Just spent a week in Blighty and had a Golf VI S 1.6TDi as a hire car. This reconfirmed my previous view that the current Golf really is all the car you ever really need. It took 4 of us plus our substantial luggage around the UK and averaged almost 60mpg.
Performance was acceptable rather then brisk, if I were in the market for a car in the UK I'd probably opt for the 2.0TDi which I suspect would be almost as economical in the real world. I have to admit that the notion of this engine in something as large as a Passat really doesn't appeal to me.
The 1.6TDi (CR) is pretty refined too, certainly none of the unpleasant gruffness of the old PD, it revs smoothly up to a 5K RPM red-line although all of the performance is achieved between 2K and 3K RPM. Below 2K RPM it has rather less torque than I like - making first gear necessary even from rolling starts at roundabouts if the turbo isn't spooled up (OK so I'm comparing to a 330d so my benchmark is high). The 1.6TDi seems to be equipped with 'only' 5 gears too, whilst 5th is plenty high enough for a refined and economical cruise the gaps between the gear ratios were large, I'd have preferred 6 speeds - is this cost saving perhaps ?
The base 'S' spec is a little spartan in some respects - although it looks & feels up-market, I can't remember the last time I was in a car with no rear speakers for the stereo and there's no iPod / Bluetooth / USB connectivity either. Ours seemed to miss climatic air conditioning too (making do with a simpler completely manual setup) - perhaps some more 'cost saving' ?
So, if you're looking for a good all-rounder I'd recommend this car, from previous experience I know it's rather nice with the 1.4TSi engine too but I'd opt for SE/Match spec and would avoid the lowest powered derivatives.
|
I think that one of the reasons why I've had several VAG cars in a row is that they've all bee good to drive without having any features that infuriate (you know the sort of things - electric parking brake / no spare wheel / nowhere to put your left foot etc.). You can just get in and drive a car like this - ideal for a hire car.
And there are engines and trims to suit most needs: like IC I'd go for 2 litres and 6 gears or DSG.
|
|
Cambelts though. Don't like cambelts. Cost me a bob or three over the years.
|
Nice review, IC. Thanks.
>> This reconfirmed my previous view that the current Golf really is all the car you ever really need.
I think that you have a strong point. I respect the strengths of the Golf, and wouldn't attempt to talk anyone out of buying one, but while the Golf is "all the car you ever really need", it's not "all the car I ever really WANT". It's just so utilitarian and, well, dull.
Maybe it's just me changing over the years. I used to lust after a Mk 2 GTi.
|
Nice review, I've not driven a golf 1.6d but at the start of August had a passat 1.6d S which is mated to the 6 speed box, I handed it back after a week in exchange for an Insignia 2.0d, I found it quite sluggish, even with the 6 speed, I do 1k miles a week and needed something a bit more torquey.
A friend of mine had just had the 1.6d match golf and its fully loaded, she thinks its really quick too, bearing in mind theyve never had a brand spanker before so maybe novelty value.
|
>> A friend of mine had just had the 1.6d match golf and its fully loaded,
>> she thinks its really quick too, bearing in mind theyve never had a brand spanker
>> before so maybe novelty value.
Or perhaps previously driven not-particularly-fast petrols, and comparing low-mid rev range performance?
|
Having to pull away in first every time is a bit of a pain, although it looks like idle chatterer was well-loaded, so you might not have to do that running with just the driver.
|
I find cars that have no power low down in the rev range followed by a huge surge once you reach the peak range very frustrating, the only way round this being to play the gearbox constantly or specify a proper automatic to take up the slack.
The fun of the surge once found might be enjoyable at times, but a general use car, no thanks, too much like hard work to keep the thing at peak torque.
|
>> The fun of the surge once found might be enjoyable at times, but a general
>> use car, no thanks, too much like hard work to keep the thing at peak
>> torque.
I should put this in context, I did many miles without the luggage and it was 'acceptably' good at pulling away from roundabouts etc - just not 'particularly' good at it.
