How Does Mark VI GTI Compare with Mark V

[Corey_R]

Most would agree that the changes between Mark VI and V GTIs are nowhere near as significant as those between previous generations.

I'm not going to have a discussion with someone who simply changes their tact at whim to simply continue personal attacks towards members of these forums.

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

I'm not going to have a discussion with someone who simply changes their tact at whim to simply continue personal attacks towards members of these forums.

What "new tact [sic]"?

Whatever the case, why not defend your honour instead of feigning that the discussion is beneath you?

Your integrity is still under question re your claim that VW only said it was a minor update or facelift.

So why not defend your reputation and name all of the things that are different and prove your point?

If you are right that very little has changed under the skin (there being "much more retained under the skin - far too much to go into here"), can we presume it would not take you very long at all to name all of the things that have changed?

I mean, how many major components are there under a GTI that you could not name them all let alone the ones that have changed or been left unchanged?

Suspension F+R;
Axles
Differential
Driveshaft
Brakes
Fuel tank
etc, etc . . .

I dunno, I am no expert on the mechanics of cars.

But could there really be "far too much to go into here" and so the task really as hard as you claim?

Whatever the case, it does not alter the truth of the statement you made about VW never saying anything other than that the Mark VI was a minor update or "facelift", a claim from which you have not resiled.

And how about sharing that table from ATO or Customs that proves your point about tariffs. Or can we safely presume it does not help your cause?

[G-rig]

Corey is never wrong, that's all you need to know .

Anyway mk5 & mk6 are basically the same thing in the scheme of things and they are both good.

[Corey_R]

@Klaus Hergersheimer
Again, I sorry for using the word 'facelift' that the poster I was replying to used. I should have been more CLEAR and corrected the poster.

I never said it was minor - Dubya did - although since you're rehashinig several of Dubya's issues with me from multiple threads both recent in and in the past, it seems you are possibly Dubya under another alias.

To quote myself:

The MK6 was always an extensive facelift of the MKV. VW nor anyone else who knows what they're talking about has ever said anything differently

No use of the word 'minor'. In fact, extensive is an antonym for minor.
I do concede that my sentence after that was worded 'carelessly', however, to flip the comment, where have VW said that this is not a 'facelift'?

To quote the Wikipedia, "Volkswagen based the latest Golf Mk6 on the existing PQ35 platform from the Golf Mk5."

As stated above, that is why vin details are many parts are shared. Even as Dubya noted in the very first post of this thread "Most would agree that the changes between Mark VI and V GTIs are nowhere near as significant as those between previous generations."

That is also why there was no new Audi A3 - a car built from the same platform, because the Golf MK6 is not a new car.

The next truly 'new' Golf model, the MK7 is due in Europe late next year (by recent motoring news articles) along with the related new Audi A3. Australia probably won't see these until 2012 though.

@G-rig - lol, I have been wrong many times. I've no issue admitting that. And if anyone here can show a valid reference which shows that the MK6 is not MKV based or does not sit on the PQ35 platform then I'll happily admit I'm wrong here too

[Axis]

yeah you told me, there is one in ACT, 9000km, 3 doors 39k

Haha - sorry - I should pay more attention to the author of posts!

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

@Klaus Hergersheimer
Again, I sorry for using the word 'facelift' that the poster I was replying to used. I should have been more CLEAR and corrected the poster.

I never said it was minor - Dubya did - although since you're rehashinig several of Dubya's issues with me from multiple threads both recent in and in the past, it seems you are possibly Dubya under another alias.

To quote myself:

No use of the word 'minor'. In fact, extensive is an antonym for minor.
I do concede that my sentence after that was worded 'carelessly', however, to flip the comment, where have VW said that this is not a 'facelift'?

To quote the Wikipedia, "Volkswagen based the latest Golf Mk6 on the existing PQ35 platform from the Golf Mk5."

As stated above, that is why vin details are many parts are shared. Even as Dubya noted in the very first post of this thread "Most would agree that the changes between Mark VI and V GTIs are nowhere near as significant as those between previous generations."

That is also why there was no new Audi A3 - a car built from the same platform, because the Golf MK6 is not a new car.

The next truly 'new' Golf model, the MK7 is due in Europe late next year (by recent motoring news articles) along with the related new Audi A3. Australia probably won't see these until 2012 though.

@G-rig - lol, I have been wrong many times. I've no issue admitting that. And if anyone here can show a valid reference which shows that the MK6 is not MKV based or does not sit on the PQ35 platform then I'll happily admit I'm wrong here too

The issue is not whether it is a major update or based on Mark V, the issue is whether, as you claimed, VW ONLY EVER said it was a facelift or, as you were lamenting using the term facelift, I substituted the more generic term "minor update" which term I only used as a synonym for "facelift" which term you lamented using. Now you hold it against me. So let's stick with "facelift" shall we?

