[Lew1275]

Hi All!

I've recently got rid of my classic Mini after its failed it MOT and was causing me a lot of problems! I'm on the hunt for a new (well 2nd hand!) car and really only have my eyes on Mk4 Golf TDI's (1998-2004 versions).

The only reason I want a diesel is for their longetivity and their better fuel consumption as i'm going to be doing a lot of long distance miles this year. I also have a thing with VW's and am struck on the Mk4 Golf.

Problem though that almost every TDI Golf I look at in my price range (Max £2,500) is circa 10 years old, has mileage in excess of 110k, or rather scruffy bodywork. It seems the immaculate ones will be going for twice my budget so my question is, should I really keep on looking for a diesel motor or look for a Petrol which are cheaper with the same bells and whistles. Do petrol cars suffice just as well?

Having driven my Mums '02 Polo a lot recently it only manages around 40mpg on a good run and thats a petrol, I really want to be getting 55+, something you typically can only achieve with a tiny petrol car or a diesel.


Hope to hear your comments!! :)

Lewis

[Loony]

If you want high mpg then you will have to go for a diesel.Smaller petrol engines will be ok around town but doing high mileage runs on the motorways etc they are not going to be as good.
I would not be put of by a high mileage diesel if it has some sort of service record.

[Rolebama]

Basically, if a petrol car has an ECU and a cat, it is not going to be good on petrol. I have recently got rid of my Mk4 Fiesta because of poor fuel consumption, which was used mainly on decent runs, and the only way I could get more than 45mpg was to 'crawl' along. I have replaced it with a 1997 Peugeot 306 diesel, no bells and whistles, and already notice the difference. I drive it using bottom-end torque, and can happily keep up with traffic flow, on both local roads and motorways. Have a look round owner Forums for info on fuel consumption.

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by Lew1275

Hi All!

I'm on the hunt for a new (well 2nd hand!) car and really only have my eyes on Mk4 Golf TDI's (1998-2004 versions).

The only reason I want a diesel is for their longetivity and their better fuel consumption as i'm going to be doing a lot of long distance miles this year. I also have a thing with VW's and am struck on the Mk4 Golf.

I bought my first VW in 2001. It was a 1997 Golf Estate 1.9 TDI. It was over 3 years old when I bought it, with 46,000 miles on the clock.
I agree that a good one will cost more than many other makes, but I never regretted buying it.

I kept it for 4 years, and used to tow our caravan with it. When I sold it, it had done 84,000 miles and my son-in-law bought it. That was over 4 years ago, and he still has it. It now has over 120,000 miles on the clock and is looking a bit tatty around the wing edges, but he has treated it like a workhorse and it has never let him down.

Since then, I am on my second Touran (also VW). I wanted a small MPV and the VW Touran has not disappointed me. It does all that I want from it, is economical, and I find it a comfortable and relaxing car to drive. Also, I would not go from diesl back to petrol.

From my own experience, I think I can see why you fancy a Golf. On a cost basis, if you go for another, cheaper car, make sure you don't change because you are not satisfied, or you could end up paying out more overall than if you had gone for the Golf, yet still not have a Golf.

Regards, Snowball.

[Gizmo78]

Before going for a diesel purely for the better economy consider how many miles you do.

People pay more for a diesel so an identically specced petrol of the same age with the same mileage and a similarly powered engine will cost less to buy.

If you do not drive much you might not cover enough miles for the difference in fuel cost to cover the different in purchase price.

In contrast to what Snowball says I would generally not recommend a Golf if you are on a tight budget. It is a good car but in my opinion it doesn't justify the premium in price over its rivals. You have said yourself the ones within your budget are in quite poor condition.

VWs do have a reputation for being the benchmark in reliability and this is why they command a higher price on the used market. It was once true but reliability surveys show that over the past 10-15 years other makes (in particular Japanese brands) have caught up and ovetaken them. If you look at the latest surveys VW now generally are mid-table. If you consider other brands you could get for the same money something in better condition/newer/lower mileage/higher spec. etc.

