Golf MKVI

pete6296

When is it to be released in Ireland, i currently have a 07 golf tsi which i want to change next year.
I love the Scirocco except for crap boot and rear window which leaves no view, they recommend to get sensors because of design.
Pete

PattheMetaller

I like it. But then, i've always liked my golfs.

pburns

I have to say it's kinda growing on me. The Golf is the one of the few VAG products I'd consider owning. As I understand it the change is to facilitate greater manufacturing efficencies and will NOT effect quality, touch-and-feel etc. We'll see. The Mk V interior was a backward step from the IV IMO. I don't think VW will throw the baby out with the bathwater though, it's a crucial car for them.

I wonder if less complex multi-link suspension will effect the well regarded dynamics though?

brayblue24

Semi-related question here (hopefully not off topic). Currently I have a '05 Audi A4 1.9 TDi and because of high road tax(€511 annually) am now considering a new Golf 1.9TDi GT Sport to cut this out (€150 annually on the VW). I think I prefer the MKV over the MK6 TBH. Is there much difference between my current motor and this car? I've never owned a VW. The A4 is nice car if a bit tight for space in the back. Any thoughts?

Biro

brayblue24 wrote: »

Semi-related question here (hopefully not off topic). Currently I have a '05 Audi A4 1.9 TDi and because of high road tax(€511 annually) am now considering a new Golf 1.9TDi GT Sport to cut this out (€150 annually on the VW). I think I prefer the MKV over the MK6 TBH. Is there much difference between my current motor and this car? I've never owned a VW. The A4 is nice car if a bit tight for space in the back. Any thoughts?

So you're thinking of spending money to save a euro a day on tax?
I'm not a fan of A4's, but they're a much more comprehensive car than a golf. More refined and upmarket.

Dave147

Please keep your A4, this thing looks dreadful! Well I don't mind the front, but the rear is horrendous, looks like it's out of proportion. Also reminds me of the BMW 1 series, ugliest car on the road imo.

ronnie3585

Biro wrote: »

So you're thinking of spending money to save a euro a day on tax?

+1 good point. Keep the A4.

E92

Zonda999 wrote: »

Very disappointed with the basic petrols as well tbh.At least the 1.6 is now the 16v unit as opposed to 8v in Mk 5.I'm just wondering here, because the 110 TDi is under 120g co2/Km, it would be assumed that the 90 bhp 1.6 TDI is also below that, wouldnt it??Would it not also have been easier to use the 1.6 to get 110 bhp rahther than an unnecessarily big 2.0??I quite like the look of it, though and it would be brilliant if the A4 2.0 tfsi makes it into the new GTi

Also, all this talk of it being cheaper to make yet still having the same rear suspension set up, makes me wonder where exactly vw have managed to cut costs on the thing.

Thing is though now that we don't do taxation on engine size, it actually doesn't matter that there is a 2.0 TDI with only 110 bhp.

I'd rather a 2.0 with 110 bhp than a 1.6 with 110 or even 120 bhp.

Remember that power comes at the expense of reliability, so a 1.6 with the same power just won't have the durability of the 2.0. The 2.0 will be more reliable and will be still capable of putting out 110 bhp with 200k miles on the clock.

The engine will have a very easy life because the ECU by only allowing it to develop 110 bhp will mean the engine won't get even slightly stressed out at all. There is a reason why the most unreliable version of 1.9 TDI is the most powerful 150 bhp version after all.

As for the new 2.0 TFSI, it is actually a brand new design wholly unrelated to the one in the current Golf GTI in spite of the identical engine capacity. It is the new EA888 engine rather than the EA111 engine in the Mk V GTI.

It takes something like twice as long to build a Golf Mk V as it does to build a Focus apparently. Now the Focus has the more complex suspension set up like the Golf and you don't hear stories of it breaking down all the time. It also has a high quality interior.

This means it shouldn't have been that hard for them to cut costs for the new car.

Anyone got any idea what the CO2 emissions are like for models other than the aforementioned 2.0 TDI 110?

Also does anyone know when we will see the same engine in the Passat replacing the 1.9 TDI 105?

Junior #8

Its just ok, wont have a patch on the mk IV for popularity or stealing market share.
Clever people would go audi A3 for asthetics, and non-idiots would move away from VAG.
Its pretend quality at premium price. But Residuals are good, and thats all that matters in the auto industry anymore in Ireland

brayblue24

Dave147 wrote: »

Please keep your A4, this thing looks dreadful! Well I don't mind the front, but the rear is horrendous, looks like it's out of proportion. Also reminds me of the BMW 1 series, ugliest car on the road imo.

