about to buy a 2.5L Golf, got a few HP question

[cwvw.]

I currently drive a completely stock '03 GTI 1.8t 5MT . I bought it new in '03. To this day it puts a grin on my face when I nail the accelerator, I guess Im easy to please in the performance dept but its getting a little dated looking for me and starting to spend a lot of time at the repair shop for little things here and there.

Im thinking about a 2.5L Golf 5MT. It seems to be sligtly down on HP/TQ which as me on the fence. But I was reading that with premium 91 octane gas the HP/TQ has been proven to improve.

My 1.8t dyno'd 161.8 HP and 177.9 TQ back in '03 and ran the 1/4 mile at 15.0 @95 mph bone stock with dealer plates still on it how close can I get to that with a bone stock 2010 Golf with premium 91 octane gas?

thanks,

Chad

[tay272]

Power wise, the numbers arent too far off for the 2.5 compared to the 1.8t. It will be abit less then your use to but still quite a fun engine. If you ever want more power out of it, theres plenty of aftermarket parts to keep you happy for you. As for the 1/4 mile, I think I read on here someone did a 15.2 on a relatively stock motor. Might not be as quick as the 1.8t outta the box but what your gaining in reliabilty should more then make up for the difference. You wont be disappointed with the 2.5.

[Lwize]

Keep in mind, however, that the current Golf has slightly taller gearing in the 5MT for better fuel economy, which affects acceleration.

[HollisJoy]

I luv my 2.5L Golf. I think its a blast to drive (15" wheels and all).
I was a long time Chevy man before buying my 1st VW.
I put more than 327,000 miles on an S-10...4.3L V6 with 180HP 230 lb-ft torque.

At 1st I was a little disappointed in the lack of power. It didn't take long to figure out how to drive the 2.5L.

I bought my Golf with the idea that it would be a fun reliable commuter car to drive to work.
Now...well...I have dreams of adding a turbo & a R32 or TT Quattro rear end

Here I am tearing it up on the Tail of the Dragon.

[thygreyt]

I luv my 2.5L Golf. I think its a blast to drive (15" wheels and all).
I was a long time Chevy man before buying my 1st VW.
I put more than 327,000 miles on an S-10...4.3L V6 with 180HP 230 lb-ft torque.

At 1st I was a little disappointed in the lack of power. It didn't take long to figure out how to drive the 2.5L.

I bought my Golf with the idea that it would be a fun reliable commuter car to drive to work.
Now...well...I have dreams of adding a turbo & a R32 or TT Quattro rear end

Here I am tearing it up on the Tail of the Dragon.

amen

[PhAyzoN]

A chipped 2.5 will put down more power than a stock 1.8T, as well as add a lot of drivability improvements.

[zevion]

An SRI and a UM tune and it will be a whole different beast. Not much to spend either.

[PaulGiz]

They're pretty close.

Slight advantage to 1.8T, but I'm happy with the grunt of the 2.5L dead stock, even with the higher gearing of the later models.

If I get jaded, a tune and intake will make it faster than a 1.8T for (way) under a grand, with no loss in reliability.

P.

[Fudgey Memory]

The 1.8t is a 150 hp engine, and the 2.5 is 170 hp, though it's na. I've owned both, and the power is pretty comparable, though the turbo makes the 1.8 seem faster and more responsive.

I'd wait until 2014, when the1.8TSI will replace the 2.5l, and the MkVII's will be out. The build quality of the MkVI's is not that great. I'm on my 3rd clutch, TOB, and other assorted clutch parts. Seat adjustment knob recently fell off. Seat covers fraying since day one. The engine is good, but there are reasons the whole line is getting redone for 2014.

VW has been a let down since the FSI debacle, which is what I traded in on this one to get better reliability. Oh well.

[cwvw.]

The 1.8t is a 150 hp engine, and the 2.5 is 170 hp, though it's na. I've owned both, and the power is pretty comparable, though the turbo makes the 1.8 seem faster and more responsive.

My 1.8t came with 180hp

I'd wait until 2014, when the1.8TSI will replace the 2.5l, and the MkVII's will be out. The build quality of the MkVI's is not that great. I'm on my 3rd clutch, TOB, and other assorted clutch parts. Seat adjustment knob recently fell off. Seat covers fraying since day one. The engine is good, but there are reasons the whole line is getting redone for 2014.

sounds like you've had an unusually bad experience, it seems others have reported above average reliability. 1.8TSI sound interesting, where can I read up on it?

[cwvw.]

Thanks for all the responses. So how many of you have noticed a bump in HP/TQ using 91 octane?

[cwvw.]

A chipped 2.5 will put down more power than a stock 1.8T, as well as add a lot of drivability improvements.

Any ideas on dyno numbers? My 1.8t dyno'd 161.8 HP and 177.9 TQ stock. Im looking to get around that

An SRI and a UM tune and it will be a whole different beast. Not much to spend either.