I was spoilt in the past with a 330d which could pull away from stand-still in 4th with little drama but I was comparing the low-end torque of the 1.6TDi CR to an A4 B7 170PD I once had and I'd contend that the CR 1.6TD is actually better (but the 170PD was truly awful imho). The power delivery of the 1.6 CR is pretty linear but with a marked increase from 2K to 3K RPM and a noticeable tail-off thereafter.
The car handles and rides very well and this makes it reasonably good fun to drive, I understand why one might want a more prestigious car (I had BMWs and Audis in the UK) but I still think that the Golf actually fulfils all of the objective and most of the subjective criteria I can think of for selecting a car - hence my positive 'review'.
|
>> I find cars that have no power low down in the rev range followed by
>> a huge surge once you reach the peak range very frustrating, the only way round
>> this being to play the gearbox constantly or specify a proper automatic to take up
>> the slack.
>>
>> The fun of the surge once found might be enjoyable at times, but a general
>> use car, no thanks, too much like hard work to keep the thing at peak
>> torque.
>>
It's one of the reasons why I'm not sure about my next car being a diesel, the limited power band might get frustrating after a while. The idea of a petrol turbo such as the 1.4TSi appeals more, given that I'm used to the Saab turbo which just builds up from just over idle and simply keeps building - there is no feeling of being off-power, although being an auto it's always in the "right gear".
|
It's one of the reasons why I'm not sure about my next car being a diesel, the limited power band might get frustrating after a while...
Don't worry, it doesn't - not with the right diesel anyway. Even the unlovable Verso would pull strongly in third from immobile (almost) to illegal, and my Volvo D5 still does, as does the superb new D3.
... although being an auto it's always in the "right gear".
And that, curiously, is where I'd disagree. Modern autos are too eager to change up, presumably for the sake of paper fuel economy. I tried a Skoda Superb TDI last year whose DSG box was in fifth by 32mph, which was daft.
The LEC has a different variation on this problem: it stays in third at town speeds, but third is so high that the engine is often grumbling below its boost band, so I find myself having to knock it down to second - although that's too low by the time we get back to 25 or so. I wonder if Humph and Peter, with their new seven-speed LECs, still have this problem.
|
>> Modern autos are too eager to change up,
>> presumably for the sake of paper fuel economy. I tried a Skoda Superb TDI last
>> year whose DSG box was in fifth by 32mph, which was daft.
My Saab has a relatively old fashioned auto - five speeds with paddle change on the wheel. I often think that it is too slow to move up a gear, it seems to like fourth rather than fifth too much on the open road, although it's more than powerful enough to pull fifth which I think contributes to a poor overall economy of around 27mpg day to day. However, it's pretty responsive even in economy mode (I virtually never use Sport) and never makes you feel the auto is a hinderance rather than a help!
Problem is, even in manual, if it thinks you've selected too high a gear, it makes its own decision and gives you a lower one......
|
>> >> A friend of mine had just had the 1.6d match golf and its fully
>> loaded,
>> >> she thinks its really quick too, bearing in mind theyve never had a brand
>> spanker
>> >> before so maybe novelty value.
>>
>> Or perhaps previously driven not-particularly-fast petrols, and comparing low-mid rev range performance?
>>
As it is a comp car, they had a mini cooper, then a hire car for 3 months, very basic polo, so i think after the polo its quite nippy, bearing in mind they are not "car" people!
I found that my old Vectra 150bhp diesel felt quicker than my 225bhp Cupra R, as said many times, the vectra pretty much did all its power in the space of 1.5k - 3k revs the leon happily does 65mph in 2nd at 6.5k revs still pulling.
|
>> I found that my old Vectra 150bhp diesel felt quicker than my 225bhp Cupra R,
>>
Not surprising, the Vectra has about 100 ft lbs more torque than the Leon.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Tue 11 Oct 11 at 17:10
|
Have to agree with the OP. I've had a couple of Golf VI rental cars recently and despite being basic spec hire car fodder, they left me wondering why I could possibly need anything else (apart from SatNav).
