- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

ashd…@mpr.ca (Scott Ashdown) wrote:
>In article <Pine.HPP.3.91.950914183920.24688B-100…@libws4.ic.sunysb.edu> Everett B Perry <epe…@ic.sunysb.edu> writes:
>>Thanks for the detailed response to my post!

>I’ve only seen one other response in this thread, so I’m assuming this
>applies to me.

>You’re welcome.

>>Also, as an engineer what GTI would you reccommend (A1, A2 or A3)…

>First off, engineers have no great hold on what’s right and wrong
>(some do, but lots of them just show up on the net, use big words, and
>expect people to be impressed. What counts is experience.).

>That aside, my take on things:

>A1: Pure. Unrefined as it gets, but pure. The engine revs like no
>other, and the close-ratio transmission really helps out here.
>Interiors came in fairly wacky colours. Steering wheel was excellent.
>Luggage compartement cover wasn’t removable. Seats were spectacular.
>Not many features in general (AC, sunroof if you’re lucky). Braking
>was pretty good, but not spectacular. One "big" problem: the trannys
>had a self-machining problem that can cause them to die after reaching
>high mileage (this goes for 85/86 A2s as well, AFAIK).

>A2: Somewhat diluted. That goes for shape, noises, and feel. Power
>steering gives them a different character than the A1s. Less gaudy
>interiors that the A1s. All had 102hp+, but since they were heavier
>than the A1s, low-end models didn’t have screaming performance.
>Handling was improved. Sixteen valve cars are pretty fast, though the
>engines have been known to be a bit more problematic than the 8Vs
>(check the previous owner’s repair records to see how his/hers stood
>up). Getting later, with the air dams, round headlight grilles, and
>Fuba Beta whip antennaes, you’ve got great-looking cars (IMO). Some
>late 16Vs had BBS wheels and Recaro seats. Four wheel discs are there,
>and braking is really good. ABS showed up in ’89 or so, as an option.
>More feature-packed, and better factory audio systems.

>A3: A rather different car (both the 4cyl – GTI in Canada, Sport in
>the US; and the 6cyl). There’s quite a large increase in refinement
>over the A2 cars, but they’re again bigger, and handle a little less
>well. The new rod shifter in the 4cyl model is very nice. Seats in the
>VR6 are spectacular – just as good as most of Recaro’s current models.
>The 4cyl doesn’t offer any power advantage over a regular Golf,
>unfortunately. The VR6 is a very quick car, and has the best brakes
>for the price. The glass tilt/slide sunroofs are pretty impressive.
>Factory audio is quite good. A VR6 probably isn’t in your price range.
>Make sure you give the Sport/GTI a few good test drives and are
>satisfied with its performance. Older 16Vs are out there for less.

>>Keep in mind that I am a college student with an interest in GTI’s but am
>>looking not to spend allot of money……..

>There’s a balance here – up front cost vs. maintenance cost. The best
>combo is often a used car under five years old. That said, I’m a firm
>believer in new car purchases, and I myself own a ’95 GTI VR6
>(previous VWs included an ’81 Cabrio, ’83 GTI, and ’89 Jetta Carat).

>Is there a best GTI? There’s two "special" cars: ’84 GTIs and ’92
>16Vs. I’d throw the ’95 VR6 in there too, but too many people seem
>convinced that the car can’t keep up with them suspension wise.
>Someone with real driving/racing background (e.g. Mark Sirota, here
>in the group) has the right to make the claim. The rest, at best,
>are really only qualified to guage body roll. The car is a great
>performer, IMO.

>In truth, I have to recommend test driving a few cars (and keep your
>head about you – don’t buy *anything* until you know at least one
>other example of the vehicle), and reading good periodicals like
>European Car. When you do decide to buy, don’t ignore the guy asking
>$300-400 more than everyone else. He might be the one who knew how to
>take care of it.

>I’ll field specific questions via the group or email.
>Flames/corrections welcomed *in the group* – that’s where the
>knowledge belongs.

>Good luck.

>–
>Scott Ashdown
>Engineer, MPR Teltech Ltd.
>Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.
>ashd…@mprgate.mpr.ca

I’d agree with everything.  Right on on the 84 GTI and 92 GTI 16V.
I always thought the 87 Scirocco 16V was a really nice looking and
handling car right out of the box also.

One thing I’d like to add:  the more modern the car, the more complex it
is, and the harder it is to work on, and the more things that can go
wrong.

Hell, even I can rebuild my fuel injection, and diagnose where I went
wrong (80 Scirocco).  My car is great, but I am coming to the conclusion
that this is a long term project, and I’ll always want to upgrade and
etc.  And all sorts of little things can go wrong that are very frustrating
at times.  To me it’s worth the effort compared to new car payments
and new car insurance (and taxes, and interest, and…).