Interesting that you mention the economy of your Mum's Polo. What size engine is it? If you compare it to other makes then the VW petrol engines do not compare well against other makes in terms of power output or economy. If you do not do a lot of miles and change your mind for a petrol I would suggest you look for something Japanese.

If you do go for a diesel though things swing back in VWs favour. Until very recently the Japanese diesel engines were not very refined and not that economical either. On the other hand the VW 1.9TDi is a great engine. It might also be worth having a look at a Seat Leon or Skoda Octavia. Both are derived from the Golf and you do get more car for your money. A word of warning about the Mk1 (the version derived from the Mk4 Golf) Leon though, rear visibility is appalling. I was considering buying one once and had a test drive. The rear visibility was bad enough for me to cross it off the list.

Because Seat and Skoda are cheaper then VWs it doesn't mean the quality is lower. I currently drive a Seat Ibiza 1.9TDi. When buying it I also tried the equivalent Polo and the Ibiza felt the better built of the two.

As a general note I would be wary of anything in poor condition as it is a sign it might have been neglected and anything can turn into a money pit if it has not been looked after. I would not have a problem with older or higher mileage cars that have been looked after and have been serviced according to the schedule.

[Lew1275]

Thanks for all your replies! :)

I had been searching for a diesel car for about 4 weeks since my Mini failed it's MOT. Patience prevailed and yesterday a chap came down with a Black 2000 Golf 1.9 SE TDI. It was in very good condition (apart from a couple of scratches but not bad for a 9 year old car!). 110,000 on the clock and was used mainly for runs between Bristol and Nottingham- so plenty of m-way miles!

I had it thoroughly checked out by my Dad, including a HPI check which was all clear. Cut a long story short I have ended up buying it! £2450 which was not a bad price for what you get! Alloy wheels, A/C, 6 stack CD changer, arm-rests, trip computer, electric mirrors and windows- although nearside rear does not seem to be working! and the car still does look very modern and is surprisingly very fast! I'm chuffed! :D And for the mileage, it drives like my Mum's polo which only has 33k! Very tight gearbox and smooth drive.

Gizmo78- My Mum's Mk IV Polo is the 1.2 petrol version- On a run from Ashford, Kent to Sheffield and Back I managed approx 48mpg! This new Golf is averaging that just around town! :eek:

[Snowball]

Lew1275, sounds like you got a decent deal.
I generally agree with Gizmo78's coments. I tow a caravan, so I find the 1.9 TDI a great all-rounder for my requirements. Wanting a small MPV, going from the Golf estate to a Touran was a natural step, and the driving characteristics are very similar.
Probably as a result of the economical slow-down, I got a good deal on my latest Touran. I did take a look at the Toyota Rav4 but, for me, it did not rate against the Touran that I had then owned for nearly 4 years, so I went for another Touran.

I notice that Toyota have now deleted the spare wheel from the Rav4; a retrograde step in my opinion.
My new Touran is a 5-seater, and stows a full sized spare wheel; an essential piece of equipment as far as I am concerned.

[wagolynn]

I noticed that no one mentioned particulate matter from diesels, still I suppose no one worries until they have cancer.

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by wagolynn

I noticed that no one mentioned particulate matter from diesels, still I suppose no one worries until they have cancer.

How much of a risk is there, compared to petrol? Unleaded petrol has benzene added to it, and that is a known carginogen. I mostly use City diesel, which I presume is more refined. But, in all honesty, what do you do? Virtually all commercial transport is driven by diesel engines, as are buses. What would be the effect if the environmentalists had their way and forced us all onto public transport; with a necessary significant increase in bus/miles?

I believe I have read somewhere that diesel cars are now more environmentally friendly (or less environmentally hazardous, if you prefer it that way) than those which operate on unleaded petrol.

And what about people waiting at bus stations, with large numbers of buses standing with their engines idling for significant periods of time?

There is frequent publicity about the advantages of cars which have engines that automatically stop and restart during stationary periods (e.g. traffic lights); think of the enormous reduction in burnt fuel, hence pollutants, if the principle was carried forward to buses and large commercial vehicles.

[wagolynn]

I suspect that the legislation is at it is because the legislators do not understand their respective subjects.