Both the TSI and the TDI have their advantages and the ride/ handling setup, seat comfort and cabin quietness are better than any other 4 seater compact hatchback I've driven*.
Dashboard is about as cheerful as a tax return but it is very well built. The 2.0TDI DSG I had a few weeks back would easily cruise at 200km/h and was totally stable and confidence inspiring at that speed as well as still managing to achieve 40mpg ish fuel consumption.
In a brief moment of madness I considered choosing a GTI Edition 35 as a company car. If VW still offered a 6 cylinder version I might have considered it further.
*BMW 1 series doesn't count, imo it's a 2 seater.
|
>> Have to agree with the OP. I've had a couple of Golf VI rental cars
>> recently and despite being basic spec hire car fodder, they left me wondering why I
>> could possibly need anything else (apart from SatNav).
>>
But you could use the same argument about a Skoda Octavia. It shares many of the same critical components, offers greater value for money, has more kit, is cheaper to run, has better dealers, is better built and looks better than the ugly Golf?
The Golf only came 8th in its class in the latest JD Power survey, and was only rated as average in the latest "What Car?" reliability survey. Volkswagen are trading on a good reputation which was well deserved in the past, but these days they are just one of the pack.
|
>>
>> But you could use the same argument about a Skoda Octavia. It shares many of
>> the same critical components, offers greater value for money, has more kit, is cheaper to
>> run, has better dealers, is better built and looks better than the ugly Golf?
>>
I can't agree, IIRC the Octavia misses important safety kit such as curtain airbags and ESP as standard on most models, no-doubt cost cutting to enable other features to be included in the spec and unnoticed by most customers but unforgivable IMHO. Moreover, the facelifted Octavia is not particularly pretty to my eyes - I much prefer the Golf VI (or pre-facelift Octavia) from an aesthetic perspective. Skoda also seem to lag other VAG brands in receiving updated engines too.
However, I'm not 'knocking' the Octavia, it still looks reasonably good as an estate and can be cheaply specified with the safety kit as options (although I suspect most buyers don't do this), it's also bigger than the Golf. My in-laws are on their third Skoda (a Superb) and they have had a fantastic ownership experience from what is now quite a large dealership.
|
>> Cambelts though. Don't like cambelts. Cost me a bob or three over the years.>>
Pretty sure, without checking, that my Jetta Sport's 1.4 TSi 170 has a timing chain.
|
>> The base 'S' spec is a little spartan in some respects - although it looks
>> & feels up-market, I can't remember the last time I was in a car with
>> no rear speakers for the stereo and there's no iPod / Bluetooth / USB connectivity
>> either. Ours seemed to miss climatic air conditioning too (making do with a simpler completely
>> manual setup) - perhaps some more 'cost saving' ?
I wondered whether this was tongue-in-cheek - none of this is important to a lot of buyers - but on re-reading, I see that you're not suggesting it matters, only that you haven't come across these lack of "features".
|
|
Two years ago I bought a 1.4TSI SE MK6 5 dr hatch Golf on which I had to spec. quite a few 'extras' which are now provided by the current Match mode,l although I'd have to spec. a sunroof as well and of course metallice paint. This would make my car today almost £20k
|
>> Two years ago I bought a 1.4TSI SE MK6 5 dr hatch Golf on which
>> I had to spec. quite a few 'extras' which are now provided by the current
>> Match mode,l although I'd have to spec. a sunroof as well and of course metallice
>> paint. This would make my car today almost £20k
>>
Looking at this car now I see that the 1.4TSi Match lists at almost GBP20K without any options in the UK, IIRC this was around GBP16.5K in Dec 2009. What really surprises me is that in Hong Kong (where cars are typically 50% more expensive than the UK due to high duties) the base 1.4TSi which comes with the Match spec, automatic, sun-roof, alcantara seats and fog-lamps as standard (in fact there are only a small number of fixed specs and no option list) costs under GBP20K although buying discounts are rare.
