags were optional extras on the MkIII

JHMEG

If the were optional I'd say not a lot of people paid the extra for them, as they'd be seriously expensive.

@Furet: does your's have any airbags?

Amtmann

JHMEG wrote: »

If the were optional I'd say not a lot of people paid the extra for them, as they'd be seriously expensive.

@Furet: does your's have any airbags?

Mine has only one airbag, located in the steering wheel. I don't know if it was optional when the car was bought, as mine is 3rd-hand.

Thanks for all the replies lads, fascinating to get your views.

bazz26

Afaik a driver's air bag was made standard and passenger air bag optional on the MkIII Golf from 1996 when it got a mild facelift which included colour coded bumpers and mirrors, GTi style tinted rear light cluster and central locking.

crosstownk

bazz26 wrote: »

Afaik a driver's air bag was made standard and passenger air bag optional on the MkIII Golf from 1996 when it got a mild facelift which included colour coded bumpers and mirrors, GTi style tinted rear light cluster and central locking.

Hmmm - something rings a bell there, bazz. I think you could be right - especially with the colour coded bumpers, mirrors. My Dad had a 1996 MkIII and it definitely had colour coded bumpers and mirrors and he's not the type to order 'unnecessary' extras. I can't remember whether or not it had an airbag.

JHMEG

Speaking of which, am I correct in saying the A4 of the same era (96) base model 1.6 ("CL" if you like) only had one airbag?

colm_mcm

That would be right. dual airbags weren't that common in the mid 90's.

bazz26

Yeah I had a 1994 Accord a good couple of years ago and it had no air bag. It did have ABS though.

JHMEG

bazz26 wrote: »

Yeah I had a 1994 Accord a good couple of years ago and it had no air bag. It did have ABS though.

Yeah but the Accord isn't a "Premium" car is it? Altho the later model (98) has 2, upgraded to 4 with the facelift.

BostonB

JHMEG wrote: »

Yeah but the Accord isn't a "Premium" car is it? Altho the later model (98) has 2, upgraded to 4 with the facelift.

I would have expect an Accord to have all the gadget of the era. 4 wheel steering and all the bells.

daedalus2097

BostonB wrote: »

35bhp and and a slighty lower suspension can't have made that much of a difference. Never driven one though.

The power isn't a huge difference, but it's where the power is. I know people who prefer the 8v as it has more low down torque, but it starts to run out of power as it moves up through the revs. The 16v on the other hand doesn't have so much torque down low, but can just keep pulling and pulling all the way up to 7k RPM. Never noticed any difference in the feel of the two cars suspension-wise TBH, but I only ever drove an 8v a few times.

As for the airbag, I think it was standard on the GTi and VR6 and an option on everything else, and probably more common in UK-originated cars where airbags weren't such a VRT magnet.

JæKæ

Have a mk III golf in Canada. It had the clutch replaced a few months ago, so it's smooth as hell shifting gears.
I had a 1.4 at home, but this is a 1.8. Nice and nippy. I disagree with earlier points made about the style of it-I reckon it doesn't look as feminine as the mk 4 and 5. Less bubbly.