Various golfs vs Corrado

[Chris71 0]

Hi,

 

Looking at a variety of cars for my next buy in the summer and wondered if anyone here could offer some opinions.

 

Assuming there was enough budget for any of them, however, you can only find a realistic 2007 purchase - no 10,000 mile Mk2's or anything which one would it be?

 

The main emphasis is on something completely reliable - this is strictly for use as an everday car, come rain, snow etc and will have to live outside.

 

The only golf I've ever driven is a diesel, but I would guess based on what I've heard before (ok, stereotypes!) that the summary would be,

 

Mk2 GTi (prob 16v) - the purest drivers car, but also the most fragile

Mk3 Gti 16v - the least driver orientated, but reliable and generally sensible with ABS, AC etc

Mk3 VR6 - good in a straight line, presumably handles like a mk3 GTi? Thirsty

Corrado (prob VR6) - Possibly the best alrounder, but high mileages and twice the cost

 

Is this correct? Probably not! Can someone who actually knows a bit about them comment? :)

 

Can anybody give me an idea of running costs, particularly for the VR6's - is there a decent range from the tank? Seem to remember the insurance costs were good compared to toher cars of a similar performance when I looked before - any idea roughly how much a 24 year old bloke in Chelmsford with a couple of years no claims would be looking at for a VR6 or Corrado?

 

Does anyone know if you can get a mountain bike frame in the back of a Corrado? Can't see it being a problem, especially if the seats fold.

 

Can anyone tell me the performance stats for the 4 cylinder Corrados - how much slower are they than the VR6? Prices for a good 16v seem to be atleast as much as the more tired VR6s.

 

Any general comments more than welcome....

 

Chris.

[herisites 0]

Get a corrado VR6 mate, dont worry about mileage as there are some low milers about but even ones with over 100k are only just ran in, mines on 132k and still very healthy. They aren't as bad as people think on fuel either, if you do motorway or long distance commutes you can easily see 30+ mpg i drive only short distance town with a bit of open road driving and i average 26mpg and the later models have a 70 litre tank so you can get quite a few miles out of them too :D

[Talc 0]

bike goes in the back easy with the seats down, or get a saris Bones bike rack, secure and out of the way enough for the spoiler to go up and down....

[Louie Lungbubble 0]

And you CAN fit a MTB in the back with the front wheel off.

 

Edit.. Damn you, Talc! :lol: :lol:

[Chris71 0]

Thanks guys. A few G60s have caught my eye on autotrader just now. Although I do have a niggling feeling that I'd always hanker after a VR6 if I got a 4 cylinder 'raddo and liked it.

 

How far off the VR6 pace are they in standard trim? Does the supercharger bring a lot of extra problems? I presume the drag of the supercharger puts the economy somewhere between the 16v and VR6?

 

In other words..... is a good one a genuine contender to a VR6?

 

PS Can somebody tell me why so many people specifically advertise Corrados as not having ABS? I know it'll weigh a little more, but surely it's not a major consideration?

[herisites 0]

The VR6 has ABS mate. I would imagine the G60 to be less reliable than the vr (probably get shot for saying that!) as the vr is just a big lazy lump where as the g60 is tuned and requires the supercharger to be looked after etc where as you wont have that with a vr. I dont think they are far off the pace of a vr although have more tuning potential, but if its speed you want get a vr and supercharge it :D

[herisites 0]

Plus with the vr you get the awesome noise of the 12v v6 :D:D:D

[Dub_nut_g60 0]

as standard theres about a 30BHP differece between G60 and VR6, but try finding a 'standard' one!

 

with a few simple mods the G60 puts out decent power, and i actually prefer the deleivery over the VR.

 

Supercharger does need to be serviced at regular intervals to keep it from blowing up, but thats the only extra really.

 

As for economy, i can hit mid 30's on a motor way journey, and my average on MFA2 usually reads between 30 and 32MPG.

 

Personnaly i refer my G60 to VR's ive driven due to the power deleivery and the noise, but its all a personnal choice, best idea is to go and drive a couple.

 

IIRC ABS was an option originally for the Corrado, but got added as standard somewhere down the line.

[vr6storm 0]

ALL 2.0 8v's/16v's and VR6's have 70L tanks and ABS as standard

 

ABS is a rare option on 1.8 16v's/G60's(possibly wasn't offered on the 1.8 16v) and some G60's also have the 70L tank(these will be 92> ones)

[Mancorr 0]

Hi Chris

 

In reply to you buying a MK2 Golf GTI 16v or a Corrado.....Corrado anyday! Few reasons here...Corrado's are rare and you get lots of looks! Handling is better i think and i have owned a few GTI MK2 Golfs. The 16v Corrados are not as quick as a Golf 16v but have a better top end, maybe due to aerodynamics? 130mph can be seen from a 1.8 16v Corrado!

