GTI 2.0 or GTI 1.8??

[jonzolee]

Hi guys, just looking at Golf GTIs, seriously want one. I am 19 so the insurance will be high on the 2.0 GTI...but is it worth it?

Also, all of the cars I am looking at are around 100,000 for a '98/99, is there likely to be problems with high mileage?

Thanks!

[owen1183]

The 1.8 is quicker and more powerful than the 2.0.

My mate has a 2.0 and I have a 1.8T - he wishes he'd bought mine and left the very underpowered 2.0 alone.

[Crasher]

The 1.8 has more BHP than the 2.0 but has less torque, the 2 litre is also a rough old dog of an engine that should have been shot at birth and they are prone to all sorts of running problems.

[pkm]

That`s great iv`e just got a 2.0 gti , pete

[Crasher]

Which engine code APK, AQY, AZH or AZJ?


Anyway, it’s only my personal opinion.

[pkm]

Hi mate, my code is AQY god knows what that means. pete

[jonzolee]

Yeh I really want the 1.8, 150bhp! Looking around..will update if I buy and let you know what I get

Cheers

[Crasher]

Jonzolee, -so you think the insurance will be lower on a 1.8 150BHP turbo 20v GTI than on a 2.0 115BHP 8v GTI?

PKM, the AQY is the most common one and all their common problem can be sorted easily enough, except the rough feel which is to do with the engines longer stroke than the 1.8.

[jonzolee]

No i don't lol, but by the sounds of it, the 1.8 is that much better to drive and I would rather that than a rough, problematic engine. Probably worth it..or do you disagree?

[Crasher]

Certainly I would try and afford the 1.8T. The only two big Achilles heels of these engines are turbo and engine damage due to blocked oil sump pick ups and clutch/DMF flywheel failure. The only other real headaches come form poorly modified cars which we are seeing more and more as they age.

[dubcruiser]

No i don't lol, but by the sounds of it, the 1.8 is that much better to drive and I would rather that than a rough, problematic engine. Probably worth it..or do you disagree?

You do realise that Volkswagen did a 1.8 GTi aswell as a 1.8T GTi? The 1.8 was a non turbo 125bhp 20 valve unit, and the 1.8T is the turbo 150bhp 20 valve unit. They did a 180bhp version in 2003 which is what I have.

VW replaced the 1.8 non turbo with the 2.0 8 valve 115bhp engine in about 1999 or early 2000. The 2.0 was more torquey...

Insurance wise, the 1.8 and the 2.0 are roughly the same as they are both group 10, the 1.8T is group 14 so will be a lot more.

[clarkey gti-t]

Hi guys, just looking at Golf GTIs, seriously want one. I am 19 so the insurance will be high on the 2.0 GTI...but is it worth it?

Also, all of the cars I am looking at are around 100,000 for a '98/99, is there likely to be problems with high mileage?

Thanks!


im 19 and i have the 1.8t. insurance wasnt too bad £800 fully comp with all mods declared (forge BOV, decat pipe, milltek exhaust, 4motion valance (yes i listed the valance!) standard alloys sprayed black, stage 2 remap and lowered 40mm all round) that was with elephant and i was astounded, all my other quotes were over £1500 even adrien flux. if you want a 1.8t try find 1 witht he leather recaro seats as it will retain its value slightly better, also look for the aum engine. its the later engine with everything the 180bhp gti had jus without the map meaning you can get alot more power easier and by power i mean torque and bhp

[jonzolee]

You do realise that Volkswagen did a 1.8 GTi aswell as a 1.8T GTi? The 1.8 was a non turbo 125bhp 20 valve unit, and the 1.8T is the turbo 150bhp 20 valve unit. They did a 180bhp version in 2003 which is what I have.

VW replaced the 1.8 non turbo with the 2.0 8 valve 115bhp engine in about 1999 or early 2000. The 2.0 was more torquey...

Insurance wise, the 1.8 and the 2.0 are roughly the same as they are both group 10, the 1.8T is group 14 so will be a lot more.


Yeh I know about the turbo/non-turbo versions...looking at turbo..much more desirable I would say

[teamcalzaghe]

Get a 1.6 16valve se and put gti alloys and rear lights on it, 5bhp less than 2.0 group 6 insurance and nice interior. Theres a good chance it will have multifunction steering wheel with cruise control/ stereo controls on aswell which gti's don't have well none i've seen.
Plus with fuel costs and tax doubling by 2010, speed cameras etc. why own a gas guzzler. Honestly look into the 1.6 16's let me know how you get on

[Crasher]

Multifunction wheel and cruise on a 1.6 16v Golf 4, where do you live? :confused: A multifunction wheel on a UK spec Golf 4 was an option (PR 2ZB, 4LF or 4LL) only and even then, very rare.

