VW Golf Mk6 Wheels Car of the Year

[mikinoz]

No wonder you are cynical though if free samples are enough to keep your business, I tend to prefer service from my suppliers.

Sadly in IT as in car sales, my suppliers are all the same in service, non existent most of the time sadly (hence they are similar, albeit for the added value). There is the odd exception now and then that you hold on to when you find and continue to work with.

But we are talking about journalists here, not me, and they are known well before now to be up for an easy 'article' (read press release) for an easy 1000 words piece.

I should add that I got an SMS on the day that this was announced advising me that the Golf had won COTY. Did anyone else get it? I don't know where it originated, I assumed a dealer/VWA?

[cktsi]

i am not disputing that mk6 is deserving of the award. All i am saying is that mk5 range is not that much of a quality step down so why did it not win?

Both mk5 gti and gt were segment leaders in their time so why didnt they get a wheels award when those specific models were released?

I can only rationalise it by assuming they evaluate an entire range of cars on first release rather than an individual model.

If timing of gti and gt release prevented mk5 winning the award i can somewhat reluctantly accept that. But unfortunately it leaves a legendary car like mk5 not officially recognised by such a sought after award

oh i bought a copy of wheels mag today like any self respecting golf nut would

[Corey_R]

Both mk5 gti and gt were segment leaders in their time so why didnt they get a wheels award when those specific models were released?

I can only rationalise it by assuming they evaluate an entire range of cars on first release rather than an individual model.

That's correct, it's the entire range of Golf that won the award, not a specific car. Same for the World Car Awards, Drive.com.au awards, etc etc

Just like they were considering the Mercedes E Class, which they said ranges from $80k to $200k+ with many different engine choices.

So the MKV wasn't worthy of the award. The MKV GTI was brilliant, and won many class awards, as did the R32, but the MKV wasn't good enough across the entire range to win the overall award - hence it never did.

[G-rig]

So the MKV wasn't worthy of the award. The MKV GTI was brilliant, and won many class awards, as did the R32, but the MKV wasn't good enough across the entire range to win the overall award - hence it never did.

Yes it was, they are almost the same anyway but VW as a brand has really taken off in the last few years, as mentioned above they were just being released end of 2004.

[Corey_R]

Yes it was, they are almost the same anyway but VW as a brand has really taken off in the last few years, as mentioned above they were just being released end of 2004.

I'm sorry, I completely disagree!!!

The 1.4L Turbo-only and the 1.4L Turbo-supercharged motors are MILES better than the 1.6L NA and the 2.0L NA motors respectively from the original MKV. Also, equipment levels are better compared to the 2004 MKV's. And finally regardless of opinion on the interior or exterior styling between the MKV and MK6, the fact that the 2004 MKV had HUGE SECTIONS OF BLACK PLASTIC in the rear, and the door handles, the door bump strips and mirrors etc, and the MK6 has all of them colour coded, is a BIG DEAL to the average consumer.

Between MUCH better engines, better equipment levels (not huge diffs as stock, but still diffs), and MUCH better appearance even if it is just due to the colour coding, you are simply delusional if you think that the MKV as a series in 2004 compares to the MK6 as a series right now.

Debate the MKV GTI vs the MK6 GTI all you want, because I agree, the differences between those two cars are not significant. But the differences between the 2004 MKV 1.6L and the 2009 MK6 90TSI are BIG. And that is why the MK6 series has been given awards all over the world yet the MKV series did not.

[hoi polloi]

I think it's hilarious and sad how some people on the Wheels site are saying how this is a repeat of the Camira 1982 award, or it has ruined their Wheels experience and they'll never read again.

HILARIOUS!

Unfortunately there will always be an element of "If is isn't a Holden or a Ford then the award is just a crock" sentiment.

Smaller capacity engines + forced induction (like it or not) is the way of the future - is it not innovation that Wheels COTY is rewarding?

Regards,
- Anthony.

p.s. I actually did own an '83 Camira (yes, I'm that old) and aside from a broken clutch cable nothing much went wrong with it...

[G-rig]

Debate the MKV GTI vs the MK6 GTI all you want, because I agree, the differences between those two cars are not significant. But the differences between the 2004 MKV 1.6L and the 2009 MK6 90TSI are BIG. And that is why the MK6 series has been given awards all over the world yet the MKV series did not.

Meant 2005 once the MK5 GTI was out, which is very similar in the big picture to the MK6. Mk7 will see much better changes other than a facelift.

Agree that the entire VW range is quite comprehensive now with a lot of offerings compared to a few year ago.

[Corey_R]

The MKV Golf would not have been eligible then. Car Of The Year awards generally only allow a model series released in that year. Since the entire model series counts, the release of the GTI wouldn't have counted. But even still man, you're still letting your love of the MKV GTI cloud your memory about how crap the base Golf 1.6 was back in 2004/2005. Definitely not 'Car Of The Year' material.

