Two of the most dull and dissapointing cars I've had the misfortune to thrash about in were a '97 Golf VR6 highline and a '98 Ibiza GTi.

A '98 1.4 6n was just plain pitiful.

'85 MK2 1.8 8v 3dr Golf GTi was far better than an '87 version.

The '89 Scirocco GT was great,barely quicker than the '90 1.8 Jetta GX or whatever it was but the Scissor was much sharper and far more enjoyable.

Eventually a mate's sister wanted rid of her '89 1.3 breadvan,so i took it to sell on - and i saw the light. Drove it all day,it just had a lovely nature,fun to drive. Bought a coupe S soon after and it was the most fun,even out of the box,of any car above. It was a no brainer to make it how i wanted it and will never look back unless i have to compromise.

I've just bought a '99 306 2.0 16v cabriolet for the mrs,its nowhere near the fun my Polo is,and nowhere near as quick. Tbh speed isn't a major factor in a fun daily,when you're driving at the same speed as everyone else - just enjoying it a bit more in the process,and nothing VAG matches the MK2 for that in my experience.

I got a daily mk3 because they are utterly reliable. It compliments my not so reliable e30 track car

I had a g40 because i wanted one, was a fast, small, lively if fussy car.

Having been in a mk1 golf gti, i wouldnt take one over the g40(anyone whos had one will understand), but over just about any other polo going.

Whilst owning two polo's i have been asked countless times why i bother with one when i could have a golf.

My answer is always, because I like them bettter than golf.

But thinking about it, theres plenty of reasons why i prefer owning an 86c (mk2-3) polo than the equivalent age golf.

Whats your thoughts? would you sooner have a golf if you had the chance? if so, why?

M

Because they are better looking, handle better, more engine options, better breaking, more used spares and a cheaper price, more modification options, nicer interior, nicer spec.

Main issue is insurance costs.

Considering 86c polo's they definetly don't handle better.

But the rest is spot on.

Oh I was talking about the Golf.. They are more superior in every way.

The only time you'd buy a polo over a golf is A) insurance, B) you get it cheap or C) it's a really special one. And even then you will see the equivalent spec golf and wish you had held out and bought one instead.

Polo's are fun little buzzy cars, especially in 6n and earlier form. The equivalent Golf is a proper car. It all depends on what you want out of a car.

I've had loads of Polo's but I'm just bored of the limited tuning possibilities. You chuck all this money into the chassis of a Polo to only find out you get out handled by a standard Golf. You chuck loads of money into the engines only to find out you get out paced by an equivalent Golf.. Yeah, the G40 is quick and I've driven one of the quickest, it's still no better than a tuned golf of the same age. You scrimp and scrap to make the Polo interior nice with features like electric windows etc only to find out most golfs come with them as standard.

It's just a better car as standard. 99% of people who prefer Polo's over Golfs have probably never driven one. the other 1% just prefer the rawness the Polo gives and fair play to them.

Oh and for the record I've owned:

x3 Mk2 Polo's

x5 MK3 Polo's

x1 Mk4 Polo

x1 Mk5 Polo

x1 Mk2 Scirocco

x1 Mk2 Golf

I have extensive experience in driving and borrowing:

Mk2 Sciroccos

Mk2 Golfs

MK3 Golfs

Mk4 Golfs

G60's and G40's

So I know what I'm talking about when it comes to both Polo's and Golfs.

Edited 11 February, 201115 yr by MrP.

I love my polo, they are a bit different, golfs have been done to death i felt, so i decided a polo was the way id like to go.

I think Polo's are almost done to death now - well 6n's anyway.

It's hard to actually come up with something that hasnt been done yet.

Harry

i think the polo is underated and looked down upon by most but thats why i love mine :-D

Edited 11 February, 201115 yr by nurs53y

I have had a saxo (lol), breadvan, a coupe and now have a 6n and honestly..........

the coupe was the most fun to drive, my 6n is so comfortable and easy to drive, but the breadvan was my favourite

i've driven my sisters mk2 golf and it isn't bad at all

guess it just comes down to personal opinion :)

Well the only styles of Polos I've owned are Mk3 coupes x 4 and Mk4 valvers x 4

And I have had the pleasure of owning a Mk2 Golf GTI 8v and a Scirocco Scala I.