I think VAT might account for some of this increase but I didn't think the GBP / EUR exchange rate had worsened significantly in this time so it looks to me like VW has increased its prices in the UK market perhaps ?
Last edited by: idle_chatterer on Fri 14 Oct 11 at 01:07
|
I don't know whether I'd be willing to fork out £20k for my car at today's prices although I suspect, without doing the research that a Focus or Astra would not be that much cheaper? A sunroof might not be an option on these cars.
I have considered an Audi A3 but there are too many interior 'decoration's to consider when trying to configure one.
The above poster is correct in that I paid about £16k+ for my car in 2009 and had to wait over 5 months for delivery and I am pretty certain that hasn't changed much if you want a factory order. I won't be doing that again, that's for certain.
I think that there have been at least two price increases and a VAT increase in the interim which hasn't helped matters.
Last edited by: Oldgit on Fri 14 Oct 11 at 09:19
|
>> I don't know whether I'd be willing to fork out £20k for my car at
>> today's prices although I suspect, without doing the research that a Focus or Astra would
>> not be that much cheaper?
Broker (drivethedeal) price for a top-of-the-range Focus Titanium X is £17.4k, or £16.9k if you use the delear finance scheme.
Last edited by: Focus on Fri 14 Oct 11 at 09:44
|
Focus for me every time, apart from anything else, it wouldn't be like being in a house with no furniture.
I bought the CC3 in 2009.
The salesman told me earlier this year new cars were as cheap then in relative terms than for a few years before and since.
I reckon he's right, because the car's still worth more than half what I paid for it, when the expected value after nearly three years would be closer to a third.
|
I think the Golf Match is pretty well equipped; I can't think of anything it lacks, and have you seen the dashboard in the new Focus!!
Interestingly (in terms of residuals) we bought an entry level A3 3 door at the end of 2007 for a fraction over £14k including a few options and after discount (drivethedeal). Even though the A3 is well into run out mode I can't get anywhere near that now, but as you say the flip side is that the residual is incredibly high for a 4 year old car - it's lost about £150 a month!!
Of course, as a new one is more expensive that's of no use - we'd be better expressing the residual as a % of a replacement rather than original cost!!
With road tax at £165, only 2 services (£400ish total including brake fluid change last year) and a set of tyres that's pretty cheap motoring I think.
Peter
|
...I think the Golf Match is pretty well equipped...
It is, although the OP was talking about an S, which he describes as 'spartan'.
There's not a convertible new Focus yet, but when there is it will be well over £20K, so I won't be getting one.
|
Quite by chance I came back from shopping to find, of all things, a new Focus parked alongside my MK6 Golf. I looked inside, knowing in a way, what to expect and my previous conclusions, based on photos, were substantiated.
The Ford Focus fascia is awful as are certain aspects of the exterior (overstyled) and then when I looked at my car, realised how better it looked in almost every way - Ah, well.
|
The new Focus is quite offputtingly awful inside; no amount of dynamic excellence would make up for having to sit behind that dashboard. The Golf, and its Skoda stablemates, have an altogether more unobtrusive style that looks much easier to live with.
Of course, the self-styled cognoscenti will scoff at those who reject a Ford in favour of a VW as 'badge snobs', when in fact they'd just prefer an interior that doesn't look designed by a 14-year-old Top Gear reader.
|
>> Looking at this car now I see that the 1.4TSi Match lists at almost GBP20K
>> without any options in the UK,
We looked at the above car earlier this year, but at the time VW were also selling the Twist model, which was basically the old SE spec with a non-TSi 1.4 petrol engine, for about £13K in 5dr with metallic paint.
I really wanted the extra spec, both trim and engine, of the Match, but at 50% more the difference was insane, especially as the car is mainly used locally.
