2000 Golf GTI vs 2006 Polo GTI?

[TakeEmOutTed]

Hey guys, yet to own a VW here but hoping to change that very soon! I have my eye on a 2000 Golf GTI and also a 2006 Polo GTI, the Polo costs a little more but has 60,000 less km's. I prefer the look of the Golf but am wondering if the Polo is perhaps a better choice just because it's newer and has less k's?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated! I'd most probably be keeping either car stock, or very close to it.

Cheers!

[Lito]

I vote golf but I am biased. I prefer the looks of the golf and having 4 doors but the polo is lighter and faster stock for stock. Remember they golf is a bit older so may need some tlc to bring it back to condition, depending on how it's been looked after. Which ever one you get try to get one with a good service history and make sure they always used synthetic oil as the 1.8t has been known to have sludging issues when the incorrect oil has been used. But if cared for these engines will go forever. Both great cars, gotta love the 1.8 20vt get it chipped and you'll be grinning ear to ear

[TakeEmOutTed]

I prefer the look of the Golf too, especially side on, but I must admit the Polo looks like a bit of a nasty girl from the front (in a good way!). I'm a full time student and only work a couple of days a week, so this upgrade will be a BIG purchase for me, so maybe the lower k's on the Polo is the sensible way to go? I think I would miss the back doors, though.

Thanks for the synthetic oil tip! Dunno about chipping at this stage but the amount I've seen it pop up would probably convince me down the line a bit..

[Lito]

Yeah, honestly these cars (especially the golf) are pretty boring stock. Newer is definitely more sensible but with the money you save getting a golf you could put some aside for maintenance. You could get lucky and find one with a few mods, I've seen a few up for sale here recently that looked very tidy and were well priced.

[golfmeup]

Hard choice, the Polo has it's benefits with the lower mileage.
The MkIV golfs are pretty tough though.
Personally, I'd go Golf as you have so much more in the way of parts for tuning and modding- (if that's what your after).

[h100vw]

Hard choice, the Polo has it's benefits with the lower mileage.
The MkIV golfs are pretty tough though.
Personally, I'd go Golf as you have so much more in the way of parts for tuning and modding- (if that's what your after).

I'd do the Polo, better engine config, better ECU for tuning, everyone can flash it. Not everyone can flash the Golf ECU. The cost is almost identical. Parts are still available to tune the living daylights out of the Polo and the K03s makes more power tuned than the K03.

Why would you miss the back doors, you won't be using them? You should look at the turbo A3, that has 4 doors and the ME7 ECU like the Polo.

Gavin

[TakeEmOutTed]

Very even both ways by the look of it, I was hoping to be convinced one way or the other, haha! Main reason I'd miss the back doors is because I play a lot of music and it's easy to throw my guitar straight on the back seat, could always put it down and go through the boot though.

I'm in Tassie so unfortunately the Audio turbo's are pretty hard to come by, as it is the Golf I'm looking at is in Melbourne.

One thing I do want to note is that neither of these cars would be boring stock for me, right now I drive an automatic 95 Corolla and taking my sisters Kia out the other day it felt like a rocket in comparison!

[Swainey32]

go a golf, nothing but praise for mine a few years in sounds like you need the back doors then if your regularly moving equipment, ceebs moving seats back all the time.