Mk 3 Golf Advice

[junkie 0]

Since the other half was in the crash in her 55 POLO 1.2 recently and she has been driving the Mazda 3 1.6 courtesy car, she has decided she no longer wants the Polo as its just not going to feel the same anymore and the Mazda is a larger car which she now likes the feel of, a larger car that is not the car itself.

 

Been looking to sell the Polo pay off the finance and buy a cheapish car as a run around outright, so looking on Autotrader there is a few MK 3 Golf GTI's around between £1000 - £1500 that seem reasonable and honest enough, looking at the 2.0 16v's.

 

So is there any specific/common faults on Golfs and the engines that we need to be looking for as you do get what you pay for but were not looking for something immaculate but want to get the best we can for our budget.

 

It just needs to be able to start every morning and do 20 - 30 miles a day.

[coolrado 0]

I have'nt really done much with the engines in MK3's apart from change a couple of lambda's and a few engine mounts, but two of them had corrosion problems with the underside of the car, specifically where the front subframe mounts to the floor, one of them, L reg had a few spots of rust around the mounting points and a few holes in both sill's and the other one an M reg had no mounting points left at all, they had completely rusted away which he ended up scrapping as he didnt trust it, neither of these where GTI's though so may not have been protected to the same standard or they had been mistreated, it might be worth checking though.

 

Oh and the glove box lid catches have a tendancy to break.

[davidwort 0]

They're pretty solid and reliable beasts really, obviously at that age the individual car's condition is the most important thing and it was only the advent of the mk4's that bought the fully galvanised bodies so check well for metal-worm - don't buy one from a seaside town :lol:

I'd say that although the 16v mk3 has the strong ABF engine there's not as many around and you pay a hefty premium for them.

The 2.0 8v doesn't have the top end of a 16v and not the best reputation for outright performance but they're quite capable, reliable and pretty economical and you should be able to pick a decent one up pretty cheaply. Easy engines to work on too, plenty of space in the engine bay.

Rear axle bushes may need attention if the car feels funny driven quickly round the twisty bits.

[LisaK 0]

Bodywork wise, they are prone to rusting around the rear light clusters, underneath the rear windscreen, from the holes that are used to screw the rear numberplate in place and under the arch trims.

 

The most common engine/electrical problem I've come across on the MK3 is a faulty fuel pump and/or ignition switch relay which causes the car to cut-out whenever it feels like it.

 

Hope that helps a bit!

[junkie 0]

So the general concensus seems to watch for rust as usual but now at least i have specific places.

 

Agree they are pretty solid generally hence why the option to get 1.

 

Its all helping so keep them coming.

 

Tbh seen quite a few 16v's, more than i thought i would but yes there is more 8v's.

[Sonicriot13 0]

The early ones had really bad rust problems with the tail gate. The later ones had a galvanised tail gate and so didn't suffer so badly IIRC.

 

Defo go for the 16 valve becasue it is awesome. I've often entertained the idea of getting another one. The ABF really is a nice engine if looked after.

 

The rear calipers are prone to seizing up. Mine were really quite bad for that. To be honest the price you can pick em up for now you can't really go wrong. I've seen em for 600 notes.

 

Apart from the calipers I had no problems with the car at all. And I picked it up cheap, with no history, and it hadn't been very well looked after. So if you find a good one I can't see you'll have any problems at all.

 

Plus as a place to sit the mk3 cab is much nicer than the mk2.

[dirtytorque 0]

i have an 8v 2.0.

 

Its running at 40 mpg at the mo.

 

Loads of room in the engine bay as already said which makes them easy to work on.

Nice interior, ODB, ok looks.

Gutless though.. :(

[Walesy 0]

Mk3's are as solid as a rock in general. The interior is all very well put together etc and will make your rado feel alot older!

 

Like others have said, the MK3 8v's are bullet proof - great fuel economy, easy to work on, and they go on forever.

 

I'd personaly go for an 8v over a 16v, this is also the case with rados - the 8v is FAR better.

[junkie 0]

I personally love the older feel and look of the rado and i have said that in the past compared to the facelifted rado, feels how it should do to me.

 

Anyway as she will be going from a new car to an older 1 its prob best to get something that feels newer.

 

Put your views across regarding engine choice as 2 people say def get 1 over the other.

 

8v V's 16v?

 

Let the debate begin (reminescent of the good old whats better G60 v VR6) lets not go there.

[Kevin Bacon 5]

I had a MK3 GTI 8V for a while and being blunt and honest, I hated it, but that's not to say your missus would.

 

They are responsive and torquey from idle to about 3000rpm, but from there they are completely gutless.

 

The 2.0 16V by comparison isn't quite as eager off the line, but it's a MUCH better engine than the 8V.

 

I'm in the same boat myself, i.e. looking for a cheap run around. I was dead set on getting a MK2 or MK3 but most of the ones I've looked at have been sheds with juddery clutches and crunchy CVs (which the owners were oblivious too!) and the ones worth buying were completely over priced.....

 

Then I looked at Ford Mondeos of the 1997 - 1999 vintage. £1000 buys you a nice 85-100K 2.0 Ghia with leather, cruise control, AC/Climate, 6 CD, luuuuurvly fake walnut dash, good seats (with lumbar adjust) etc etc and it handles MILES better than any MK3!

 

Not sure if your missus wants a Ford or a car that big, but don't over look them if it's just a cheap hack you want. The MK5 Fiesta Zetec S is a cracker too.

Both better to drive, cheaper to insure, cheaper to fix and more car for your money than the Golf.

 

Just my 2p.

[junkie 0]

A car like that would be too big tbh and maybe the 16v sounds the better option as she never goes over 3k so at least i would be safe in the knowledge that she isnt driving fast hopefully, then when i drive it i can at least have some fun in it.

[ali moore 0]

my wifes got a 8v, its ok, still get the stallin problem, v power sorts that, but i do take it off the drive to get the VR out.but i would say, it go's round corners better than mine :?

[dirtytorque 0]

my wifes got a 8v, its ok, still get the stallin problem, v power sorts that, but i do take it off the drive to get the VR out.but i would say, it go's round corners better than mine :?

 

 

they have a prob with stalling when pulling up to junctions at low revs.Due to grime accumulating in the throttle suffocating the engine.

 

Loads of threads on it over at club-gti.

 

Mines doing it at the mo.

I'm going to attack it 2morrow with carb cleaner.