Volkswagen Mark IV Forum banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Having test-driven a Golf V6 4Mo, i'm definately sold on that engine and driveability of the 4WD, so i'm now on the look out for a good one. Searching through Autotrader though, it seems that the Bora V6 does tend to come in cheaper than the Golf, which i guess is just down to popularity. Thing is though, is the Bora any worse than the Golf in terms of handling and power delivery? Any other advantages/disadvantages of both models other than the obvious larger boot on the Bora?

Your thoughts please?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
199 Posts
I love the V6 engine, wish I could afford to fuel one!!

In my experience the bora handles better than a golf if they are both standard. The bora has better air vents, and shinier dials aswell if you have it in sport spec.

Other than that, its pretty much the same car.

HTH

Mart
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,934 Posts
I have a Seat Toledo and as I recall it is actually lighter than the Leon of the same model. Not sure if the Bora is the same, but there will be little difference between them weight wise.

The V6 is a smooth powerful engine, and there is a lot of grip with 4x4. If you plan on tuning it though, you may be better choosing the 1.8T.

V6 4Mo vs Tuned 1.8T in the wet

Tuned 1.8T Toledo vs Tuned Civic Type R
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
487 Posts
In my experience the bora handles better than a golf if they are both standard. The bora has better air vents, and shinier dials aswell if you have it in sport spec.
Not sure about the Bora having better handling than the Golf. One of the most common mods on a Golf is the Bora air vents (flush closing and back lit). As you say the Bora's boot is bigger. The boot in my Golf 4mo is very small due to the 4 wheel drive mechanics. If you need a big boot I suggest you go for the Bora. Suppose the lower price for the Bora reflects the desirability of the car. In my opinion, the Bora is not a patch on the Golf.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
459 Posts
Bora everytime....

Just that little nicer inside, more space in the boot, and IMHO a nicer looking car. Plus the money you save on getting a Bora over a Golf will allow a little more money for modding.

I may be biased as I own a Bora, but my wife has had a couple of MKIVs Golf and she prefers my Bora.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
524 Posts
The thing about the Bora is.....it just aint a Golf !! and it's worth paying extra for the Golf image.

Although having said that I do prefer Saloon Cars to hatchbacks (apart from the Astra and Focus varietys [:$]), and considered a Bora, but it has not got the same class about it.

If it were a choice between a Mondeo saloon and Hatchback however, I would go saloon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I have a Seat Toledo and as I recall it is actually lighter than the Leon of the same model. Not sure if the Bora is the same, but there will be little difference between them weight wise.

The V6 is a smooth powerful engine, and there is a lot of grip with 4x4. If you plan on tuning it though, you may be better choosing the 1.8T.

V6 4Mo vs Tuned 1.8T in the wet

Tuned 1.8T Toledo vs Tuned Civic Type R
Interesting viewpoints from all - thanks.

I had gathered from reading elsewhere on this forum that the 1.8T is more tunable than the V6, but you dont get the noise or the 4WD with the former. Interesting comparison video there though - i assume the winning car was the 1.8T, though it clearly showed the 4Mo getting away quicker from the standing start in the wet. From start, it took 8 seconds for the silver 1.8T to catch the V6, so i guess they're doing about 60-70mph by then, probably just changed into 3rd gear, which in my mind is where it counts. I'd love to see what difference there would be from a rolling start in say 5th gear at 60mph then booting it. Couldn't get the Toledo vs. Civic video to work - i would be interested to see that too as i had considered the Type-R at one point, but didn't like the idea of having the rev the nuts off it to get anywhere - hence the choice of the big lazy V6.

Anyway, back to the Bora vs. Golf debate. I remember i used to adore the Bora when it first came out, but i'm beginning to think it's aged more than the equivalent Golf. I dont really need the extra boot space as it's only for transporting me to/from work. I also probably agree with the Golf image having higher esteem than the Bora. However, the ?1k plus that i'd save buying the Bora would buy a fair amount of extra power!

Decisions, decisions......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
121 Posts
I would probably go for the Bora now - and I have a Golf 4mo.

I seem to chuck the bike in the back quite often - I dont know how easy that is in the Bora, but its pretty easy in the golf with the hatch- plus I can still have the 40/60 split folding seat so I don't have to move the baby seat...

I've had some pretty tall things in the boot and you do start to take the big opening for granted. I also own a volvo c70 which has a massive boot - but theres alot of things that I cant put it which will go in the golf...

All depends how much you plan to put in the back really - I dont think the driving experience is going to differ too much. Yes the Bora has a big boot, but the golf is much more accessible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
918 Posts
The Golf boot is more versatile and accessible than the Bora due to the hatch, but the Bora boot is much bigger.

I have no problems carrying two bikes plus associated kit in the back of my Bora. With the added advantage of not having to take both wheels off the bikes.

I have no idea how the boot floor is affected by the 4-mo system in the Bora but the Golf does have a raised floor to accommodate it. Check this out on both models.

