[JDP]

Hello all,

I'm new to this so be gentle with me.

I'm looking for a new car for the wife. Needs to be a golf and something that I can have a play around in on the weekend when i get out of the company bmw diesel. Originally looking for a 2002 180 1.8T but can't track down a good one. I've recently come across a 03 53 5dr v64 without much in the way of extras (no leather or sat nav)12k miles for just over ?15k with a dealer. The price seems pretty good but i have the following concerns.

1. Future depreciation

2. Running costs..servicing/expensive complicated bits

3. School run during the week 5miles per day..will this cause any problems

4. Security and if this is a car that thieves are interested in

Hopefully someone can put my concerns to rest.

Cheers

 

[Stevie P]

Hi, and welcome to the forum.

The school run will kill the fuel economy, especially in winter when the engine will spend a lot of its time running rich while it warms up. The 1.8T should be better in this respect if only because it has a smaller engine and is a bit lighter. If you can stomach the idea of getting a diesel, then you'd probably be better off with a 130 or 150BHP TDI.

Depreciation will probably depend on how much the cost of fuel goes up in the next few years.

As for security, if you get the car delocked, then the only thing you'll have to worry about is someone nicking the keys. The 2.8 4motion has been around for 5 or 6 years now, so older models are available fairly cheaply, so there should be less motivation for thieves to target newer ones, but who knows how their minds work.

 

[Malky]

WHat's your avearge mileage going to be per year???

MPG would be the biggest concern if you do a fair mileage!!

Think 4-motion cruiser, 180 GTI a "GTI"!! That's what was intended when launched...

I'm a fan of the v6-4-motion, but couldn't get one with a 100 mile trip to Scotland a few times a year!!

1.8T is a Damn reliable machine, Turbos good for 100K+ miles easy!

 

[golfv64mo]

Bear in mind that a 2003 V6 4Motion without leather will be an import - Uk-spec V6 4mo's from 2002 on had leather as standard.

 

[JDP]

Thanks for the replies.

The mileage should only be in the region of 5-6K so to a certain degree I'm not too concerned about fuel costs. I was more concerned about any possible adverse effects to the engine etc.

Diesel would be an option but equivalent aged diesel 150 is about same price as the V6 I've seen. Also I grew up with MkI & MKII's and I'm still not comfortable with a gti badge on the back of a diesel(but that's another issue).

What do you think about the price. Parkers quote ?17k and on this basis it seems good value?

I'm not sure if I should keep looking for a 180 or take the plunge and buy the V6?

 

[JDP]

Interesting...the dealer has assured me that this is a Uk car and not an import. How do I find out if it's an import?

 

[golfv64mo]

On a pure 'driving' basis, and not based on fuel costs or practicality, I'd take the V6 over a 1.8T every time.

 

[evilhomer]

Quote: posted by golfv64mo on 09/03/2005 14:37:51

Bear in mind that a 2003 V6 4Motion without leather will be an import - Uk-spec V6 4mo's from 2002 on had leather as standard.

hmm not sure thats true... mate had a 51 plate 4mo with cloth.. mine is y reg and 2002 spec, so his must be too...

 

[matt747]

Quote: posted by golfv64mo on 09/03/2005 14:37:51

Bear in mind that a 2003 V6 4Motion without leather will be an import - Uk-spec V6 4mo's from 2002 on had leather as standard.

Are you sure about leather being standard from 2002?; it appears as an extra in Oct 2002> brochure and I saw a UK supplied 03 car with cloth seats for sale recently.

 

[JDP]

I'm tempted to make the dealer an offer. Might try ?1500 off the screen price. Do you think that could be pushing it too much.

I would also really like to know what the servicing and running costs are for the V6 compared to a 1.8T

 

[Mikedav]

Quote: posted by JDP on 09/03/2005 21:10:23

I would also really like to know what the servicing and running costs are for the V6 compared to a 1.8T

Between V6 and 1.8T 180? Apparently they give similar MPG, and I would guess servicing is pretty similar too; only major differences I can think of are the Haldex, which needs servicing every 20,000 miles and is a ?50 - ?90 job depending on your dealer, and tyres...although the fronts go first just as on a 1.8T, you will need new rears a bit more often than on the FWD car.

 

[andymac]

I would not pay over 13.5k for any 4mot now for several reasons

1. they are an old model

2. they are depreciating faster than TDI's due to higher fuel costs

3. some R32's are beginning to drop to 1 or 2 grand more than that (15k that is)

4. I went to look at several newer 4mo's than mine and all the owners where offering heavy discounts due to not being able too sell I would reccomend buying privately and you will get a steal

 

[JDP]

Sorry to be a pain but just a few more questions :-

1. Clutch & exhaust costs for the V6 compared to 1.8T

2. Haldex..what's this? I'm no mechanic

3. The car I've seen is advertised with Brands Hatch alloys. Has the 2003 models been fitted with a different alloy wheel?

 

[The Walrus]

No they all came with the brandshatch alloys

Haldex is the term for the 4 wheel drive system used in the 4 motion

Cant quote prices on the V6 clutch and exhaust but rest assured I am sure someone on here knows them.

 

[Geeba]

Fuel consumption on the 180 and the V6 similar... no way! for 1 its displacing a litre more, its heavier, its running a 4wd system... the 180 is the same as a late 150 except for the map and my jabba mapped 150 gets as much if not slightly more mpg than it did when it was a 150...

 

[evilhomer]

Quote: posted by Geeba on 10/03/2005 11:21:34

Fuel consumption on the 180 and the V6 similar... no way! for 1 its displacing a litre more, its heavier, its running a 4wd system... the 180 is the same as a late 150 except for the map and my jabba mapped 150 gets as much if not slightly more mpg than it did when it was a 150...

Yeah but I have to agree I think the majority of 1.8T users on here would agree that their real MPG's are not that great.... Heavy feet combined with forced induction etc!! But in every day terms the fuel consumption on the V6 is indeed very high!!!

The option alloy was the 'Santa Monica' 17" wheels by the way.[]

 

[Geeba]

forced induction is more economical than NA.. Turbocharging is the most effective and economical method of making an internal combustion engine more efficient no doubt about it... heavy feet is the only thing that messes up mpg on the 18T... I can sit on the motorway at 70-80 and easily get 40+mpg out of mine.

 

[evilhomer]

Quote: posted by Geeba on 10/03/2005 12:28:42

forced induction is more economical than NA.. Turbocharging is the most effective and economical method of making an internal combustion engine more efficient no doubt about it... heavy feet is the only thing that messes up mpg on the 18T... I can sit on the motorway at 70-80 and easily get 40+mpg out of mine.

Any forced induction means more fuel more air am I wrong? How does that make it more economical? I agree that increased CC makes for poorer economy, but by your statement you are telling me that 1.8T is going to be more economical than a 1.8 N/A... ??.

In the same way that putting a charger or turbo on a v6, not taking into account the remap that would be done (Which if done on a standard car would improve fuel economy) The fuel consumption will definitely rise.

 

[JDP]

Decided to wait for a good 180 to come along...anyone know of one for sale!

 

[Deadlock]

Quote: posted by Geeba on 10/03/2005 12:28:42

forced induction is more economical than NA.. Turbocharging is the most effective and economical method of making an internal combustion engine more efficient no doubt about it... heavy feet is the only thing that messes up mpg on the 18T... I can sit on the motorway at 70-80 and easily get 40+mpg out of mine.

I get this nearly every day in my 4 mo driving to from work at 50/60mph: