172 or vr6?

[dt_]

Hi all, I'm new here,

Im quite fancying a new car, I've been thinking golf mk3 vr6 but then my mate took me out in his 172 and got me thinking. Was intending to compare the two- to me they are similar but at the same time poles apart; same power, similar insurance cost and similar purchase price (ph1 172). Has anyone here owned or driven a golf vr6 as I've never driven either car.

Im thinking downsides to golf= heinous thirst, boat like handling, but on the upside there's that noise and smooth power power delivery, but less fun factor than the 172.

What do you guys reckon?

Cheers for any reply

 

[GSKingsbury]

For me it would be a 172 every time, what model 172 would you be looking at Cup or FF !? I prefere slightly smaller hatch's so that makes the decision easy for me and the fact that a mk3 Golf is ageing.

 

[imprezaworks]

Got to be the clio. If you asked one of my best mates he would say the vr6, only cause he's a golf fan.

 

[leeds_182]

Vr6 for noise.

Clio for everything else.

 

[JoshOm3]

It's all personal preference. As said the golf is getting on, and why the hell would you want a golf for? It's an overrated lump of vag and whilst it'll be fun for a while your get bored quick I expect.

Clio is small, nimble and most important fun.

As said, IMO it's all about preference.

 

[Lal B3N]

Vr6 for noise.

Clio for everything else.

This.

Although you are going to get slightly biased answers asking on a Clio forum ha.

 

[Silent_Scone]

easy. 172.

VR6's are good cars if you've got relatively deep pockets and free time, but they've got their own problems

 

[leeds_182]

I feel I'm in a more educated position then most;

My old mk3 vr6;

My old mk2 vr6;

 

[Silent_Scone]

Corrado = proper VR6

 

[imprezaworks]

Hate them ^^ just never ever appealed to me.

 

[Silent_Scone]

I'd say they're amply more desirable than a mk3 Golf tbh.

Not recommending you buy either...money pits.

 

[Chrisgti6]

I've had a VR6, but never a 172.

The VR6 isn't a great car at all. It makes a fantastic noise, but 174bhp from a 2.8 just ins't acceptable! Also, in standard form the handling isn't all that good.

I'd steer clear personally, get a 172 and have some fun!

 

[Goodj]

Corrado is a great shout.

 

[Chrisgti6]

The Corrado is an entirely different beast! I've had one of those too (2.0 16v not VR6) I loved my Corrado, out of the box it was great and with some FK automotive coilovers it was awesome.

Here's my old Golf

And here's my old Corrado

 

[Silent_Scone]

Is that the KR 1.8? Same engine as the Mk2 GTI. Mechanical injection is a pita to tune and they have untold cold start problems. I wouldn't own one now, it's just not worth the aggravation, they're all just too old.


Didn't know they did a 2ltr 16v. There was a 2ltr 8v and the older 1.8 (KR) 16v GTI engine and the G60

 

[Goodj]

G60 Corrado?
Now that's a boosted VAG that I could be interested in

 

[Chrisgti6]

Is that the KR 1.8? Same engine as the Mk2 GTI. Mechanical injection is a pita to tune and they have untold cold start problems. I wouldn't own one now, it's just not worth the aggravation, they're all just too old.


Didn't know they did a 2ltr 16v. There was a 2ltr 8v and the older 1.8 (KR) 16v GTI engine and the G60

Nope, not 1.8. They definately did a 2.0 16v mate.

1.8 16v (KR)
1.8 8v supercharged (the g60)
2.0 16v (9A I believe)
2.0 8v (Don't even bother, it's quicker walking)
2.9 12v (vr6)

 

[Alx]

Nope, not 1.8. They definately did a 2.0 16v mate.

1.8 16v (KR)
1.8 8v supercharged (the g60)
2.0 16v (9A I believe)
2.0 8v (Don't even bother, it's quicker walking)
2.9 12v (vr6)

Omg i always thought the vr6 would be a 16v or 24v that is pathetic

 

[Chrisgti6]

Omg i always thought the vr6 would be a 16v or 24v that is pathetic

Nope, 16v wouldn't really work (6 cylinder, so would be an odd number of valves!)

2 valves per cylinder, isn't really a proper V6 either. It's only a 15degree 'V' and shared a common head.

 

[plymcl172]

For me it would be a 172 every time, what model 172 would you be looking at Cup or FF !? I prefere slightly smaller hatch's so that makes the decision easy for me and the fact that a mk3 Golf is ageing.

no such thing as a FF 172.

go for the 172 op. Its a winner!