I am still researching (on paper) benzene, it would appear that the reported carcinogenic effect is from animal studies, these would suggest that we should have a high incidence of cancers since unleaded was introduced, so far there is no evidence of this.

Diesel manufacturers are beginning to fit particulate traps which sort of half work. Meanwhile direct injection petrol runs into a similar problem all because we as a society do not say enough is enough.

We need to give vehicle manufacturers a clear set of rules about what is and is not acceptable.

[MrDanno]

Originally Posted by Snowball

There is frequent publicity about the advantages of cars which have engines that automatically stop and restart during stationary periods (e.g. traffic lights); think of the enormous reduction in burnt fuel, hence pollutants, if the principle was carried forward to buses and large commercial vehicles.

It already has been to a certain degree, Some of the commercials I drove 5 years ago had a system where it would shut the engine off if the vehicle didn't move or the throttle pedal was not touched for 2 minutes. (and it was a pain in the backside)..... Imagine you stop in traffic, The traffic starts moving, Your engine cuts out before you slip it into gear. All it did was to encourage drivers to keep revving the engine when stationary.


The other thing is, It's an 'Engineers Dream' Imagine when these cars get a little older, You stop in traffic, The engine stops, you go to move off, The battery doesn't have enough power to restart the engine! huge tail backs!

As for the Pollution from diesel, Think back to the 70's when people were driving worn out cortina's etc. that left a huge smoke screen of burnt engine oil behind them. Cars Emissions are cleaner now than ever (including Diesels) The government only rant on about the harmfulness of diesel so they can fleece you on the price of diesel and higher road tax.


Edit: that was not all aimed at you Snowball.

[Rolebama]

Since the inception of unleaded petrol, my Doctor tells me her asthma sufferers have gone up ten-fold. Any connection, or just coincidence?

[smudger]

Yea! I saw an article on the news recently where they said that particles of soot, from All car engines, including ones with lead free petrol, are causing harm to our children. It seems there is a build up on these particles are at lower levels where small children breathe?
Cheers, Smudger.

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by smudger879n

Yea! I saw an article on the news recently where they said that particles of soot, from All car engines, including ones with lead free petrol, are causing harm to our children. It seems there is a build up on these particles are at lower levels where small children breathe?
Cheers, Smudger.

The research says these soot figures have increased in step with the growth in diesel cars.

Unfortunately, research seems to suggest that Asthma is caused by anything and everything. It is proving very difficult to pin down a cause for asthma. One of the difficulties is that there appears to be a psycho-somatic element to it.

A ‘good’ catalytic converter should be able to deal with particulates from indirect injection petrol engines. Direct injection petrol and diesel is supposed to be too coarse and tends to choke the catalyst, this is exacerbated by the variable exhaust temperature of these engines.

The problem is the vehicle manufacturers are allowed to get away with it.

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by smudger879n

Yea! I saw an article on the news recently where they said that particles of soot, from All car engines, including ones with lead free petrol, are causing harm to our children. It seems there is a build up on these particles are at lower levels where small children breathe?
Cheers, Smudger.

OK Smudger, do you think we are on course for cars to be fitted with smoke stacks, similar to those on lorries?
At least, the posers would have a flagpole on which to hang their "England" buntings and the like!

[Snowball]

The consensus of opinion seems to be that, whilst diesel is more friendly on the CO2 emissions front, the problem is greater in respect of other pollutants and VOC's. However, this can be overcome by improved standards of filtration before the gases exit the exhaust system.

Right across the EU, and in some other countries, the problems have been recognised, and various target dates set for the implementation of stiffer regulations.
Obviously, there has to be a balance between how quickly new technology can be introduced, and the costs of tooling/materials transition.
The actual progress of change will be dictated by self-interest on all sides; politicians (and/or their cronies) are also major shareholders in many of the industries concerned.

[Rolebama]

I live in a cul-de-sac off a Close, and we have a few shops on the corner. Every morning around 8 - 8.30 there is a procession of cars going to the shops, then off to the local schools. Round trip for going to the shops, dropping the kids off at school and returning home is less than a mile. On foot, there is a walkway which brings the total distance down to less than half a mile. Most of these cars will also do a run to the shops during the day. My neighbour drives to the shops and back, a distance of maybe 300yrds return.
All these journeys are done summer and winter, and all with cold engines, I reckon the fuel 'wasted' in this manner just from my Close would cover my annual mileage and then some.

