Is a C more like a mk2 or like a mk3 to drive?

[mk4steve 0]

Im looking at buying a C shortly, but due to a lack of examples in my area (+40 miles) i have been struggling to find a nice example.

 

I have had loads of golf before currently driving a mk4 1.8T, the reason i have asked this question is i have has loads of mk2's, both 8 vavlers and a g60 edition one, all of these i have loved everything about.

 

I had owned a mk3 colour concept for about a month, it did not last that long as it was naf, im worried if i get a C will it be more like the mk3 and i will hate it in a short distance of time, or love it like the mk2's

 

Your opinions will be appreciated.

 

I am currently thinking about buying a 2 litre 16 valve and getting a charger fitted.

[chrishill 0]

more like a mk2 really, they handle much better though.

[Rick 0]

I've driven a VR and 1.8 mk3s and they were both pretty bad to drive, I think that it is the suspension that is wrong with them. Whereas the first thing I noticed when test driving a C is how well it handles.

[dinkus 10]

I've got a Mk3 GTI and a VR C and the Mk3 handles like a sack of crap. In fairness, my C has had rather a bit more TLC and new parts on it...

[olly elworthy 0]

its like a mk2 but feels a bit heavier and has allot more grip,, turn in is amazing compared to a mk2,, night and day difference,,

[olly elworthy 0]

I am currently thinking about buying a 2 litre 16 valve and getting a charger fitted.

 

this is a very complex task,,, you may be in for a shock when you actually think about what would be involved to carry this out!! :?

[andy 0]

Much more like a Mk2 than a MK3 to drive, the Mk3 is finished much nicer and better built (interior wise) but is uninvolving and handling is not quite right, you can get them to handle but only by destroying the ride. The Mk2 for whatever reason was always more capable in this department, a standard Mk2 GTi feels very good imo, solid but not tooo heavy, much like the Corrado.

[Neil VR6 0]

I think the Mk2 GTi has a great ride. It's firm but not crashy and well damped.

[Yandards 0]

The biggest difference between a mk 2 and a 'rado is the level of refinement.

 

The 'rado is a much higher spec as standard and I find mine a lot more comfortable for a trip whilst driving than when a passenger in my mates mk 2. It's also a lot quieter and even with standard suspension has less body roll than both the 16v and 8v Gti goofs.

 

As for your conversion I am currently building a 1.8 16v G60 and you will need to look at upgrading driveshafts, brakes and probably suspension before you even start on the engine. Best person to talk to is 16vG60 on here or have a good read of the yahoo usergroup.

[Kevin Bacon 5]

The only MK3 I enjoyed driving was a Highline VR....it's worlds apart from the earlier OBD1 VR Golfs in almost every department.

 

Still not as sure footed and inspiring as a Corrado.

 

I've had tonnes of MK2s also and that is the closest to a Corrado in terms of ride and handling.

[DEL VR6 0]

i miss my MKII and wish i could have kept it along side the VR Corrado. Would never swap my VR for any golf. The corrado fits like a glove. You feel at one with the car at all times.

 

As for which is it "more" like, i would agree that its the MKII.

[Kevin Bacon 5]

I saw your car at Stealth a couple of weeks ago Del. Vince said your VR is a really good one ;-)

[dig776 0]

I have driven a mk3 and owned a mk2. The mk3 8v gti was one of the worst cars I have driven - torquey but other than that very disapointing and very floaty! My valver is nothing like it to drive in the slightest.

 

Mk mk2 gti 8v was excellent, comfortable enought to live with on long distance and great to thrash. At first my rado felt a little slower but once I adjusted my driving style (driving at higher revs) it was at least as quick and had loads more grip.

 

I would compare my c to my mk2 and rate them at about the same in terms of performance but the rado looks soooooooooooooooooo much better. The only reason I sold my mk2 was because the rado existed. Still miss it though :(

[mgbv8mike 0]

I own a Mk 2 GTi and a VR6 Corrado.

 

Both are totally unmolested suspension-wise.

 

The Corrado is streets ahead on both roadholding and handling, you are into Porsche territory...the only cars I can compare it with are the original mini Cooper S , Escort RS and the Alfasud Sprint (OK I'm quite old, but I recognise classic handling when I see it ).

 

Scrounge a drive in a Corrado .(VR6 if you possibly can)...you will be sold

[HiAsAKite 0]

I also own a mk2 gti 8v and VR6 rado..

 

The Corrado feels far more refined...