Doesnt sound like a "smog legal" mod, california blows

[Gunbu]

Thanks for all the responses. So how many of you have noticed a bump in HP/TQ using 91 octane?

I have, during fast acceleration or when going up a hill at highway speeds the car has an easier time.
Normal driving seems to be the same as 87.


Dang Fudgey, your car sounds like it's cursed. Trade that thing in!

[Wooshio]

An SRI and a UM tune and it will be a whole different beast. Not much to spend either.

I wish that was true, I'd get one right away. From what I've heard the loss of low end power is very noticable and totaly changes the tourqie nature of the 2.5, having to go over 5K rpms every time I want to pass someone doesn't appeal to me at all. Turbo seems to be the only significant mod we can do unless you want to turn your 2.5 in to a civic si (I could be wrong about this, so if someone with SRI wants to correct me please do).

[zukiphile]

Sorry, but my experience with poor build quality is not unique, it just manifests itself differently in different cars.

Two of my friends have replaced fuel pumps within one year. I have also had myriad interior issues. My sunglass holder is falling down now. That's new. Read up and you'll see various issues already rearing their heads for what will quickly become known as a model to be avoided, especially the Jettas.

I can understand how that experience would sour a buyer.

I bought a MKIV in 2000. In five years, it's sole mechanical problem was a bad MAF sensor, but I read about how awful assembly quality was. Then in 2007, I bought a MKV with the 2.5, and read for years about the terrible engine and poor build quality. I didn't have any problems.

This year, I bought another 2.5. The engine has been smoothed out a bit and efficiency is better.

[PhAyzoN]

Any ideas on dyno numbers? My 1.8t dyno'd 161.8 HP and 177.9 TQ stock. Im looking to get around that

United Motorsport tune on a 2009 2.5 (from their Facebook). Shouldn't be too much different for a MkVI.

[tay272]

yes its true with an sri your gonna lose a bit on the low end but thats because the hp is higher then the torque. however it does increase the mid range quite a bit, around 20+ hp and tq. no real loss in passing power and you dont gotta rev it past 5k to really get goin. from 3k on its gonna pull pretty well and past 5k itll haul all the way to redline.

[jaja123]

Keep in mind, however, that the current Golf has slightly taller gearing in the 5MT for better fuel economy, which affects acceleration.

well at least he is getting the 2010 which doesnt have the uber long gearing that the 2011 and up has. My 2010 sits at 3100 rpm at 70mph which is a bit high actually. Im not totally sure but did they change the gearing during any years with the rabbit?. I think my golf is the same as rabbits ratios.

[StL2.5]

The 1.8t is a 150 hp engine, and the 2.5 is 170 hp, though it's na. I've owned both, and the power is pretty comparable, though the turbo makes the 1.8 seem faster and more responsive.

I'd wait until 2014, when the1.8TSI will replace the 2.5l, and the MkVII's will be out. The build quality of the MkVI's is not that great. I'm on my 3rd clutch, TOB, and other assorted clutch parts. Seat adjustment knob recently fell off. Seat covers fraying since day one. The engine is good, but there are reasons the whole line is getting redone for 2014.

VW has been a let down since the FSI debacle, which is what I traded in on this one to get better reliability. Oh well.

I have owned both the MKVI Golf and Jetta and have the opposite to say about the MKVI build quality. For me it has been excellent. In almost 22,000 mi over the course of a year I have had no seat fraying and my clutch still feels brand new. I have only one interior squeak which sounds like it's coming from the passenger side door. Other than that everything still looks and feels new. That said, I would also stick it out a little longer to get the new MK VII. Nothing wrong with the current gen though.

[mabbonizio186]

The Mk6 is more or less a refined mk5 so if anything the build quality should be better. In the one month and 4k miles I've had my golf its had no issues other than needing the clutch assembly replaced (i'm attributing this to the fact that I got the car with 110 miles on it so who knows who drove it before me, and that I must have got a bad clutch/bearing from the factory). Other than that its the most problem free 4k I've ever driven. I'm not expecting it to never have a single problem, I'm just expecting it to be a fun, reliable daily.

[Helltime]

I have had 2 mk4 1.8t gtis, one i bought stock and then modded it later on, the other i still have is a stage 3+ car with a bit of power. I bought the wife a 2012 jetta se 5spd manual, we love how smooth it is, how nice it feels, and the excellent fuel economy. I actually like her jetta more than either of my mk4s. Power wise, it needs more mid/upper rpm power, but really doesn't bother us (I am just used to my stg3 pulling to redline). The only thing that really annoys us is the slow throttle response from a dead stop, I've heard a tune will fix that though. I say buy the mk6, I have never thought it a good idea to buy the first year of a new generation/motor in a car.