Not only did VW not say anything about it being a facelift (or words to that effect) now you seek refuge by saying VW has not expressly stated it is NOT a facelift. As if they ever would deny something that they do not acknowledge to be the case. But because they haven't you take solace in that. Amazing!

Look mate [restraint called for here in the face of abject ....], clearly there are many things VW has NOT said about the Mark VI Golf, and that the Mark VI is not a facelift is clearly amongst them. That it is not a piece of **** is another. But that does not mean that it is, you genius.

You are amazing - suggesting one should find a quote from VW denying it is a facelift which term you, not VAG or anyone else, ascribed to it.

Once again I cannot believe I waste my time trying to educate you.

As my wife says, you cannot make idiots intelligent.

As someone else recently said, [like Maverick] you are never wrong.

You attributed misstatements to VW and while "Tim" (sponsor) thought it terrible Dubya accused VW of "ripping off consumers" it was you who attributed comments to VW they could not possibly have made about the Mark VI which they are billing as New New New, as indeed they would.

But enough attempting to engage in battles of wits with the likes of you.

You have not a thread of credibility and your integrity is shot.

You cannot justify one comment about either what you say VW "never said" or about tariffs.

You are a disgrace.

As for this forum. the spineless moderators seem to have a penchant for Stasi-like censorship which generally affects the more forthright and intelligent posters who try and redress the bull**** pedalled by the likes of you and Maverick.

So this forum will be left with a bunch of like-minded dolts who question nothing and accept everything. Nice, but not my cup of tea.

Good night, and good luck.

you are full of **** Coreying, or whatever your real name is . . . Dwayne?

[WhiteJames]

The Mark 6 Golf and Mark 6 GTI is the vehicle that the Mark 5 Golf/GTI should of been. The myriad of minor improvements equal more than their sum on the roadway, which tempted me to sell and upgrade. EA888 motor, no fuelling issues with four lobe cam, XDS, greater rigidity in its chassis which is tangible in the way it drives, greater array of options to personalise esp the ACC, even the horizontal red stripe. I'm glad I received a good price for my MKV GTI allowing me to trade. No brainer really.

Cheers
WJ

[Corey_R]

The issue is not whether it is a major update or based on Mark V, the issue is whether, as you claimed, VW ONLY EVER said it was a facelift or, as you were lamenting using the term facelift, I substituted the more generic term "minor update" which term I only used as a synonym for "facelift" which term you lamented using. Now you hold it against me. So let's stick with "facelift" shall we?

Not only did VW not say anything about it being a facelift (or words to that effect) now you seek refuge by saying VW has not expressly stated it is NOT a facelift. As if they ever would deny something that they do not acknowledge to be the case. But because they haven't you take solace in that. Amazing!

Look mate [restraint called for here in the face of abject ....], clearly there are many things VW has NOT said about the Mark VI Golf, and that the Mark VI is not a facelift is clearly amongst them. That it is not a piece of **** is another. But that does not mean that it is, you genius.

You are amazing - suggesting one should find a quote from VW denying it is a facelift which term you, not VAG or anyone else, ascribed to it.

Once again I cannot believe I waste my time trying to educate you.

As my wife says, you cannot make idiots intelligent.

As someone else recently said, [like Maverick] you are never wrong.

You attributed misstatements to VW and while "Tim" (sponsor) thought it terrible Dubya accused VW of "ripping off consumers" it was you who attributed comments to VW they could not possibly have made about the Mark VI which they are billing as New New New, as indeed they would.

But enough attempting to engage in battles of wits with the likes of you.

You have not a thread of credibility and your integrity is shot.

You cannot justify one comment about either what you say VW "never said" or about tariffs.

You are a disgrace.

As for this forum. the spineless moderators seem to have a penchant for Stasi-like censorship which generally affects the more forthright and intelligent posters who try and redress the bull**** pedalled by the likes of you and Maverick.

So this forum will be left with a bunch of like-minded dolts who question nothing and accept everything. Nice, but not my cup of tea.

Good night, and good luck.

you are full of **** Coreying, or whatever your real name is . . . Dwayne?

lol - keep it up Dubya. Stop harrasing people on this forum. Don't PM me either, if the mods want to delete your crap, they will. It's funny that you keep attributing things to me that others have said, just to keep your attack going.
And you should talk of integrity, registering and posting under another name simply because you've already worn out your welcome and were already banned.

[Treza360]

If this thread doesn't get itself back on track from now on, it will be getting itself a nice lock like the myriad of other derailed and degenerated threads in this section.

Stop arguing over pedantics. Stop tit for tatting the whole time. And if someone has a different opinion to you, have the good grace just to accept it and move on.

Read this post and have a think...

Now lastly, do not quote this post in some kind of attempt to have the last word. Get the thread back on topic or if you don't have something to contribute. Don't post.

Cheers,
Trent

[Corey_R]

Thanks Trent.

