can some please give me information about this gti i want to see more of it and its specifications on the wheels and ride height please im new to this
You'd be better off posting that question in the MkII forum . That might get you an answer a little more quickly. Or you could visit the website the image came from
Geld und Macht bringt korruption!!!
Von allen je gebauten volkswagens,steht man Kopf über den rest,den mk3 golf VR6
"stop telling lies about me, and ill stop telling the truth about you"...MD.
Thanks for the fun read. I was bored...extremely.
And what I took away from the bulk of this thread is that Zacker3t thinks mk3 is the best GTI ever and to support this position, he cites his own car, one that has low miles from NOT being day-driven, NOT being driven in the winter, not being driven in the snow, etc and cannot understand why people perceive the cars to be unreliable and rust-prone. -Fail.
I did not vote in the poll. I voted with my hard-earned cash. I cast a $20,000 vote when I walked into Pete Moore Volkswsgen to look at one of their new 96 GTI VR6's. both were green with black interiors. One was leather. I was beyond stoked at the idea of a small dub with a 2.8L V-6 and thought, this is gonna be awesome. But once I was face to face with it, the car was just too damn ugly. The body was ugly, the dash layout was pure fail. It didn't even have a glovebox (wtf?)
I hated the Prelude Si I was in but I opted to stay in it for the time being and actually thought about finding another mk2 which is what I had prior to the Honda but after just a few years, photos of the new Mk4 were starting to find their way out of Germany and I was in love. I signed all the papers and traded the Si the very day I saw my first one in person.
For the mk4, I couldn't throw down 20 thousand dollars fast enough. For the mk3, not so much.
That was then.
Today, I see very few if either Mk3s or Mk4s and the 4s are aging considerably better than their predecessor. Mk3s are rusted out far more and all of them have loose or missing body trim and side skirts.
I won't say the mk4 is the "best" GTI. It is the best in some areas but not all. I like it for its looks but, stock for stock, the Mk6 wins to me. The Mk5 has a better suspension but it, like the A1/A2, is a less refined and noisier cabin to ride in. I also don't care for the styling of the 5 but, as some of us know, looks are a personal matter.
I still have that Mk4 that I bought back in 1999 and nothing, NOTHING, has come along yet that has made me want to trade out. *the CC came close - so now I have one of those as well but I would not ever consider a Mk3. I would drive a Focus before that.
I think that would make the mk4 the slower of the two, but not sure where you are going with that either.
the poll is the best gti ever. best is a relative term and since we are talking about a gti, I would imagine HP alone is primary measurement of satisfaction. Highest HP does not make the best gti IMO. I think the gti is a fun package. MK2 16v, MK1, and MK4 20th/337 are my favorites fwiw.
99-2000 had 2.0 gti's and vr6's. they later changed that to vr6 and 1.8t I purchased a mk4 vr6 in 99 and test drove both.
The Mk4 aeg had the same output as the older aba but the car weighs more which is why i guestimate that the mk4 would probably be slower, but I am not factoring in gearing.
I must have had a severe emotional reaction to this because I have ZERO recollection of there ever being a 2 litre GTI in the Mk4. I guess it was simply never a consideration.
That said...If I had to choose between a Mk3 and Mk4 2.0, I'd still take the later model. I drove a 2.0 GTI Mk3 and was like wtf?
lol. Yea Mk3 era was dark ages for Gti's imo. I was estatic when they replaced the mk3 and would try anything to get a new gti in 99. the mk3 2.0 was basically a golf with sport seats which was released I would guess as a lower cost option to the VR6 until the 1.8t was ready.
MkIV VR6. That little car paired up with an engine with that much torque? Oh baby.
I understand the 1.8T can be tuned to produce more power, but that's only at high RPM. It doesn't shine til the later part of it's power band. Whereas the 2.8 has that pull from the beginning.
I love studying dyno charts, and not going off of mere Peak power ratings.