The 1.6 16v is 105 PS and 148Nm of torque at 4500 rpm whereas the 2.0 8v has 170Nm of torque at 2400 rpm and torque is what matters, not BS Horspower. ;)

[teamcalzaghe]

U.K yes i know the multifunction wheel on a mk4 is rare on the mk4 Golf but if you look on autotader website or mags you'll see quite alot of mk4 SE's were equiped with them. To be honest its what persuaded me to buy my 1.6 16v its fantastic on A roads and motorways using the cruise. The wheel buttons light up when headlights are turned on and the volume control works my aftermarket sony head unit after a trip to buy £40 configeration lead.
I'll put a pic on if you've never seen one? Just think its funny theres loads of SE's with better specs than the GTi's out there . . well minus the power but mpg is more my concern these days. I don't think theres a better looking car (after adding alloys like montreal 2's) which is only group 6 insurance and 40mpg.

[dubcruiser]

The standard SE steering wheel looks exactly the same as the multifunction wheel just without the buttons. My brother has it on his GTi 150 Diesel and to be honest I prefer my standard wheel. The multifunction one seems bigger and not so sporty. Cruise is pointless in a manual car plus our motorways just don't allow it to be used as they do in the USA.

The spec of the SE was good as standard. But the spec of the GTi's were just as good.

If you get a 1.8T then you will get 40mpg out of it anyway. (Depends how you drive it!) I do in mine, and I have the 180bhp model. Not bad for 75 extra bhp and more importantly 87 more Nm of torque than a 1.6 16v! ;)

[Crasher]

I have seen quite a few multi function wheels on imported Golf 4’s and specified a few on Golf 4’s we imported when it was a popular thing to do. I have to agree with dubcuiser through, I find cruise virtually useless on my Octavia but if you want it, you don’t have to have a multi function wheel, any DBW Golf 4 can be retro fitted with cruise very easily and affordably.

[teamcalzaghe]

39- 40 mpg in book i usually get 54 average which is good. Steering wheel is different with leather surrond and smaller logo. Cruise can be retro fitted for around £150 your right i'd prefer to have it on the mfsw how vw wanted it to be though. Deffinately worth having it for long journies, as for torque i'm not 18 anymore its more about how much room there is for a family etc.
if your the lead dog you'll be the first to be eaten by the bear - tell matey

[con1981]

2litre 8v great lump had it in my audi coupe (presume it's the same engine) had more low down grunt and noticeable pull through the rev range than current tdi bora 115 never had to change down! You want to travel at 130 mph 2 litre is spot on! mind I've got no experience of 1.8 but you can't diss 2litre 8v

[Crasher]

So you don’t think the VAG stalk as was only fitted to 99.9% of cars with factory fitted cruise is how VAG intended it then?

When the inlet cam seizes in the cam carrier of your 1.6 16v and rips the cam belt pulley off destroying the top end of the engine, I am sure you will still be extolling the virtues of the 16v.

[mikey87]

do they do a golf gti mk4 with a 2.0ltr 20v?? only reason im askin is cause a friend of mine said his sisters golf was a 2.0ltr, it has the 20v badge on the boot. i never knew what engines they do in the golfs.

[dubcruiser]

do they do a golf gti mk4 with a 2.0ltr 20v?? only reason im askin is cause a friend of mine said his sisters golf was a 2.0ltr, it has the 20v badge on the boot. i never knew what engines they do in the golfs.

They never did a 2.0 20v, but the early GTi's (before the 2.0 was launched) were a 1.8 20v (same engine as the Turbo but without the Turbo), and the later V5 2.3 were 20v also...

[Beano21945]

I read somewhere that the 2.0 GTI isn't actually a GTI, it was just branded as that to sell more. That does make sense aswell as the specs aren't exactly good.
Being a 2.0 owner tho i can say i've had no problems & i love the car, bar the speed, but thinking of upgrading to a 1.8t soon.

Go for the 1.8, you're getting more for your money seeing as the insurance will be the same.

[Crasher]

Look at the data sticker and see if it says Highl for Highline or GTI exclu but the GTI has the AZJ engine and the Highline the APK or AQY.

[dubcruiser]

I read somewhere that the 2.0 GTI isn't actually a GTI, it was just branded as that to sell more. That does make sense aswell as the specs aren't exactly good.
Being a 2.0 owner tho i can say i've had no problems & i love the car, bar the speed, but thinking of upgrading to a 1.8t soon.

Go for the 1.8, you're getting more for your money seeing as the insurance will be the same.

It was only the UK market that sold the 2.0 as a GTi. In Europe is was sold as the "Golf 2.0" leaving the GTi as the 1.8T be it 150bhp or 180bhp.

[Crasher]

Type 1J1 6G4, 1J1 6H4 and 1J1 6J4 were all GTI 2.0 8v models built for other markets than the UK and contrary to what I posted earlier, the 1J1 6G4 came with the APK engine and the 1J1 6H4 had and AZG engine. It would be interesting to do some more research on this subject; in fact I have a 2000 model year Golf 4 German brochure at work that I will have to take a look at again.

