Volkswagen Mark IV Forum banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
alright guys, I am just looking for a bit of advice for the distant
future. Il hopefully be getting a Bora around xmas time and up till now
have always had the 2.0 SE or Sport in mind. However, yesturday I
phoned up for an insurance quote and found the V5 2.4 is only ?250
extra per annum. This has obviously got me thinking about buying a V5,
but I am unsure of how the two (2.0 and V5) compare. Is there a big
difference in fuel consumption? Would I be looking at much higher
service costs? Are the two just as reliable as each other? As I said, I
wont be looking for a few months yet but am trying to gather as much
info as possible! Please posts any comments/useful info on the two cars

Cheers!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
566 Posts
If the V5, why not look at the 1.8T as well? Depends what you are after.....if its just a runabout to go shopping in, pick kids up from school and town driving, then the 2.0 fits.....hey, even a 1.6 would fit the bill better. If it's more spirited driving you are after, comfortable and fast motorway cruiser and reasonable running costs, then 1.8T is better. V5's came with the same 2.3L engine as fitted to the equivalent Golf. They are a bit thirsty compared to the smaller engined models and I'd imagine slightly more expensive to run too.

As for insurance quotes, I always point everyone to the Autotrader website (http://www.autotrader.co.uk/CARS/motoring/ins/insurance-centre.jsp?l=mb&p=motoring) where you input your details once and get loads of different quotes from different companies. I did my insurance from there for my Anni Golf as it saved time from phoning around too much and just replicating the details over and over again.

~ Maxie
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,881 Posts
I've had a 2.0 golf, 1.8T golf and now on a Bora V5.

The 2.0 is basically just like any other car. Sounds the same as any other car, got enough go in it for a normal car etc. They seem to drink oil, but are the lowest insurance group.

The 1.8T is the fastest of the lot. Still got my 1.8T golf and when I go out in it now I feel how fast it is as standard next to the V5. You get about the same fuel consumption in both the 1.8T and the V5. The V5 for me was cheaper to insure than the 1.8T. Solid engine, mine doesnt drink any oil really even at 105,000 miles.

The V5 is slower from the lights than the 1.8T, but faster than the 2.0. It certainly feels that way anyway. The V5 is also quicker on the motorway when your in fifth or something because its instant power, no waiting around for a turbo to kick in.

So, I ended up with a V5 after all of those cars, why? The noise it makes. You cannot compare it to a 1.8T or a 2.0. Gives a nice burble much the same as a V6. I'm not too sure about servicing but I guess it will be more to sevice it because of the extra valves.

I personally would say go for a trial in the 2.0 and the V5. See what you think, but I think you will come away with your heart set on the V5 [:)]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
To be honest, I wouldn't even consider getting the 2.0 - it's a right dog of an engine. Not smooth, not powerful, not economical and renowned for drinking oil. Compared to the sweeter running 1.6 it only has 8bhp more, which translates to an extra 2mph top speed and it being quicker to 60 by 0.3 seconds - not a lot of extra oomph for a car which is one insurance group higher and delivers about 5mpg less.

The only upside is that non-petrolheads are more likely to be impressed by a car with '2.0' on the boot than '1.6'.

I think your choice is really between the 1.6, 1.8T and V5. If you can afford the insurance on the V5 then consider the 1.8T - they're the same group.

Get the 1.6 if you're after a sensible car and are more bothered about running costs than performance.

Either the V5 or 1.8T would be a good choice if you want something that's quick. The 1.8T is sportier in character, while the V5 feels more muscular and definitely makes a nicer noise - however the 150bhp 1.8T is quicker than the 150bhp V5 and likewise the 180bhp 1.8T is quicker than the 170bhp V5 - both of the turbos also offers marginally better fuel consumption than either of the V5s.