The golf feels more torquey (at low revs).. whereas the VR just pulls and pulls right to the top of the rev rev range- and is in truth MUCH faster.....the VR real power comes not in low speed/at the lights accel but in the mid range acceleration from 30 mph upwards.. you need to be looking at seriously expense and quick cars to beat it in the mid-range..(in much the same way that some saabs and volvo T5 punch way above their weight in mid-range accel..)

 

Handling wise- both feel very connected to the road and solid, the VR handling is far superior with turn in on corners and judiciouis use of weight shift can be used to manipulate the passive rear stearing to give almost RWD handling on corners... (whilst golf will far more readily understeer..)..

 

Not had the chance to really drive and put through its paces a mk3...

[Kevin Bacon 5]

The Corrado is streets ahead on both roadholding and handling, you are into Porsche territory...

 

I can see where you're coming from.... my VR feels very similar in road holding and handling to my mate's 993 at moderate speeds but when you get on a fast B road, any Corrado will struggle to equal the Porker's sublime damping and body control. What is a Sunday cruise for a 993 across windy bumpy roads is a bit of a fight at the helm in a C.

 

The 911's steering is completely uncorrupted and has a much sharper turn-in, plus the VR will understeer WAY before the 911 even thinks about letting the front tyres have their own way.

 

The 993's OE Monroe dampers are top rate. You need Bilstein PSS or H&R Coilovers to get the same level of damping performance from a Corrado.

[mgbv8mike 0]

Yes, I was a bit surprised at the lack of bottom end torque.....I've got the 3 litre big valve TSR Le Mans engine, and nothing much seems to be happening under 3000rpm.....its' still running in so it may improve yet..... but I've also got an MGB with a 3.5 V8 engine, and that one pulls like a train from tick-over....in fairness the MG is much lighter than the Corrado, and it's been set up for bottom end power , but the difference is n the 2 cars is amazing.

[Kevin Bacon 5]

The 2.9 VR has been afflicted with a lack of bottom end urgency since it's conception! It seems to be a common trait of VW's cross-flow engines of that era.

 

The Golf Highline pulls better low down though as it has different inlet arrangements and the newer engine management system.

 

Yeah those Rover V8s are torquey beasts. My friend has an 89 Range Rover Vogue which he uses on 4x4 off roading circuits and it'll climb up very steep banks on idle!

[StuartFZR400 0]

What?

Having driven all that you mention, its not like any Golf. However if im to pick one, its got to be the Mk2 G60 for fun factor. However, whilst the Mk2G60 felt like a go-kart, you sit higher in it, even on lower springs. The C feels much better, you get a cocoon feel from the higher sides or lower seat from this Coupe - you'll like it. You feel like you're following the front end wherever you point it, whilst the Mk2-G60 felt like a box stuck to the road. Also as someone said; its more refined in comparison, but dont forget its 10yrs old. ;)

[double-6s 0]

i've owned a golf mk2 valver, mk3 vr6 and now have a C vr.

i'd say the mk3 vr and C vr are universes apart. nothing like each other at all imo. the golf is much taller overall and the engine is about 'a foot' higher in the golf, resulting in completely crap handling. in the golf, changing quickly from a left turn to a right turn brings on a pronounced 'lurch' whereas in the C vr it is a progressive shift. chalk and cheese.

the C feels much more like the mk2 but better in lots of ways. loads of grip. lovely turn-in. it gets better each day imo as i get used to the car.

still loved my mk3 though as it had a vr upfront!

[blackcat 0]

Scrounge a drive in a Corrado .(VR6 if you possibly can)...you will be sold

 

Totally agree, as soon as I drove my first c (1.8 16v) I was in love! Now I have the VR, it's just a great drive. Every time I drive it, it puts a massive smile on my face :D

 

Have driven a mk2 gti 8v and although it was fun, is nowhere near as great as a corrado!!

[GIXXERUK 0]

neither really compare , the mk2 or mk3

you cant compare a 911's handling to a corrado , its in a different league, unless you mean a 911 from the same era ?

the mk3 is like driving a van compared to the rado

[mk4steve 0]

Thanks for your replies, is good to speak to owners who are so enthusiastic about the cars.

 

And still the hunt continues for a half decent C, im favouring a VR6 now, and not have the hassle of modding the engine.

[GIXXERUK 0]

its a buyers market , excellent time to buy ..good luck

[double-6s 0]

i know it may seem strange, but i like the weight up front in the C vr6. definately gives amazing traction.