PDA

View Full Version : Help! VW GOlf V6 or V5?


Jump Complete
2nd Sep 2010, 17:58
I'm trading in my MkII MX-5 for something more practical but still interesting and have narrowed it down to two cars (in two nearby dealers) A MkIV VW Golf V5 or a slightly older (MkIV) V6 4Motion (4wheel drive in other words) Any thoughts? The V6 will certainly be more expensive to run, I think but the 4wd might be a good thing. The V5 still sounds lovely though...

Ancient Mariner
2nd Sep 2010, 18:08
What's a V5? Two and a half cylinder each side or three on one and two on the other?
Per

G-CPTN
2nd Sep 2010, 18:08
After last winter the 4WD version may make more sense (it depends on where you live, of course, and what type of motoring you do).
Any 4WD model will consume more fuel than the equivalent 2WD version.
Of course there's more to go wrong . . .

A larger engine will consume more fuel if you use the additional performance.

Jaguar ran a 2.4 and a 3.4 in tandem around a road circuit and the 3.4 used less fuel than the 2.4.

The V5 engine is a V form engine with five cylinders, though this engine is not a true twin-bank V engine, but rather a VR5, or staggered bank straight five engine, and therefore not a true V5. The engine is derived from the VR6, and is thus a staggered 5, and has much in common with Volkswagen's earlier straight 5 developed in the 1980's for the Passat and Audi Quattro.Volkswagen's VR engines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VR6_engine).

Edited to add:-
Googoo is your friend (http://bbs.scoobynet.com/other-marques-33/492083-golf-mkiv-v6-4motion-any-good.html).

Ancient Mariner
2nd Sep 2010, 18:52
Three and two then. The things one learns here at JB. Gooble is for whimps.
Per
Oh, and thanks G-CPTN!

OFSO
2nd Sep 2010, 19:05
Just try not to get too annoyed when something with a 'D' at the end of the nameplate beats you away from the lights......

G-CPTN
2nd Sep 2010, 19:18
Indeed, the VW turbo diesels are excellent engines . . .

mixture
2nd Sep 2010, 20:27
After last winter the 4WD version may make more sense (it depends on where you live, of course, and what type of motoring you do).

Depends on what the 4WD system is and how it is configured. Some are as good as useless.

Also, in something short, narrow and light like a Golf with typical hatchback tyres, it might not make a huge amount of difference to your average driver who probably has no idea how to drive properly on a low friction surface anyway.

Of course there's more to go wrong . . .


Theoretically. The other side of the coin is that the mechanics are also a lot more reliable these days.

A larger engine will consume more fuel if you use the additional performance.

What's the point having a larger engine if you don't use it's performance ? Might as well buy yourself a 1.8 diesel :rolleyes:

G-CPTN
2nd Sep 2010, 20:34
What's the point having a larger engine if you don't use it's performance ?
Less mechanical stress (and, usually, higher gearing giving more comfortable motorway cruising).

My 2 litre turbo diesel runs at 30 mph per 1000 revs in top gear.

mixture
2nd Sep 2010, 20:39
Less mechanical stress

Fair enough point, but could feasably be countered to ask you about whether you worry yourself to death about the unavoidable mechanical stress on your brake pads, tyres, suspension, windscreen wipers, bulb filaments,locks, hinges, levers, switches and pedals ?

Where are the joys of motoring if you forbid yourself from having a bit of safe and legal fun ? :cool:

Parapunter
2nd Sep 2010, 21:08
Expect plenty of mechanical stress with a modern VW. As for 4wd, my Audi uses a Haldex system, needs its oil & filter changing every twenty thousand miles on top of normal servicing & was approxiamtely useless during the snow. In fact, I have pulled the Haldex fuse & gone for a burn & barely noticed the difference.

Personally, I would take the 2wd & save the fuel penalty. On a happier note, I've acquired Vag-com diagnostic software & ran it today to discover the beast is fault free. You can all breathe easy.:)

G-CPTN
2nd Sep 2010, 21:10
Where are the joys of motoring if you forbid yourself from having a bit of safe and legal fun ?
At my age I am now retired and being in a hurry isn't so important any more (though I have had some 'interesting' drives recently - just after I fitted new brake discs and pads and tyres).

I also pay for my own fuel now . . .

(as an aside, models with more powerful engines are frequently fitted with more substantial brakes - and tyres - so the stresses are less than they would be on lesser models)

chuks
2nd Sep 2010, 21:30
We have a 1999 Passat with the VR5 and 4motion. We didn't go for the VR6 because it is supposed to have rather high fuel consumption. The car now has 205 thousand kilometres and the engine is still doing fine, no oil consumption to speak of and it is still on its original clutch.

4WD is really good to have in winter. We were on a ski holiday when I was able to drive up steep, icy streets that people in big SUVs were having problems with. (Of course we use winter tires, Michelin Alpin, for that as well.)

If you don't mind high fuel consumption then I would suggest the VR6/4motion car but I am sure the VR5/FWD will do for all but extreme conditions, plus saving you a lot on fuel. In general I have been happy with the quality of this VW product although this car is now a bit long in the tooth. We are hanging onto it because our 19 year-old just started driving; there's no sense letting him damage a new car, is there?

Parapunter
2nd Sep 2010, 21:37
One thing, when your anti roll bars go and they will, replace them with the R32 roll bars. It transforms the handling, you don't have to tell the insurance & you'll thank me for ever.:)

Jump Complete
4th Sep 2010, 16:01
Thanks for the thoughts, folks. (Thanks for the roll-bar
tips, parapunter, I'll certainly follow that up if it comes
to that.)
Well, the choice has been made. I took both of them
for a second test drive and the V5 came out clearly
ahead. Just felt younger and better cared for, with
V5 sounding (to me) actually better than the smoother
V6. I decided that I didn't really need the 4wd and it did
indeed seem to soak up the extra power (the
performance figures bear this out). This, the condition
and the lower running cost made the choice obvious in
the end. (Got a better trade-in deal on the MX-5 too!)

G-CPTN
4th Sep 2010, 16:05
Sorted! :cool: :ok:

Tower Ranger
4th Sep 2010, 18:22
I drive a MK5 R32 here as fuel is so cheap however when I lived in the Uk the last Golf I owned was a MK4 GTI PD 150 diesel and I have to say it was one of the best cars I have ever owned. Fast, economical and reliable. If you have never driven one go try because unless you have to have 4wd I think its a better car.

Ironside0
5th Sep 2010, 20:08
Good choice!
Have had the same engine (V5 170bhp) in a Seat Toledo,which is a Golf Iv variant,superb noise,bulletproof build (Chain driven cam,no belts),200k miles no problem,ave mpg 32+,would love another as all the kit that is extra on the VW is included,sat nav,all elec toys etc.