 

[Silent_Scone]

G60 Corrado?
Now that's a boosted VAG that I could be interested in

never meet your heros. The chargers need rebuilds every other Monday

 

[GSKingsbury]

no such thing as a FF 172.

go for the 172 op. Its a winner!

If you want to be picky !! You knew what I ment though !!

 

[Chrisgti6]

never meet your heros. The chargers need rebuilds every other Monday

Mate of mine had a g60 running over 180 -200bhp without any issues. I think it's the same with most cars, sometimes you get a good 'un sometimes not so good.

 

[dt_]

Hmm some good replies in here, to the guy who drove the mk3 gti 16v - what was that like to live with? Thinking of a phase 1 due to the lower purchase price, and due to the vr6s 25ish mpg and rust issues

 

[_Tom]

Clio every time and i'm a vag fan boi. VR's are just too old and thirsty now. A 172 will be quicker and cheaper to run.

 

[Kyle 86]

172 all the way it will put a much bigger smile on your face then any golf ever would there all to fat, heavy and sluggish

 

[Russ_16v]

Iv had a million 172s and 3 mk3 vr6's, as well as working for VW for the past 12 years odd.

IMO, both are very good cars.

The 172 is a million more times fun in standard form, where the VR is better built.

The VR engine is massively under stressed - 174bhp from a large engine is not a big number, but the exhaust is restrictive, the cams are not very aggressive, and they love F/I - a charger conversion will net you 260+ bhp and same torque and it would do a million miles and still have that power.

The handle very well with better shocks.. A lower height, decent ARB's and geo, but as said Clio's handle better out the box but most people dont leave either standard so comparing standard to standard is not too important.

They are also very reliable, the biggest issue now with them is rust - getting a good one is getting hard now.

 

[Cookson]

Ive had 2 of each......... and would never go back to a Mk3 golf again

 

[richd]

ive had a VR6 lowline the 2.8, great car but raped me in insurance and fuel costs were immense, the 172 should be lighter but you will fall in love with the vr6 purrr, they sound amazing.

 

[Goodj]

V-engines are always superior to 4-bangers. Fact of life.

If you want fuel economy, get a Kia

 

[Coops Mk1]

its not a V, its a VR ;-)

 

[Advikaz]

IMO I'd have a 172 Cup, always loved them! Not a fan of Golfs but thats just my oppinion.

 

[Coops Mk1]

mk3 golfs are lovely comfy boats, but personally i'd never own one, enjoy being a passenger in a few of my mates ones over the years though

in other words, clio would be my choice, but again what do you expect, this is a clio forum ;-)

 

[not normal dan]

go for a 172, as said mk3's are getting old now an it'll be hard finding one that hasn't been to the moon an back

 

[plymcl172]

If you want to be picky !! You knew what I ment though !!

I like to be picky :rasp:

 

[Russ_16v]

My last one

 

[Junglist]

MK3 golfs do NOT handle (I had a 16v for a wee while) and the boat anchor of an engine that is the VR6 is all mouth and no trousers (Im a big VW fan btw and have a mk2 Golf Gti). However, they are nice cars to pootle around in, are solidly built (rust appart) and have interiors on such a completely different level of quality to the phase 1 172 that its laughable. In fact, the interior on my Mk2 is better than the joke of an interior that the 172 phase 1 that I also have has. However, if you want fast fun, the clio's are in a different league to the MK3 without having to spend any money on them to make them handle!!! I think others have hit the spot with the Corrado though, damn fine car but dont bother with anything other than the G60 or the VR6 as the rest just are not quite fast enough (the 2l 16v doesnt even make 140BHP for example though power isnt everything). Dont listen to the scare stories about G60's either, if you find a good one and accept that its worth rebuilding the charger at reasonable intervals (depends on the boost you run on this one) then you will be fine. The G60 does need the boost raising from stock though as they are also not very fast in standard form.

 

[Russ_16v]

Comparing standard to standard yes, the Golf doesn't handle as well as the clio, but being honest would the OP keep either stadard? Nope - so once modified correctly with decent suspension, ARB's and geo IMO the Golf does handle - my last one on a spex set up handled very well, and very neutral, but needed better tyres to compensate for the weight

 

[dt_]

Yeah the car wouldn't remain standard for long. It's the rust that's putting me off the mk3 I think, I know that any car (just about) can be made to handle with suspension mods and quality tyres, and it's the build quality of the Clio putting me off that. Which one is worse for insurance? Also, what's boot space like in the Clio - sometimes I've got a lot of speaker equipment to haul about

 

[.GAZ.]

Would have to be a Corrado, a seriously mint one at that, or a nice 172.