If you don’t like that stuff, then don’t by an older used car…

Jud.

>Thanks for the detailed response to my post!

I’ve only seen one other response in this thread, so I’m assuming this
applies to me.

You’re welcome.

>Also, as an engineer what GTI would you reccommend (A1, A2 or A3)…

First off, engineers have no great hold on what’s right and wrong
(some do, but lots of them just show up on the net, use big words, and
expect people to be impressed. What counts is experience.).

That aside, my take on things:

A1: Pure. Unrefined as it gets, but pure. The engine revs like no
other, and the close-ratio transmission really helps out here.
Interiors came in fairly wacky colours. Steering wheel was excellent.
Luggage compartement cover wasn’t removable. Seats were spectacular.
Not many features in general (AC, sunroof if you’re lucky). Braking
was pretty good, but not spectacular. One "big" problem: the trannys
had a self-machining problem that can cause them to die after reaching
high mileage (this goes for 85/86 A2s as well, AFAIK).

A2: Somewhat diluted. That goes for shape, noises, and feel. Power
steering gives them a different character than the A1s. Less gaudy
interiors that the A1s. All had 102hp+, but since they were heavier
than the A1s, low-end models didn’t have screaming performance.
Handling was improved. Sixteen valve cars are pretty fast, though the
engines have been known to be a bit more problematic than the 8Vs
(check the previous owner’s repair records to see how his/hers stood
up). Getting later, with the air dams, round headlight grilles, and
Fuba Beta whip antennaes, you’ve got great-looking cars (IMO). Some
late 16Vs had BBS wheels and Recaro seats. Four wheel discs are there,
and braking is really good. ABS showed up in ’89 or so, as an option.
More feature-packed, and better factory audio systems.

A3: A rather different car (both the 4cyl – GTI in Canada, Sport in
the US; and the 6cyl). There’s quite a large increase in refinement
over the A2 cars, but they’re again bigger, and handle a little less
well. The new rod shifter in the 4cyl model is very nice. Seats in the
VR6 are spectacular – just as good as most of Recaro’s current models.
The 4cyl doesn’t offer any power advantage over a regular Golf,
unfortunately. The VR6 is a very quick car, and has the best brakes
for the price. The glass tilt/slide sunroofs are pretty impressive.
Factory audio is quite good. A VR6 probably isn’t in your price range.
Make sure you give the Sport/GTI a few good test drives and are
satisfied with its performance. Older 16Vs are out there for less.

>Keep in mind that I am a college student with an interest in GTI’s but am
>looking not to spend allot of money……..

There’s a balance here – up front cost vs. maintenance cost. The best
combo is often a used car under five years old. That said, I’m a firm
believer in new car purchases, and I myself own a ’95 GTI VR6
(previous VWs included an ’81 Cabrio, ’83 GTI, and ’89 Jetta Carat).

Is there a best GTI? There’s two "special" cars: ’84 GTIs and ’92
16Vs. I’d throw the ’95 VR6 in there too, but too many people seem
convinced that the car can’t keep up with them suspension wise.
Someone with real driving/racing background (e.g. Mark Sirota, here
in the group) has the right to make the claim. The rest, at best,
are really only qualified to guage body roll. The car is a great
performer, IMO.

In truth, I have to recommend test driving a few cars (and keep your
head about you – don’t buy *anything* until you know at least one
other example of the vehicle), and reading good periodicals like
European Car. When you do decide to buy, don’t ignore the guy asking
$300-400 more than everyone else. He might be the one who knew how to
take care of it.

I’ll field specific questions via the group or email.
Flames/corrections welcomed *in the group* – that’s where the
knowledge belongs.

Good luck.

–
Scott Ashdown
Engineer, MPR Teltech Ltd.
Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.
ashd…@mprgate.mpr.ca

It’s the GEARS man!

Data points (1986 GTI):
1st ->   50 kmh ( 30 mph)
2nd ->   80 kmh ( 50 mph)
3rd ->  140 kmh ( 90 mph) <- this is "nice" on the highway…
4th ->  160 kmh (100 mph) <- note the slight difference from 3rd.
5th ->  200+kmh (125 mph)

The gear ratios are closer together than normal to allow
the driver to stay "on the cam" in the important speed
ranges.

If you can *choose* your passing opportunities, then you
can _really_ impress the unwashed masses.  My car seems
to love going up hills.  The only hill that I can recall
where it refused to accelerate further (while going up !)
was during certain sections of Mt. Washington in NH, USA.

-Jeffy

Also, as an engineer what GTI would you reccommend (A1, A2 or A3)…

Keep in mind that I am a college student with an interest in GTI’s but am
looking not to spend allot of money……..

Thanks in advance!

-ep