And yes I am sad!

[Solari]

Just to throw my tuppence worth in - I got a 1.8T GTI and I smile like Gary Glitter in a Nursery each time I put my foot down :D

Definitely recommended!

[pkm]

Just to throw my tuppence worth in - I got a 1.8T GTI and I smile like Gary Glitter in a Nursery each time I put my foot down :D

Definitely recommended!
Hi mate ,I got a 2.0 gti 3 weeks ago but i know what you mean,:biglaugh:

[Solari]

Glad you're enjoying it, pkm. One thing I will say about the Golf so far is that they seem to have quite a few niggly, common faults, but the engines seem to be well built, which is the important bit :)

My next car will probably be an Elise 111R but after I've had my fun in some silly cars, I will probably move on to an R32 for some refinement :)

[Bill Badger]

My wife has a 1999 1.8 non turbo MK4 GTI which replaced our 1994 2.0 MK3 GTI. There is no comparison in terms of performance - the 2.0 was far better. The MK4 is heavy and slow. It's done lots of miles but the engine runs very sweet and has good compression, but it is just so slow. I wouldn't attempt to overtake another car unless I'd phoned ahead to check if the road is clear........ Are they all like this or just ours? The specification says it's 125bhp, but they must all be Shetland ponies!

[Beano21945]

My wife has a 1999 1.8 non turbo MK4 GTI which replaced our 1994 2.0 MK3 GTI. There is no comparison in terms of performance - the 2.0 was far better. The MK4 is heavy and slow. It's done lots of miles but the engine runs very sweet and has good compression, but it is just so slow. I wouldn't attempt to overtake another car unless I'd phoned ahead to check if the road is clear........ Are they all like this or just ours? The specification says it's 125bhp, but they must all be Shetland ponies!

Don't you mean the 1.8 n/a was better? The 1.8 is the one with 125bhp, the 2.0 has 115bhp with 8 valves.

I've got a 2.0 & it's brilliant, although not fast the engine is great & very reliable, MK4s look great & are solid cars.

[Bill Badger]

Don't you mean the 1.8 n/a was better? The 1.8 is the one with 125bhp, the 2.0 has 115bhp with 8 valves.

I've got a 2.0 & it's brilliant, although not fast the engine is great & very reliable, MK4s look great & are solid cars.

Just to confirm - our Mk3 2 litre had loads more useable power than the 1.8 Mk4. 115bhp or not, it would pull away from a junction far quicker than our Mk4 1.8, which is claimed to be 125bhp.

Maybe one day I'll swap a sensor or do something on the Mk4 to cure a fault which will magically turn the power on, but we'll see. Don't get me wrong though, we like the Mk4 very much, but if we had our time again, we would certainly go for the turbo version in preference to the non turbo that we have.

[Beano21945]

Just to confirm - our Mk3 2 litre had loads more useable power than the 1.8 Mk4. 115bhp or not, it would pull away from a junction far quicker than our Mk4 1.8, which is claimed to be 125bhp.

Maybe one day I'll swap a sensor or do something on the Mk4 to cure a fault which will magically turn the power on, but we'll see. Don't get me wrong though, we like the Mk4 very much, but if we had our time again, we would certainly go for the turbo version in preference to the non turbo that we have.

My bad, i thought you meant to MK4 2.0, not the MK3. ;) makes sense now.

[sainte986]

For what its worth, I got a 1999 VW Golf GTi 1.8t 20v 150bhp model, and having looked at loads and loads or car, from 328i e36 to volvo s60, i enjoyed the golf the most, sure the a3 has a nicer front end, but my golf gti will always be a golf gti, and someone will buy it off me when it comes that time. I was recommended the 1.8t 20v in the a3 from a friend who owns a 99 s3 1.8t. excellent engine, i love the sound of the turbo coming in. I get 33-36mpg driving 13miles to and from work on a roads and streets. Its a lovely car, i would say if you can stretch for the turbo go for that, as it will be the easiest to sell come, than the less desirable 2.0 and 1.8nonturbo.

just my two cents

[dubcruiser]

Just to confirm - our Mk3 2 litre had loads more useable power than the 1.8 Mk4. 115bhp or not, it would pull away from a junction far quicker than our Mk4 1.8, which is claimed to be 125bhp.

Maybe one day I'll swap a sensor or do something on the Mk4 to cure a fault which will magically turn the power on, but we'll see. Don't get me wrong though, we like the Mk4 very much, but if we had our time again, we would certainly go for the turbo version in preference to the non turbo that we have.

And its for that exact reason that VW dropped it from the Golf line up and went back to the 2.0 115bhp. The 1.8 had no torque, where as the 2.0 had plenty. The 1.8 20v only gets its torque when its turbo'd..