The Mark 6 Golf and Mark 6 GTI is the vehicle that the Mark 5 Golf/GTI should of been. The myriad of minor improvements equal more than their sum on the roadway, which tempted me to sell and upgrade. EA888 motor, no fuelling issues with four lobe cam, XDS, greater rigidity in its chassis which is tangible in the way it drives, greater array of options to personalise esp the ACC, even the horizontal red stripe. I'm glad I received a good price for my MKV GTI allowing me to trade. No brainer really.

Cheers
WJ

Hey WJ - can you expand on the topic I've put in bold - the fuel issues. I haven't come across that before, and the MKV GTI's engine is obviously still used in a fair few models, and is also the basis for the R's engine etc.

[WhiteJames]

Sorry can't download the whole guide as the advanced section does not work for me. This includes pics. Here's an extract of the Audi service guide for the EA888 or similar:

The demand controlled high-pressure pump by
Bosch is driven by a four lobed cam on the end of
the intake camshaft.
The pump piston is driven by the camshaft and a
cam follower. This reduces friction as well as the
chain forces. The results are smoother engine
operation and higher fuel economy.
The use of the four lobe cam has allowed a reduced
piston stroke compared to earlier versions of the
2.0L TSI engine. Due to the shorter stroke, the
individual delivery rates are lower. This, in turn,
results in reduced pressure fluctuations. The
metering precision of the injectors is also improved,
as there is now one feed stroke per injection. The
advantage of this is improved oxygen sensor control
and fuel efficiency.
The high-pressure pump produces a maximum
pressure of 2175.5 psi (150 bar). The fuel pressure
requested by the engine control module is adjusted
by Fuel Pressure Regulator Valve N276. The pressure
is regulated between 725.1 psi (50 bar) and 2175.5
psi (150 bar) depending on engine requirements.
The high-pressure pump now has its own pressure
limiting valve. This valve opens at approximately 2900
psi (200 bar) and admits pressure into the pump
chamber. Previously, pressure was discharged into
the low-pressure circuit. Excessively high-pressures
can build up in overrun or when the engine heat
soaks after shut-off.The pressure pulsations in the low-pressure circuit
are reduced by a damping element integrated in the
pump.
After

Not sure how many lobes the EA113 motor had. I'd imagine probably 3 instead of 4 on the EA888. The four lobe cam follower and shorter piston stroke of the high pressure fuel pump should reduce or eliminate the fuel surge problem that can occur with a stage II ECU tune. APR make an aftermarket fuel pump to counter this problem for the EA113 motor, as VW have done in the Golf R/Sirocco R. EA888 has an advantage in fuel metering, which is more defined with each stroke, thus saving fuel & reduce fricton. VW/Audi have not yet fully developed the four lobe cam for higher states of tune, thus resorted to the EA113 with essentially an APR type of higher pressure fuel pump & injectors. If the cam follower breaks, bit of metal scatter around the motor, around the camshafts, which requires a top end build and new cam follower/camshafts. Expensive. Not to mention fuel surge as has occured on dyno days.

Cheers.
WJ

[Corey_R]

Cools - thanks for the info.

Btw, my understanding from comments from APR engineers and Guy_H is that the S3/R uses the same fuel pump as the MKV GTI did. They S3/R fuel pump is also still interchangable with the APR upgraded fuel pump (which was also used in the Scirocco 24 hour cars)

[WhiteJames]

To my knowledge ... the EA888 motor has chain driven camshaft & new 4 lobe cam follower with new high pressure fuel pump. The cam follower & fuel pump issue is a weak link in the EA113 motor. Derek @ Mona Vale APR recommends that the cam follower be checked every 15,000km at cost of $75. This is done by removing the fuel pump ... Esp in the case of ECU retuned motor. Chain driven camshaft reduces service costs. Not sure when you change the cam belts on the EA113 motor ... perhaps every 100,000km (better check with VW service). In addition, Haldex diff also requires service every 30,000km for @ $600. Even though I like the lower end & higher end response of the EA113 motor over the greater mid range punch of the EA888, can't help but think that going to a Golf R EA113 is going sideways in technology, rather than upwards to the EA888 motor in the Mark 6 GTI. That's why I'm not fussed on Mark 6, and perhaps wait for a MK7 Golf R. Volkswagen did consider exotic metals to reduce the weight of the MK6 R, but decided it was too costly at this stage. The MK7 is stated to be 20% cheaper to build than the MK6, which is cheaper to build than the MK5. The reduced build cost of the MK7 should allow for greater weight saving tech/metals built into the chassis in case of the Golf R. In any event, I think the tough Euro regulations on fuel emissions will force greater use of exotic metals, or maybe even front aluminium sub-frame as in the Audi TT, with some suspension components also in alloy.

Cheers.
WJ

[G-rig]

They are both good if u are buying a new car thn mk6, if u want basically the same thing 2nd hand/demo then mk5.

Word/

[WhiteJames]

I think the roof panel is the same ... that's about it.

Cheers.
WJ