Personally I'd go for either the 180bhp 1.8T or the 170bhp V5 - both are great cars. I ended up buying the 1.8T simply because I found a decent one of those first. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
137 Posts
To be honest, I wouldn't even consider getting the 2.0 - it's a right dog of an engine. Not smooth, not powerful, not economical and renowned for drinking oil. Compared to the sweeter running 1.6 it only has 8bhp more, which translates to an extra 2mph top speed and it being quicker to 60 by 0.3 seconds - not a lot of extra oomph for a car which is one insurance group higher and delivers about 5mpg less.
The October 03 edition of WhatCar states the 0-60 time for the 1.6 Bora as 11.3s, and 9.5s for the 2.0. The 1.8T by contrast is only 0.6s faster than the 2.0, at 8.9s. Just checked the Dec 01 edition of Volkswagen Driver magazine for backup info. Bora SE 2.0 0-60 is stated as 8.6s (test date Jan 00) Golf 1.8T 7.9s (a difference of only 0.7s - I expect it wouldt be slightly slower for the heavier Bora).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,881 Posts
A car isn't all about the 0-60 times though remember. I've had the faster 0-60 and I'm still happier with my Bora V5.

If he wanted something super fast, he'd be looking for an older jap car! [:)]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
cheers for the comments! I need to do some serious thinking into what i
want the car for. I, by no means, need a big car like a Bora as im only
21, don't have wife/kids etc but i definately have my heart set on one.
Also as i use a works van, I don't need a car for travelling to and
from jobs so the mileage would hardly be above 5/6000 a year. To be
honest I had never looked into the 1.8T as I thought the insurance
would just be too much, but after seeing these replies it hopefully
looks like I will be proved incorrect :)

I will be doing a lot of pottering around town with the occasional long
journey and I think eventually il be looking to do some minor engine
tuning, so is there a prefered engine to do this? Il look into some
more insurance quotes in the meantime and research some technical data
for the 3 engines. I think its turning out to be a case of "do I
reeeeaally need a V5/1.8T or would I be content with a 2.0".
Considering i've only owned a 1.0 and 1.6zetec fiesta before, im not
sure if jumping straight into a V5 would be a good idea.

Some interesting replies, please continue to post any useful info
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
476 Posts
Agreed Graham.

The 2.0 does us fine. With the wife only passing her test at the start of the year, runs up to Scotland it does the job.

It gets a bad rap on here usually from the people that look at 0-60 times to get a picture of a cars performance or top speed. Yeah, it shouldn't be badged GTi, but neither should the 1.8's IMO (especially the 150). Still think these cars are best in diesel but that's another arg. Maybe because a lot of folk are into engine mods here and the 2.0 doesn't offer many options. Don't know about the V5's so much, probably very nice drive in 170 form i would think though - apart from exhaust i *think* the v5's might also be limited with mods - then again 170 5 cylinder would be enough for me anyway.

The 2.0 is hardly slow, but maybe that's just my car i dunno. Some cars have less bhp and some more than the stated if you are following that line of thinking! - some here will just compare a 115 car to a 125 car and it's not as easy IMO (never had a problem with any 125 incidentally!) Never done a RR before. Someone on here a while back had 130 from their 2.0 as standard (on different RR's as well)

Mine feels quite torquey anyway and has plenty low down grunt. For traffic light grand prix's it surprises a few, it's the 50-70 where it needs some oomph i think. 0-60's are silly measurments IMO. 150t tried it on the the other week and she got a surprise - probably have to kill the engine to get the 150 out of it, not sure.

Up to 3k rpm it's fine but a turbo would be great in this car. I think the 1.8 focus felt like a similar powered car (except with better handling!), again, different style though - had to really boot that to get power. It's not as pokey as other 2.0's though - had a 156 for a bit and that felt faster (made of plastic probably helped!) 1.8 BMW's also can't really get rid of me, and i can't shift them, so maybe similar to these cars? (don't have a clue about weights or these engines, just going by what i've witnessed)

1.8t's seem to offer the best power increase for cash. Sound like the wifes hairdryer though......

I'll get around 30mpg which is lots of town driving right now and up to 40 on the motorway long journeys which i don't have a problem with (not a big one anyway).

Re. the oil issue. I have found that 100% synthetic will basically fall out the car whereas the part synthetic lasts longer and is fine for this car anyway (the 20v's probably need the 100% stuff, i dunno, just saying what works for me) The 2.0 has the same probs as all other golfs.

Bottom line is, maybe try a few and see what you think? Where are you PhatJoe, i never noticed?