[Lew1275]

Who cares what the side effects are if after a long m-way run...you average 65mpg!!!!!!!!! :p:D:rolleyes:

Snowball, what year was your Golf Estate? Any tips or things I should be looking out for in mine??

[smudger]

Quote Snowball ..."OK Smudger, do you think we are on course for cars to be fitted with smoke stacks, similar to those on lorries?
At least, the posers would have a flagpole on which to hang their "England" buntings and the like!"

Aye! no doubt our EU friends will come up with some silly idea that will cost a fortune to initiate ;)
Cheers, Smudger.

[Snowball]

Rolebama, your observations about people driving ridiculously short distances doesn't surprise me.
You only have to look at supermarket car parks to see how the majority of drivers will struggle to get into parking places near to the store, yet further across the car park the spaces are deserted.
And how many are too idle to even take the empty trolley to a designated bay? They leave them all over the place; even between other cars.

[Snowball]

Lew1275. Ref my ex-1997 Golf estate.
This car (still owned by our son-in-law) is coming up to eleven years old in November.

At around 80,000 miles it needed new rear end suspension bushes.
I found that I only got between 10,000 and 12,000 miles from the front tyres; but I discard my tyres at about 3 to 4 mm tread depth.
Since my S-I-L has had the car, he had reason to remove a front wheel arch (something to do with the radio aerial), and found quite a build-up of muck behind it.
The edges of the rear wings are now showing blistering due to rust.
I would recommend removing all the wheel arches and thoroughly cleaning the bodywork behind them. Look for any signs of rusting, and treat where necessary.

Considering the age of the vehicle, and the fact our SIL treats it like a workhorse, it hasn't done bad at all.
It was the reliability of the Golf that caused me to move on to a VW Touran MPV. I am now on my second Touran, and only changed to go from a 7-seater to a 5-seater; allowing me to have a full sized, properly stowed spare wheel.
Yep, I know it sounds bizarre, but carrying a spare in the boot was, for me, essential but it was a pain.

[Lew1275]

Originally Posted by Snowball

Yep, I know it sounds bizarre, but carrying a spare in the boot was, for me, essential but it was a pain.

Yeah, I know what you mean. I would rather carry a spare wheel than say ,a can of that puncture repair sealant! I mean, if you had a blowout and your tyre was torn to shreds you would be stuffed anyway!

[smudger]

Aye! its amazing just how damage can be done to tyre after a blow-out at 70MPH, by the time you slow down and stop on the hard shoulder, you have a helluva shredded tyre:(
Cheers, Smudger.

[Rolebama]

Of course, we could take the alternative of Shanks' Pony and scrap all mechanized forms of transport!? Worked OK before Messrs Diesel, Benz and Ford.

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by Rolebama

Of course, we could take the alternative of Shanks' Pony and scrap all mechanized forms of transport!? Worked OK before Messrs Diesel, Benz and Ford.

Do I take it, that was a bit tongue in cheek there?:D

[Rolebama]

Around 90% of my working life has evolved around either driving or repairing motorized vehicles of one sort or another, whether electric, steam, petrol or diesel. So most definitely tongue-in-cheek. :)

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by Rolebama

Of course, we could take the alternative of Shanks' Pony and scrap all mechanized forms of transport!? Worked OK before Messrs Diesel, Benz and Ford.

Not strictly true.
Before the wheel was invented, the wealthy were carried around in sedan chairs and other luxurious outfis, all carried by lowly serfs.
With the wheel came the rickshaw and all kinds of wheeled transport, again being driven by serf-power, oxen, horses, elephants, etc. Eventually, individuals provided their own single person transport facilities using the same available muscle power.

James Watt invented the steam engine, and then that developed from a stationary power unit into various form of locomotion. So the appearance of Diesel, Benz and Ford were merely perpetrators in an already existing chain of development. These people, or others like them, were an inevitable evolution in Man's pursuit of freedom to travel distances.