Should I buy a Golf (mk 6)?

[846]

Ok any thoughts on Octavia vs Golf?
I assume because it is a wagon it wouldn't handle as well?
And also be slower and higher fuel consumption because it'd be heavier?

(Not that they'd be deal breakers - I'm just interested.)

According to Wikipedia... the latest Octavia is based on the Golf mk 7, but the second latest (2004-2013) is based on the mk 5, is that correct?

[Mk R]

Ok any thoughts on Octavia vs Golf?
I assume because it is a wagon it wouldn't handle as well?
And also be slower and higher fuel consumption because it'd be heavier?

(Not that they'd be deal breakers - I'm just interested.)

According to Wikipedia... the latest Octavia is based on the Golf mk 7, but the second latest (2004-2013) is based on the mk 5, is that correct?

The Golf V and VI are basically the same platform, and i assume all the other VAG cars like skoda octavia, Audi A3, VW Golf etc were based on that platform during that period.

The handling will vary depending on weight, suspension, wheels, body etc. 16 inch rims feel softer than 17s or 18s over bumps etc

Your best bet is to just start visiting vehicles and test driving them. Get yourself to a big used car dealer and give him the contact details of someone you don't like. Then test drive his golfs, skodas, audis etc and feel it for yourself.

The advice you're getting here about the 90TSI is pretty spot on. The 6 speed manual is reliable. Ask if the clutch has been replaced and when as that's never a cheap job in any car.

You'll have costs in whatever car you buy whether it's a corrola, golf, skoda or i30. The golf feels nice inside, the parts are fairly cheap and plentiful and the cars are dirt cheap now.

[846]

I will certainly be visiting some dealers, but the issue is in Canberra that there isn't actually a lot of choice in cars - plenty of Golf's for example but not a manual 90TSI so makes it hard to get a feel for a particular variant. Hence my questions.

Thanks for the advice though.

[anthony]

I'm selling a 2009 manual 90 TSI.
It's been bulletproof.
I've just posted an ad ,check it out
Regards
Anthony

[846]

Thanks, I've sent you a PM.

[brad]

Ok any thoughts on Octavia vs Golf?
I assume because it is a wagon it wouldn't handle as well?
And also be slower and higher fuel consumption because it'd be heavier?

(Not that they'd be deal breakers - I'm just interested.)

According to Wikipedia... the latest Octavia is based on the Golf mk 7, but the second latest (2004-2013) is based on the mk 5, is that correct?

i have a 118tsi (1.8 litre) manual 2007 Octavia hatch (it looks like a 3 box sedan but it's a hatch). The boot is enormous.

It handles 95% as well as a Golf.

It averages 7.2L/100km with lots of inner Sydney driving and occasional trips on the motorway. 2 weeks ago, a free flowing drive from Crows Nest to Campbelltown and return averaged 4.8L/100km.

There's not a noticeable difference in acceleration under normal driving conditions.

Generally, the Octavia is better equipped than the equivalent Golf.

[846]

Thanks for that.
I assume that being a 1.8 litre, it is a different engine from that found in the Golf which I thought was the 1.4 litre twin charge version? Even though they are both 118TSI.
Is it decent reliability wise?

[brad]

Thanks for that.
I assume that being a 1.8 litre, it is a different engine from that found in the Golf which I thought was the 1.4 litre twin charge version? Even though they are both 118TSI.
Is it decent reliability wise?

Totally different. Single K03 turbo. EA888 block. As such, they have similar issues to the Mk6 GTI engine - timing chain issues on any of the CDxx engines (BZB seems OK); water pump issues; possible oil usage issues and inlet carbon build-up. Mine doesn't use oil and is a BZB (timing chain seems to be OK). It's had 2x water pumps in 175k. Inlets were cleaned at 175K as well but I could have left them alone. Not much else other than normal service items.

I like the car because it's comfy, has lots of bells & whistles & has a big boot.

[846]

OK... my instinct tells me that an engine that goes through two water pumps in 175k hasn't been designed anywhere near as well as it should have. But I'll still keep an open mind...

forgive my ignorance - how does one tell the difference between a CD and BZB engine?

[brad]

OK... my instinct tells me that an engine that goes through two water pumps in 175k hasn't been designed anywhere near as well as it should have. But I'll still keep an open mind...

forgive my ignorance - how does one tell the difference between a CD and BZB engine?

If you want a guaranteed, really reliable car, then don't by a VW Group product... they can be a bit hit and miss.

I think the VW product is generally a good balance of performance, fuel economy, reasonable service costs, good equipment levels and a certain "fun factor" in the driving.
Sure, the Skoda has had some minor issues compared to my 1990 Suzuki Swift and 1994 Nissan Bluebird but it uses less fuel, has more power and is more fun to drive. Compared to my Gen2 Subaru Liberty, the Skoda is a dream.

The engine code is on a sticker at the top of the timing cover.

[846]

In regards to Golf vs Octavia - a 2009 Golf has a 5 star safety rating, a 2009 Octavia has a 4 star rating. Any idea why?

[brad]

In regards to Golf vs Octavia - a 2009 Golf has a 5 star safety rating, a 2009 Octavia has a 4 star rating. Any idea why?

The 2009 Octavia test is for the 2007 base model. The 2009 Golf test is for the 2009 model. I'm not sure why 2 years would make a difference.

The Golf is classified as a small car, the Octavia a medium car. I believe the ANCAP test procedure doesn't allow for comparison between sizes ? (i'm not sure)

In the side impact test the Octavia scored a full 16/16 and the Golf 15.99 due to some minor chest injury probability. Also the Golf earned 2 extra bonus points as VW decided to subject it to a side pole test as it had a side airbag. The test results say the Octavia didn't have a side airbag but in Elegance spec & above there is a side airbag fitted.

The Golf tested had a knee airbag and this gave it a higher score in the frontal offset test.

Did you actually bother to read the test analysis or just look at the stars?