For interest as well, someone said something like the 1.6 only having 8bhp less or something - in my experiance they aren't close to the 2.0's on a proper road anyway. Figures, figures.....

....go and drive a few, it's the best way. If I had my way again, i would probably go the diesel route.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
737 Posts
To be honest, I wouldn't even consider getting the 2.0 - it's a right dog of an engine. Not smooth, not powerful, not economical and renowned for drinking oil. Compared to the sweeter running 1.6 it only has 8bhp more, which translates to an extra 2mph top speed and it being quicker to 60 by 0.3 seconds - not a lot of extra oomph for a car which is one insurance group higher and delivers about 5mpg less.
The October 03 edition of WhatCar states the 0-60 time for the 1.6 Bora as 11.3s, and 9.5s for the 2.0. The 1.8T by contrast is only 0.6s faster than the 2.0, at 8.9s. Just checked the Dec 01 edition of Volkswagen Driver magazine for backup info. Bora SE 2.0 0-60 is stated as 8.6s (test date Jan 00) Golf 1.8T 7.9s (a difference of only 0.7s - I expect it wouldt be slightly slower for the heavier Bora).
No 2 cars with the same engine will give the same performance figures; VW Driver also tested a 2.0 Golf and the 0-60 was...10.5s! whereas an early 1.8T was tested at 7.4s..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
137 Posts
To be honest, I wouldn't even consider getting the 2.0 - it's a right dog of an engine. Not smooth, not powerful, not economical and renowned for drinking oil. Compared to the sweeter running 1.6 it only has 8bhp more, which translates to an extra 2mph top speed and it being quicker to 60 by 0.3 seconds - not a lot of extra oomph for a car which is one insurance group higher and delivers about 5mpg less.
The October 03 edition of WhatCar states the 0-60 time for the 1.6 Bora as 11.3s, and 9.5s for the 2.0. The 1.8T by contrast is only 0.6s faster than the 2.0, at 8.9s. Just checked the Dec 01 edition of Volkswagen Driver magazine for backup info. Bora SE 2.0 0-60 is stated as 8.6s (test date Jan 00) Golf 1.8T 7.9s (a difference of only 0.7s - I expect it wouldt be slightly slower for the heavier Bora).
No 2 cars with the same engine will give the same performance figures; VW Driver also tested a 2.0 Golf and the 0-60 was...10.5s! whereas an early 1.8T was tested at 7.4s..
That's true but the reason they gave was that they reckoned with only 1200 miles on the clock it was well tight and needed some proper running in. In my experience these motors run best after 60000 miles....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
I'd rather have the 1.6 over the 2.0. Every 2.0 I've driven has felt wheezy, while the 1.6 at least feels a bit sparky, even if it hasn't got quite the same amount of oomph. The 1.8T and V5 are in a completely different league.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
137 Posts
I'd rather have the 1.6 over the 2.0. Every 2.0 I've driven has felt wheezy, while the 1.6 at least feels a bit sparky, even if it hasn't got quite the same amount of oomph. The 1.8T and V5 are in a completely different league.
Well I like it anyway[:(]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
476 Posts
Me too Beerboy.

It's not the fastest, but saying it's in a different league from 1.8t is really giving a false impression. Never got mine for speed, and wouldn't have got any VW if speed was the only criteria.

It annoys me slightly (well, disapoints me) as well that people certain people with 150's and a almost 1.5 tonne car are driving motorway rockets. Hate that attitude.

VW never produced a MkIv GTI anyway IMO. (180's and remaps are different obvioulsy, but still don't do much for handling in std form)

V5 seems a nice all rounder to me anyway. Try a few out (original poster).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,881 Posts
Me too Beerboy.

It's not the fastest, but saying it's in a different league from 1.8t is really giving a false impression. Never got mine for speed, and wouldn't have got any VW if speed was the only criteria.

It annoys me slightly (well, disapoints me) as well that people certain people with 150's and a almost 1.5 tonne car are driving motorway rockets. Hate that attitude.

VW never produced a MkIv GTI anyway IMO. (180's and remaps are different obvioulsy, but still don't do much for handling in std form)

V5 seems a nice all rounder to me anyway. Try a few out (original poster).
V5 is lurverly!

