I've read alot into both these cars, from what i hear, the polo gt is better performance wise, but the golf has better handling.

wondering if anyone has either of the cars and could tell me abit about performance/ handling?

i basically want a car thats going to be fast off the marks, but wont let me down on windy country roads as i do alot of country lane driving.

any help appreciated!

GT

but then i am biased

I'm assuming that you mean the mk2 Golf. I would say that the Golf has the advantage of easier bolt on tuning from higher performance models. The brakes are an easy example as the 16V already had the 256mm brakes and rear discs, and the upgrade to 280mm also uses a standard part. The gearboxes are stronger and the range of tuning options is much wider. There are no limits to what can be put in the engine bay apart from your wallet. The only advantage the Polo has is slightly less weight and a bit narrower. The Golf is much bigger inside. I can't fit in a Polo but the Golf is huge. You buy a Polo because you like them.

GT all the way, much more fun. If you drop them on small wheels they handle like a go kart. Prob a bit better on fuel too.

wishbones ftw

You need to think about what you want from the car though, i like the polo because its light, cheap parts, easy to work on and you dont see too many around my way.

whereas the golf is over populated, they are heavy! unless you want to do some weight stripping but expect alot of noise after. I think a standard 1.6 in a golf would be painful. The GT isnt fast but they are rev happy and eager which makes them dare i say alot more fun then a golf...

Unless the golf is running big power, 180 - 200bhp

Edited 13 June, 200818 yr by carver

hi, yes i mean the mk2 golf driver.

as for mods, I'm only 17 and so to do alot of mods would not only put a big hole in my wallet but insurance would go up like crazy, all i want to do is drop it and get some nice alloys on it.

I'm currently driving a 1.4 6n which is a good car, but I'm after something with a bit more 'oomph' and both the mk2 golf 1.6 and the polo gt are cheaper insurance wise by about £300!

personally i prefer the polo gt but I've heard they can be a bit unpredictable round country lanes?

only if you make them unpredictable. When i take my GT back to norfolk its great on country roads

Theres no doubting here that the mk2 golf would leave the polo behind around the twistys

But the golf would be slower than the gt in the straights and the golf would use more fuel too

But if it was me, i would get the golf for sure

You need to think about what you want from the car though, i like the polo because its light, cheap parts, easy to work on and you dont see too many around my way.

whereas the golf is over populated, they are heavy! unless you want to do some weight stripping but expect alot of noise after. I think a standard 1.6 in a golf would be painful. The GT isnt fast but they are rev happy and eager which makes them dare i say alot more fun then a golf...

Unless the golf is running big power, 180 - 200bhp

my 16v is only pushing about 140ish (basically standard) and it would wipe the floor with my old GT in every way possible and its a shit load more fun. don't get me wrong the polo was fun, but you just can't compare it to the mk2 GTI imo

but we're talking non GTI here so...

the golf is the better handling car by far, but as it's just the 1.6 it won't feel sporty in the slightest, my old GT easily out excelerated my mate's 1.6 driver, although i wouldn't say they were gutless (but i used to own a 1.3 mk2 so i know what gutless is lol), although the polo isn't the best handling car in the world its not 'that' bad, it certainly won't kill you if you try and show it a bend, and they are surprisingly nippy and are fun, which the golf won't be as standard. parts are cheap for both cars and they are both very easy to work on, the golf possibly more so due to having a lot more room in the engine bay.

you need to ask yourself what you want, if you want some thing thats fun and cheap to run with a sporty feel, then get the polo.

if you want some thing thats cheapish to run, bit boring to drive (but easily sorted with a few easy mods) and thats easy and cheap to make a lot better by upgrading to higher model spec parts, then get the golf.

Edited 13 June, 200818 yr by modest mouse

I had a GT and a 1.6 Driver and I have to say I preferred everything about the Golf except for the size. I thought it was far to big for my needs.

Standard 1.6 drivers are slow but very easily tuned to be as quick as if not quicker than a standard 8v GTI.

They do have crap brakes and a lack of a rear ARB so aren't the best handling of the Mk2 range, but std vs std they'll still run rings around a Mk3 Polo.

GT is a LOT faster than a 1.6 Driver if both cars are as left the factory.

I'd go for the GT personally. Not many small engined cars will beat one off the mark, but they do slow down from 40ish onwards.

Also, the weight difference (or lack of) between the two cars would surprise you.

Edited 13 June, 200818 yr by tobyk

I'd persoanlly go for the Mk3 GT

As said it is alot faster than a 1.6 driver and I reckon it would be alot more fun around the bendy stuff than the golf. They aren't a great handling car by any means but they seem so fun and controllable, you won't go round corners fast but you won't care.

I've only had a very brief go in a Mk2 1.6 Driver but it felt more like a solid cruising machine rather than a small fun chuckable car, which the Mk3 polo is :)

When I first passed I had a 1.6 driver which looking back was an awesome car and I had some cool times in, usually being a dick. But having owned both in hindsight I'd have gone with the GT as far as standard goes, all depends what you want from it in the future. I know someone who started with a 1.6 and its now a 20v turbo!

Damn,this is a tough choice. The Golf is only about 100kgs heavier,and its a sure-footed car. Of the MK2 Golfs I've had,they were 1.8s,the only 1.6 was a Jetta,and it was the least fun. The standard '85 8v GTi was best. They have a better gearbox than Polo. If you're tall,a sunroof Polo is likely to be cramped. Otherwise,i think the GT makes for a better,more fun,standard car on todays roads.

GT GT GT GT GT GT GT GT GT GT

So long as it hasn't got a sunroof.

sunroofs pimp hard, my tan would be shit without one

Sliding metal sunroofs on Polos give me headaches.

my golf has the sliding metal sun roof, gives both arms a tan rather than just the one i hang out the window.

even tans FTW

My GT ass raped my mates 1.6 Golf, no contest.

the GT is the quicker car no doubt, although i think your GT would be quicker with some different wheels on kerrly

thanks for the replys!!

ok so I'm definately swaying towards the GT, the ones I've looked at all have around 100+000 miles on, is this ok for a GT, i know the golf engines run forever (knew one that went for 300,000 before headgasket blew)!

and what sort of price shoudl i be expecting to pay for a decent one fairly unmodified?

if i sell my 6n then ill have about 1500 to spend alltogether although i only realy want to spend 1000 in total inc wheels and suspention, prob 2nd hand wheels.

any halp appreciated!

my GT keeps up with 8v mk2 GTis. Nuff said

the GT is the quicker car no doubt, although i think your GT would be quicker with some different wheels on kerrly

If you can prove that................................................................i will probably still wouldn't sell them

It will be on the strip at inters so lets see.

EDIT: Let me know if your coming so i can add more locking wheel nuts - or use Hard as nails to glue them to my car.

Edited 14 June, 200818 yr by kerrly

^^^i think your wheel will be safe that weekend mate, all my spare time is gonna be taken by my new project so i doubt i will be going, need to get ready for edition, you might want to stock up on your locking wheel nuts for that weekend tho