I prefer the look of the Bora's front (and backed up by the number of Bolf conversions being completed this spring).

Handling wise 'technically' the Bora is better, although this would be almost un-noticable on the public roads. The rear section is stiffened by the boot/cabin appeture frame so there is less flex through the chassis. But strut braces would replicate this in the Golf.

A used Bora is cheaper than the equivilant Golf because it is not a hatchback and us Brits (generally)only prefer our saloons to be from Prestige marques. And VW are percived as a (top end) mass market producer.

The Bora was better spec'd from the factory to make it more desirable over the Golf (ie. the SE Golf has less equipment than the SE Bora).

To answer your question of Bora or Golf. I would choose a Bora. For three reasons:

1. De-badged (save for the boot VW sign) people don't know what it is and assume it is a prestige car. And so treat you better as a driver.

2. I tend to keep my cars for long periods - I kept my mk1 gti for 7 years - so depreciation doesn't greatly affect me. And afterall a Bora will still be worth more than a Focus, Civic, Astra etc of the same age, just not as much as a Golf or 3 series. Is that a bad thing?

3. The Bora was brought by 'older' people who tend to take better care of their cars so finding a good one is easier.

However, if you only intend to keep the car for a short time, say, 12-months then I would buy a Golf. Easier to sell and holds it's money better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,686 Posts
Not sure about the Bora having better handling than the Golf. In my opinion, the Bora is not a patch on the Golf.
The argument goes due to the better weight distribution, the Bora is a bit sportier. However neither car is going to win any handling awards, so its fairly academic.

I have no idea how the boot floor is affected by the 4-mo system in
the Bora but the Golf does have a raised floor to accommodate it.
Check this out on both models.
I had a 1.6SE then a 2.8 V6 and the boot is about 3 inches shallower. Still big but not as cavenous as the FWD cars are. Highly recommend the Bora V6, top spec car, extremely rare, sounds the business, cheap as hell.

Posted Image


Posted Image
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,934 Posts
[

Interesting viewpoints from all - thanks.

I had gathered from reading elsewhere on this forum that the 1.8T is more tunable than the V6, but you dont get the noise or the 4WD with the former. Interesting comparison video there though - i assume the winning car was the 1.8T, though it clearly showed the 4Mo getting away quicker from the standing start in the wet. From start, it took 8 seconds for the silver 1.8T to catch the V6, so i guess they're doing about 60-70mph by then, probably just changed into 3rd gear, which in my mind is where it counts. I'd love to see what difference there would be from a rolling start in say 5th gear at 60mph then booting it. Couldn't get the Toledo vs. Civic video to work - i would be interested to see that too as i had considered the Type-R at one point, but didn't like the idea of having the rev the nuts off it to get anywhere - hence the choice of the big lazy V6.

Anyway, back to the Bora vs. Golf debate. I remember i used to adore the Bora when it first came out, but i'm beginning to think it's aged more than the equivalent Golf. I dont really need the extra boot space as it's only for transporting me to/from work. I also probably agree with the Golf image having higher esteem than the Bora. However, the ?1k plus that i'd save buying the Bora would buy a fair amount of extra power!

Decisions, decisions......
You will need quicktime to view the other clip.

The V6 is ertainly more vocal than the 1.8T, but as you said above it took 8 secs for the 1.8T to catch the V6. Bear in mind though that when he caught it he was going faster so the initial loss is only really first gear in the wet. After that the V6 is slower.

The rolling test would show similar results - A tuned 1.8T would walk away from the V6 due to the torque and less weight and drag in 5th from 60mph.

Not slagging the V6 - Far from it, they are great cars.

However if you want to really save cash, go with a Seat Toledo 1.8T like I did. Same car as the Bora with a nicer looking outside and not so nice inside for a lot less ??'s.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
[

Interesting viewpoints from all - thanks.

I had gathered from reading elsewhere on this forum that the 1.8T is more tunable than the V6, but you dont get the noise or the 4WD with the former. Interesting comparison video there though - i assume the winning car was the 1.8T, though it clearly showed the 4Mo getting away quicker from the standing start in the wet. From start, it took 8 seconds for the silver 1.8T to catch the V6, so i guess they're doing about 60-70mph by then, probably just changed into 3rd gear, which in my mind is where it counts. I'd love to see what difference there would be from a rolling start in say 5th gear at 60mph then booting it. Couldn't get the Toledo vs. Civic video to work - i would be interested to see that too as i had considered the Type-R at one point, but didn't like the idea of having the rev the nuts off it to get anywhere - hence the choice of the big lazy V6.

Anyway, back to the Bora vs. Golf debate. I remember i used to adore the Bora when it first came out, but i'm beginning to think it's aged more than the equivalent Golf. I dont really need the extra boot space as it's only for transporting me to/from work. I also probably agree with the Golf image having higher esteem than the Bora. However, the ?1k plus that i'd save buying the Bora would buy a fair amount of extra power!