[G-rig]

But even still man, you're still letting your love of the MKV GTI cloud your memory about how crap the base Golf 1.6 was back in 2004/2005. Definitely not 'Car Of The Year' material.

I'm not really worried either way, just the way you're talking you make out the MK6 is like 1000x better (when in reality is about 10%). I was also thinking of the later range which included the 1.4TSI and other models that set the bench mark. If i was buying a new car, sure the MK6 are the current model.

[Corey_R]

Mate that is where you are wrong. Ignore the GTI for a moment.

MKV Trendline 1.6 (2004)
Power 75kW @ 5600rpm
Torque 148Nm @ 3800-3800rpm
Acceleration 0-100Km/h (secs) 11.4
Fuel Combined (l/100km) 7.5

MK6 90TSI:
Power 90kW @ 5000-5500rpm (20% better)
Torque 200Nm @ 1500-4000rpm (35% better)
Acceleration 0-100Km/h (secs) 9.5 (20% better)
Fuel Combined (l/100km) 6.4 (17% better)

So the base model of the MK6 is on average 23% better in the engine compartment alone!

And that's before you start taking into account:
*large amounts of ugly black plastic on the exterior of the Trendline MKV in 2004
*markedly better interior of the MK6
*better standard inclusions of MK6 compared to 2004 MKV (I won't bother listing them all)
*better crash test safety results of MK6 (in part due to driver knee airbag)
*vastly improved instrument cluster, including full MFD instead of old half size MFD
*vastly improved stereo and navigation options
*vastly improved optional equipment:
- Adaptive Chassis Control
- Alarm with Tow Away & Motion sensors
- Camera - Rear Vision
- Dynaudio Excite Premium Sound System
- GPS (Satellite Navigation) RNS510
- Media Device Interface - Aux Ipod/USB Socket
- Park Assist
(the only MKV Trendline 1.6 options at the time were CD based navigation (which sucked), Metallic paint, Sunroof, and possibly a 'comfort' package to give some of the options of the 2L Comfortline.


So again, I'm sorry, but you are deluded to claim that there is only 10% improvement when comparing the MKV to the MK6, because clearly the improvement is much much greater than that when you compare the ENTIRE series rather than just the GTI's.

[mikinoz]

Interesting article on this topic;

Given that, how can we expect to ever drive a car and make true assessments? Think of all the things you hear about various cars and wonder, could a tester—be it a paid writer or simply you taking the car on a test drive—ever be able to leave your preconceptions at the dealership door?

http://www.ausmotive.com/2010/01/28/blind-truth.html

[prise]

Good article - perceptions about quality and reliability are so subjective. Even customer satisfaction and new vehicle reliability surveys such as the JD Power ones they run in the UK/US don't tell the complete story. I remember there was a leaked survey from Australia a couple of years ago, but it didn't distinguish between minor problems (annoying but you can put it off until the next service) and major ones (you don't get to drive your car until its fixed). I also remember that the difference between major manufacturers was relatively minor, eg the differencee between the most reliable and also ran's was around 10%.

My own experience across several vehicles is that they all had items fail and that initial experiences do not correlate with longer term ownership. The most reliable car was my first new car which was also the simplest with virtually no 'features' to go wrong - there's a lesson there for me that I keep ignoring. When my Golf arrives in Feb I'll be pleasantly surprised if nothing goes wrong.

The following is a bit off thread, but this is a summary of my experience with different makes.

1988 Nissan Pulsar - front tyres delaminated driving back from QLD on a hot day (tyres were at full pressure). Traced to a manufacturing defect in the Dunlop tyres. Other than that nothing else besides the usual dash noises. Nothing else for the 10 years we owned it. It was subsequently sold to my wifes friend who then passed it on to her son who is thrashing it round now with well over 300,000 on the clock.

1996 Commodore Acclaim - back to the dealer 7 times, two gearbox solenoid valves, a set of sparkplug leads and fading shock absorbers at 50000km. After the initial misery nothing else went wrong and it was utterly reliable until we sold it to a relative after 10 years. She in turn has had nothing break on it other than a set of leads and a replacement door lock.

1999 Subaru WRX - A few behind dash rattles that I fixed myself after the dealers half hearted attempt to find them. It also had a baulking gearbox which eventually required a rebuild. Sold at 4 yo and subsequently written off by the next owner!

2003 Mazda 6 Classic - Replacement clutch at 60000km due to clutch shudder (a common problem that Mazda had a TSB out for). Replacement multifunction display. CD changer occasionally jams and won't surrender discs if more than 1 loaded. Annoying low frequency boom on rougher road surfaces that some people are sensitive to. We've still got the car and at 7 yo nothing else has gone wrong.

2006 Mazda 6 MPS - Collapsed hydraulic engine mount replaced at 92000km, other than that nothing else except an annoying rattle in the sunglass holder and a faint barely audible harmonic in the rear diff at 75 km/h which they all have and Mazda has no solution for.