Down to getting a VR or G60 i would go for the VR. 2.9 litre 6 cylinder engine chucking out 190 horses in standard form is going to give a big grin factor! I have been told the VR6's can top more than 150mph and a 0-60 time in the mid 6's....thats one quick car! Cant comment on the ABS mate but im sure someone off here will know!

[The_Dude 0]

I've got a '90 1.8 16v and can't fault it, it is certainly a driver's car. Mine's standard exept for alloys and she handles like a beauty. Like Mancorr says its rarer than a Golf, and imo looks better. Plus you get to see the spoiler come up every time you go over 40 (tho it does make you want to speed just to see it raise!). Mine hasn't got ABS, provides some excellent tyre screeching in weather like this when some fool slams on their brakes for no reason infront of you. I find it to be a very economical car, plus i've spent virtually nothing on it since i got it as well.

[Mystic Rado 0]

I've got a tuned modded 88 Mark 2 GTi and a 95 VR6 'rado and they're completely different experiences. The Golf's much more of a point and squirt go-kart - lowered suspension, poly bushes, TSR head, cams, branch manifold, chip, Jetex SS - but kind of noisy and visceral, plus not the most comfortable car on long trips. Very practical though, fold down the back seats and there's a load of space. You do need to take the wheels off your mountain bike though :-) Goes like stink too, imo eight-valve mark 2s are nicer for everyday driving, though I guess mine has a similar top-end kick to a standard 16-valver.

 

The 'rado's heavier, smoother, more sophisticated, handles nicely (now) and is much more relaxing on longer journeys. Less practical, harder to park cos of visibility. The VR6 doesn't actually use much more petrol than the Mk2, less on motorways in fact.

 

Mark 2 Golf bits are generally way cheaper than 'rado spares and easier to come by, simply cos there are lots more of them around. But against that it's an old car now and getting harder to find decent ones. Corrado bits are pricey, though you can often find them cheap on here or on eBay.

 

I'd try driving a few and see what you think. I was expecting the Corrado to be more Golf-like than it actually is, but mine anyway, have quite different personalities. The GiT is kind of more git-like and aggressive, likes being thrashed. The 'rado is smoother but still handles nicely and is fast as when you rev it. The noise it makes at full chat is unbelievable as well :-)

 

To be honest, this is a Corrado forum so it's no surprise that people are recommending the C. I'm going to disagree though, I think a good, sound Mk 2 is arguably a more practical day to day proposition. I've no idea where you got the idea that Mk 2s are fragile btw. Yes, things fail, but that's old cars for you. The parts are cheap when they do go and stuff is usually basic enough to fix easily. 'Completely reliable'? You'd probably be best with a Mk3 but they've always looked horrid to me :|

 

Ooops, I'm a traitor to my 'rado, but there you go...

[Mystic Rado 0]

Oh, and yes you can get a mountain bike frame - full suss or hardtail - or two in the back of a 'rado. For me it's a both wheels off job, but with the rear seats folded forward it's fine. Won't fit in the boot though.

[rosswalker 0]

Mk2 GTi - 16v, I had one for a while and had absolutely no problems with it. As with all old VW's theyre built like a tank, so I wouldnt be put off them.

Although I would go with a rado VR, fuel economy is actually better on my VR compared to the Golf.

 

- Ross

[jonrb 0]

Chris, you're such a tart. How many forums have you asked this question on? ;)

[Chris71 0]

Thanks guys - good to see a balanced debate, I appreciate your honesty on the plus points of the golfs.

 

Do the 'rados feel heavier (handling wise) when on the road? I've got an MG ZS at the moment, which handles nicely on smooth tarmac, but goes to pieces when you show it a b-road, I'm wondering if this is partly due to it's extra size and weight over other GTi style cars I've owned (205 for example) .....and if this would apply to the golf/rado too.

 

That said, a lot of my driving at the moment is motorway potentially quite long distnaces too) so the VR6 would probably be rather more relaxed - if less likely to maintain my license!!

 

The fragility of the mk2 GTi's is a bit unfair perhaps - I've just heard a lot of people commenting that they're classics now and need a certain ammount of attention to keep them going. I may be covering quite high mileages and, due to peculiar feature of the roads in North London, having to mount curbs to get on 'pavement parking' (so I was worried about bending steering arms and stuff!)

[blackcat 0]

That said, a lot of my driving at the moment is motorway potentially quite long distnaces too) so the VR6 would probably be rather more relaxed - if less likely to maintain my license!!