Ironically enough decided today to keep hold of the A4. Fair point about the €1 a day tax and the other points too. Thanks all.

pburns

Junior #8 wrote: »

non-idiots would move away from VAG.
Its pretend quality at premium price. But Residuals are good, and thats all that matters in the auto industry anymore in Ireland

Nice synopsis! I agree:)...

Everyone talks about residuals of VWs but my experience is that you pay thorough the nose for every single extra and some VW dealers will make you feel as if you're doing THEM a favour spending your hard-earned cash. It's swings and roundabouts - cut a slightly keener deal for a better value non-VAG product and it'll all balance out come trade-in time. It's not even as if they have a dynamic advantage like BMWs

And for all those complaining the MkVI is too conservative, lazy styling etc. read this: http://www.autocar.co.uk/blogs/autocarconfidential/archive/2008/08/07/new-golf-we-ve-been-here-before.aspx

It has always been thus...

E92

Zonda999 wrote: »

Very disappointed with the basic petrols as well tbh.At least the 1.6 is now the 16v unit as opposed to 8v in Mk 5.I'm just wondering here, because the 110 TDi is under 120g co2/Km, it would be assumed that the 90 bhp 1.6 TDI is also below that, wouldnt it??Would it not also have been easier to use the 1.6 to get 110 bhp rahther than an unnecessarily big 2.0??I quite like the look of it, though and it would be brilliant if the A4 2.0 tfsi makes it into the new GTi

Sorry to be bringing back such an old thread, but the 1.6 in the Mk VI Golf is actually the same 8 valve engine as the existing the 1.6 in the Golf V, which in turn means it is heavily based on the 1.6 the made its debut over 15 years ago IIRC.

Anyhoo the real reason I decided to post here was to post the CO2 improvements, which are as follows.

1.4 80 bhp - 149 g/km (down from 165 g/km), so it's now into VRT band C rather than D
1.6 102 bhp - 166 g/km (down from 176 g/km), so now it is in VRT band D rather than E
1.4 TSI 122 bhp - 144 g/km (down from 149 g/km), so no change
1.4 TSI 160 bhp which replaces the 1.4 TSI 140 and 170 evidently - 139 g/km with the DSG box, so a big improvement there, down to band B from the Golf V 170's band E and 174 g/km:eek:
2.0 TDI 110 bhp - replacing the 1.9 TDI 105 - there's a 128 g/km version, and of more interest to us, there is a 119 g/km version as well - so hopefully we will get the 119 g/km version and that would put it into band A rather conveniently for us
2.0 TDI 140 bhp - 129 g/km, so now band B rather than band C
2.0 TDI 140 bhp DSG - 142 g/km, so useful big improvement from the current model's 159 g/km and thus it also drops a VRT band

Hopefully this will result in either lower prices or us getting higher equipment levels, either way we're onto a winner:), and hopefully it will give Ford the kick up the arse it needs to re-introduce the band A Focus 1.6 TDCi

It should also mean that it will sell in even greater numbers than ever before, because it has a VRT and road tax advantage over its rivals.

pburns

E92 wrote: »

1.4 80 bhp - 149 g/km (down from 165 g/km), so it's now into VRT band C rather than D
1.6 102 bhp - 166 g/km (down from 176 g/km), so now it is in VRT band D rather than E
1.4 TSI 122 bhp - 144 g/km (down from 149 g/km), so no change
1.4 TSI 160 bhp which replaces the 1.4 TSI 140 and 170 evidently - 139 g/km with the DSG box, so a big improvement there, down to band B from the Golf V 170's band E and 174 g/km:eek:
2.0 TDI 110 bhp - replacing the 1.9 TDI 105 - there's a 128 g/km version, and of more interest to us, there is a 119 g/km version as well - so hopefully we will get the 119 g/km version and that would put it into band A rather conveniently for us
2.0 TDI 140 bhp - 129 g/km, so now band B rather than band C
2.0 TDI 140 bhp DSG - 142 g/km, so useful big improvement from the current model's 159 g/km and thus it also drops a VRT band

Hopefully this will result in either lower prices or us getting higher equipment levels, either way we're onto a winner:), and hopefully it will give Ford the kick up the arse it needs to re-introduce the band A Focus 1.6 TDCi

It should also mean that it will sell in even greater numbers than ever before, because it has a VRT and road tax advantage over its rivals.

You know all this talk of g/km & VRT bands makes me nervous...

Irish people will end up blowing 30 grand on a new car and make their decision based on sqeezing into a lower tax band and saving maybe €150 over the course of a year... Low CO2 cars will become the lowest depreciators and the vicious circle of crap, underpowered cars will continue as it always has for ever and ever and ever and ever...