I had no probs with my 2.0 either. Only problem was that it needed oil as much as petrol!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
476 Posts
I'll bet it is mate!

It's something i would defo consider. The V5 must be a great tourer type motor.

My 2.0 was drinking 100% synthetic oil, but isn't too bad with the part synthetic.

I;m not sure what you mpg you would get int he V5, but it's probably not much less than a 2.0 tbh. We wanted a diesel (or V5) when we were looking but costs were just out of range for the year we wanted. Hmmmm, maybe slight false economoy longterm, but that's the way we went.

I would love a V5 for my Scottish tours though - like them a lot. 1.8T isn't really my style these days, all nice cars lets be honest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,881 Posts
My second trip computer states an average of 31.9mpg I know cus I looked a couple of days ago.

I do a few short 5 mile trips too, which hardly get abover 27mpg, so equals out not to bad in the end.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
If the V5, why not look at the 1.8T as well? Depends what you are after.....if its just a runabout to go shopping in, pick kids up from school and town driving, then the 2.0 fits.....hey, even a 1.6 would fit the bill better. If it's more spirited driving you are after, comfortable and fast motorway cruiser and reasonable running costs, then 1.8T is better. V5's came with the same 2.3L engine as fitted to the equivalent Golf. They are a bit thirsty compared to the smaller engined models and I'd imagine slightly more expensive to run too.

As for insurance quotes, I always point everyone to the Autotrader website (http://www.autotrader.co.uk/CARS/motoring/ins/insurance-centre.jsp?l=mb&p=motoring) where you input your details once and get loads of different quotes from different companies. I did my insurance from there for my Anni Golf as it saved time from phoning around too much and just replicating the details over and over again.

~ Maxie
Wow! That is really good, the insurance site!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
I own a 2.0l and its great. doesn't drink oil, I drive it everyday in and out of town and have an average 40.5mpg.

I know someone who had a 1.6 and he kicks himself everytime he gets in mine as his is a slug and the ride is pants
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
476 Posts
That is v. good mpg. I think around town i'm getting more along the lines Grahams mpg in his V5. Don't think the 2.0 (well mine anyway) will be too far ahead (if at all) of the V5 re. mpg?

I have only tested mine out (i hate to do it as it's a bit naff all that stuff IMO) on a few of the 16v 1.6's and there is a difference. I only found out the other week that they did 1.6 8v (and possibly a 1.48v!!??) MKiV? They must be slow - surely not a 1.48v. Still, all nice enough cars though, I try and get away from the figures way of thinking etc and take the car for what it is. It takes me to 60 in probably around 9 secs and handles 100(kph!) fine on the motorways.

How come you say the ride is pants? I thought the 2.0 had the same crap setup as the rest of them (i know models above 2.0 have slightly better setup, hardly saying much though).

Must say though, if i had the cash at the time and was still 100% behind petrol, it would have been V5.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,881 Posts
I find it VERY hard to believe your getting 40.5mpg around town. Flick over to the 2nd computer memory which (so long as its got some miles in it and hasn't just reset itself) will give you a true reading of your average MPG.

I had the 2.0 in golf form and it got up to about 36mpg not driving it at all hard and I just about squeezed 37mpg out of it on a 300 mile trip at about 60mph all the way.

The ride of the 2.0 is softer than the 1.8T, the 1.8T has the sports suspension setup, so its a harsher ride, but you can fling it round corners easier. The whole of the 1.8T is harsher, including the seats!

The V5 2.3 has the same suspension setup as the 2.0 and I kind of prefer it, especially when cruising, but it doesnt give you that 'i'm going to race this round this corner' feeling.

I've just been out in the 1.8T and going out again in it in a minute as I'm giving it some new tyres, you can notice the harsher ride easy, but you also notice the speed easier too. The whole car infact feels tighter than the V5, even down to the steering (much heavier steering). However, I still overall prefer the V5 engine. I listen to the 1.8T on acceleration and all I can hear is a high pitched whistle and a rattly kind of exhaust note (not rattly as in my car is falling to bits) which has a hint of hairdryer in it. V5 just burbles away, stonking!
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top