Decisions, decisions......
You will need quicktime to view the other clip.

The V6 is ertainly more vocal than the 1.8T, but as you said above it took 8 secs for the 1.8T to catch the V6. Bear in mind though that when he caught it he was going faster so the initial loss is only really first gear in the wet. After that the V6 is slower.

The rolling test would show similar results - A tuned 1.8T would walk away from the V6 due to the torque and less weight and drag in 5th from 60mph.

Not slagging the V6 - Far from it, they are great cars.

However if you want to really save cash, go with a Seat Toledo 1.8T like I did. Same car as the Bora with a nicer looking outside and not so nice inside for a lot less ??'s.
Thanks for this. Out of interest then, how much ??? are we talking to tune the 1.8T engine up to this sort of performance and what's involved? I assume we're starting with the 180bhp model, right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
I prefer the look of the Bora's front (and backed up by the number of Bolf conversions being completed this spring).
I've heard this mentioned a few times, but what is a Bolf conversion?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
918 Posts
Bolf - A Golf with a Bora front end. The headlights, front wings, bonnet, bumper, grille and mounting brakets from a Bora are bolted onto the front of a Golf. The underpinings are the same so the parts are a straight (unlike the Walrus) swap. Cat1.4 has a piccie of her Bolf on her tag line. (looks great)

Gora - A Bora with a Golf front end. Same procedure. I can't remember their name but one of the Scottish contingent has a piccie of their Gora in their tag line. (looks pants)

Only my opinions mind - except the Walrus, we all know the truth. It's time to stop pretending.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
918 Posts
Mikedav is right about the handling. Neither car, in standard trim, is going to win awards.

When it comes to performance though - and tuning capacity - it has to be the V6 (costs not a major consideration).

Yes you can chip a 1.8T cheaply but you end up with a peaky motor in a fwd car which is hard to get off the line and a handful in the wet.

Buy the Bora V6, spend the money you saved over buying a Golf on a Supercharger kit and you have a (potentially) 300bhp 4WD q-car to frighten/surprise Porsche, STi and Evo drivers. Solid on the road and no probs with getting off the line.

V6 sounds better as well. In standard spec it's touch juicy compared to a 1.8T. Though when modified they are probably close in terms of economy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,934 Posts
When it comes to performance though - and tuning capacity - it has to be the V6 (costs not a major consideration).

Yes you can chip a 1.8T cheaply but you end up with a peaky motor in a fwd car which is hard to get off the line and a handful in the wet.

Buy the Bora V6, spend the money you saved over buying a Golf on a Supercharger kit and you have a (potentially) 300bhp 4WD q-car to frighten/surprise Porsche, STi and Evo drivers. Solid on the road and no probs with getting off the line.

V6 sounds better as well. In standard spec it's touch juicy compared to a 1.8T. Though when modified they are probably close in terms of economy.
Do you know this from experience mate? To supercharge a V6 you would certainly get a lot of bhp gain, but you would not get a lot of change out of a few grand.

My 243bhp 1.8T is certainly not peaky - the torque curve is not so much of a curve as it is like a flat line across the rev range from the spool up point. Agreed that wet take offs are a bit troublesome as the clip above proves, but thereafter, 2wd is faster as the clip also proves.

Spend the same money on a 1.8T as you would on a Supercharger for a V6 and you will also have 300bhp. However it looks like the lad here is not bothered about tuning that much.

The V6 does sound better, no argument. However my mapped 1.8T is hardly worse on fuel than it was as standard and the same applies to a lot of 1.8T folk on here which means that your point about a mapped 1.8T being the same on fuel as a V6 is wrong.

FYI, check Autotrader for prices on Golf/Bora 1.8T's, V5's and V6 4 Mo's and also on Leon 1.8T's and Toledo 1.8T's, V5's.

If you just want a quick standard car with a lot of grip, get a V6. If you want a quick car with a silky smooth and sexy sounding engine a V5 would be a good bet. The 1.8T would be the best bet for choice and for cheap gain in bhp for a few extra ??'s. If you spend time on here, you will most likely end up wanting to mod and a turbo'd engine is a better place to start on that respect for gain
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,934 Posts
Thanks for this. Out of interest then, how much ??? are we talking to tune the 1.8T engine up to this sort of performance and what's involved? I assume we're starting with the 180bhp model, right?
The AUM 150bhp and AUQ 180bhp are the same engine, the 180 having a 6 speed box to the 150's 5 speed box among other small changes. Importantly though, box tune up to the same figure as a result.

A remap can cost between ?200 and ?500 approx for around 210bhp but realistically, a 180bhp AUQ should perform similarly in accelaration and top speed to a V6 as it is lighter.

Spend a few ?'s more to have an exhaust in addition to the map, and your ?1,000 will see more bhp. That is what the silver 1.8T in the clip above had done.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top