 

Ha Ha yeah you have to watch your speed in a VR, I was gliding along the M4 at what I thought was about 70-80, looked down at the speedo and I was nearing 100 :shock: . Slowed down pretty quickly :oops:

 

A VR is a heavier car than a Mk2 gti (i think) but because the VR has PAS it doesn't seem like it! I currently have a VR and other half used to have Mk2 gti so I have driven both quite a bit and I would say the 'rado handles much better. (but you have to bear in mind they have completely different suspension set ups)

 

My daily driver is a mk3 diesel golf which is like a boat to drive so it is nice to have a little drive in the VR every now and then :lol:

[herisites 0]

The corrado isnt as heavy as people think, its only just over 1200kg. My sister has a golf mk2 1.6 ryder and that feels ever so big and heavy compared to my corrado which is a dream to drive. If you do a lot of motorway driving then definately go for the vr it will lap up no end of motorway miles effortlessly and if you get to some twisties it will still handle superbly. They can also be good on the B roads depending on the set up, mine is slammed on wide wheels so doesnt like B roads but A roads it loves where as Kev Haywire was saying that his is brilliant on B roads.

[Talc 0]

had a mk2 golf gti with eibach arb's, koni shocks and eibach springs, now got Corrado VR6 with koni shocks and eibach springs, haven't done arb but the handling is def just as good as the golf was, think that rear passat beam with the 'play' does have a good effect on the steering.

[herisites 0]

think that rear passat beam with the 'play' does have a good effect on the steering.

 

The passive rear steering is definately effective i reckon, you cant notice it a hell of a lot but if you go round a tight bend a bit quick you can just feel the back move enough to bring you round the bend smoothly.

 

Also the VR has a big engine up front but has no understeer (unless you start upgrading front ARB's, if you leave the front standard and upgrade the rear ARB it will overtseer if anything :))

[Chris71 0]

That said, a lot of my driving at the moment is motorway potentially quite long distnaces too) so the VR6 would probably be rather more relaxed - if less likely to maintain my license!!

 

Ha Ha yeah you have to watch your speed in a VR, I was gliding along the M4 at what I thought was about 70-80, looked down at the speedo and I was nearing 100 :shock: . Slowed down pretty quickly :oops:

 

A VR is a heavier car than a Mk2 gti (i think) but because the VR has PAS it doesn't seem like it! I currently have a VR and other half used to have Mk2 gti so I have driven both quite a bit and I would say the 'rado handles much better. (but you have to bear in mind they have completely different suspension set ups)

 

My daily driver is a mk3 diesel golf which is like a boat to drive so it is nice to have a little drive in the VR every now and then :lol:

 

Haha - yes, I used to live in Swansea and drive home to Devon occasionally, seemed everyone did that sort of speed on the M4 past Bristol. Back then I was struggling to keep up in my mum's 1.1 saxo!! I've now got an MG ZS V6 and go round the M25 more days than not, at which point I seem to settle at about 90. Very bad habbit, but your quite inconspicous amongst all the executive BMWs and Audis doing the same sort of speed and there are no cameras...

 

I definitely find the Corrado - especially the VR6 - more desirable, but not sure I can justify spending twice the price of a decent Golf GTi and then getting the extra running costs. It's a difficult one to call.

 

As for the passive rear steer - a similar system works very well on the Citroen ZX (atleast until they start to wear, then it edges onto the more exciting side of fun!) so bodes well for the 'raddo. Are new bushes readily available for them? I presume when people fit polyeurothane bushes to the rest of the suspension these are left alone?

[blackcat 0]

It all depends how much spare money you've got for running costs/repairs etc. If you're on a tight budget then a gti might be the way to go, whereas if you've got a bit more then you could splash out on a VR.

 

I've just bought my first house and I'm now finding that all the spare money I have I want to spend on the house not the car so we're thinking of selling it. (the car that is not the house :lol: )

[A-J 0]

I have a mk2 8v as a project atm and I'm using a 16v C as my daily drive. I would personally prefer to drive the golf everyday. The lower rev torque of the 8v is better suited to daily driving and it has been very reliable. Any parts I have needed have been cheap.

[skinnyman9000 0]

To be honest i feckin love my Rado and i cant ever see myself selling it, altho i did contemplate swapping it for a G40 at one point, silly boy!

 

I used to own a mk2, but it was a driver. It was a 5dr model with 168k on the clock, with 17's. It was slow as sin and felt like a tank, but to be honest i loved it!

 

Last night i was driving back from the missus' at half 12, nothing on the roads but taxis, and i was smiling all the way home, cant beat it!!

[A1 VR6 0]

IMO a standard corrado is the best driver's car of those you mention. I've had several Mk2 16v's and if you fit ARB's, koni's etc it probably shades the 'C' but do that to the 'C' to level the playing field and your ahead again - its quoted as one of the best handling FWD cars ever. If your doing motorway driving at the speeds you talk about the VR will be just as economical as the 1.8 16v because it revs higher. The VR is just perfect for cruising quietly on the motorway and is very comfortable on long trips. Also a Mk2 seems a bit primitive inside compared to a Corrado but ok if you don't mind that. If I was buying a 16v for this it would be the Mk3, easily tuned to 175 bhp and once you sort the suspension it's a very good car if you can stand the looks. If you want a Corrado 16v go for the later 2.0 practically same engine as the Mk3 Golf 16v - best compromise IMO if you must have a 16v.