I think new cars generally look pretty expensive now, but I still can't quite believe we got the Golf for the price we paid.
|
>>
>> We looked at the above car earlier this year, but at the time VW were
>> also selling the Twist model, which was basically the old SE spec with a non-TSi
>> 1.4 petrol engine, for about £13K in 5dr with metallic paint.
>>
>> I really wanted the extra spec, both trim and engine, of the Match, but at
>> 50% more the difference was insane, especially as the car is mainly used locally.
>>
>> I think new cars generally look pretty expensive now, but I still can't quite believe
>> we got the Golf for the price we paid.
>>
How does the normally aspirated 1.4 drive ? I must confess that I found the 1.6TDi with 105PS to have no more than adequate performance for what is a fairly heavy car (with a lot of luggage in my case I'd grant).
|
>> How does the normally aspirated 1.4 drive ?
Every drivers opinion might vary, but I was pleasantly surprised by how well it went on the test drive with 3 adults in the car. My own car is a Merc C270CDi auto, which with all that torque and an auto box is effortless.
But I drive a number of different cars and just adjust to whatever it is I'm driving. I suppose if our Golf was fully loaded then that would require further adjustment!
|
So, we've had the Australian market model Golf 1.4TSi (twin-charger) DSG for 7 weeks now, it had only done short journeys before this weekend when we doubled the car's mileage with a trip along the Great Ocean Road to Port Campbell and the Twelve Apostles.
Firstly, if you travel to Australia I highly recommend the Great Ocean Road - built as a (fitting IMHO) memorial to the ANZAC troops in WWI it wends it's way west from Melbourne past breathtaking scenery - kinda like the edge of the North York Moors and coast but on an enormously larger scale. Oh, and the roadside trees have koalas in them.
We blasted down the inland freeway to get there - but this still involved the last 50 or so miles on what would be a single carriageway 'A road' in the UK where I think we probably saw 2 other cars in an hour's driving, this place is seriously empty of people.....
The car was an excellent companion, I continue to be impressed by the 7 speed DSG, it really can change gear far quicker than any human and it is intelligent enough to down-shift for engine braking if you dab the brakes or the cruise control is active. Granted it can be fooled around town - if you start off then take your foot off the gas I think it decides you want to stop so it can hesitate a little before selecting drive if you immediately go back onto the gas. But it is generally smooth and unobtrusive.
I toyed over whether to get the 2.0TDi DSG, in Comfortline (Match) spec in Aus you get the 160PS twin-charger 1.4TSi rather than the 122PS Turbo-only variant of the 1.4TSi. In the end the fact that a lot of our usage is urban with very short (1 mile) journeys made me decide to get the petrol despite my penchant for diesels.
What hasn't disappointed is the fuel economy, with 118KW/161PS/158BHP it is a sprightly car - badged Sport in most markets with fancier wheels. Over 400 Miles I calculated it used 5.7l/100Km (so that's over 49mpg in old money). I certainly didn't hang about although a blanket and universally observed speed limit of 100KMH (62MPH) probably helped.
The only down side is an appetite for 98RON Super-unleaded, IIRC SWMBOs 122TSi variant in the UK was happy with 95RON unleaded whereas this asks you to only use 95RON in extremis. I wonder if they're tuned differently or Aussie fuel is poorer quality ? A consolation is that even 98RON BP Ultimate/Shell V-Power is slightly under 1GBP a litre here (the 91RON stuff is more like 85p/l).
So, overall I'm very pleased with our choice. I read horror stories about this complex engine and DSG arrangement failing expensively, I still have 2 years and 10 months of manufacturer warranty left so as long as I get it serviced properly I hope to be insulated from any such problems.... also this engine has been in cars for 6 years now so I assume there are many on the road 'not failing spectacularly'.
In summary, fast, economical and refined - not sure why VW don't just put the 1.8TSi (turbo only) in this variant unless 1.4L has some major tax benefit in certain markets ?
Last edited by: idle_chatterer on Mon 5 Nov 12 at 03:07
|
Volkswagen Golf VI - 1000 miles in a Golf VI 1.6TD hire car - Avant