My reason for owning 8 Polos compared to just 2 Golf based cars....well the Mk3 Polos at the time I bought the first 3 (the G40 is an exception here) they were all cheaper than the equivalent age Golf, the Golf being a very very late Mk2 or an early Mk3. And to be honest if it was to be a Mk2 it would be the GTI which at the time were lots more expensive and I'd never own a Mk3 Golf unless I found a really tidy black 3 door anniversary 16v.

Anyway onto the Mk4 Polo valvers...the reason I buy them instead of the equivalent Golfs...well the Golf would be the Mk4. And I don't think I'd own any Mk4 Golf, mainly because everyone does, none of the GTIs are any good and the R32s are still silly money.

And also Mk4 Polo...front end is almost the same design as the Mk2 Golf and they can be made to handle in a similar manner so its not really a million miles away from a Golf.

Also, I think going from a 1.05 mk3 to a 1.3 mk3 wouldn't have been enough of a change for me

If thats the only reason you didnt buy a GT then your an idiot tbh

Reason i got a polo was that i couldnt insure a mk1 gti and didnt want anything but a gti

There is something about a mk3 polo though, iv had an spi, 2 gt's and my current 16v and i just keep going back to them.....i will get my mk1 though

Cheaper :)

wouldnt mind a Mk3 Golf though :)

Jesus , Didn't think this thread would kick off to this extent.

Anyone who says we drive a polo because you can't afford a golf is just thick as shit.

I could go out and buy/insure a golf tomorrow if i wanted to.

The point mentioned about the way a polo feels to drive is definitely a good one though, I would much rather have something that feels like a go-kart.

I have a scirocco as a daily which shares a lot of running gear with the mk1 golf and whilst it's faster and better planted than my polo's its not as much fun as them.

Another thing is that around here anyway, the golf owners seem to think they are some kind living god which fucks me off , I can't stand people like that.

The only golf I would buy!

The only reason = the sound!!!!

Norse god gargling in the morning!

cant comment on the older stuff,

i have a mk4 1.4 8v, my friend has a gof mk4 1.6 16v.

his costs more to insure, is slower, worse mpg, higher tax, handles worse, and is stupidly common! just has slightly nicer things such as better central locking and cruise control etc,

must admit id love a mk1/2 golf but I'm only on my first car so :)

The only time you'd buy a polo over a golf is A) insurance, B) you get it cheap or C) it's a really special one. And even then you will see the equivalent spec golf and wish you had held out and bought one instead.

i don't think that's true in the slightest, i've never looked at my car and wished i'd started with a golf, why would i? golfs are too easy and i like a bit of a challange. they are good out of the box but imo that's just boring, and they are easier to make quicker with pretty much every engine swap possible being done and well documented, the polo's on the other hand ain't so so there's still the option of thinking outside the box.

if i looked at my car and wished it was a golf i would sell it and buy a golf, i still own my polo so i guess that just proves that i don't want a golf

Edited 11 February, 201115 yr by McLOVIN

Two of the most dull and dissapointing cars I've had the misfortune to thrash about in were a '97 Golf VR6 highline

word!

owned a mk3 VR6 for about 6 weeks, only drove it for a couple and the rest was spent trying to sell it

Why they so bad then guy? I've never had the pleasure...

I've got a mk3 Golf and a mk1 Golf at the mo. The mk3 is utter turd but I paid less than a full tank of fuel for it. It is the most comfortable, quiet, and reliable £50 I've ever spent, however it is so wallowy and slow and shit to look at at the same time.

I've had a mk3 polo before and it was cool, I like the look of them and I've always craved a mk2 coupe. But nothing ever comes close to my mk1 Golf for handling and fun

Edited 11 February, 201115 yr by Phataz1

Why they so bad then guy? I've never had the pleasure...

piss poor build quality, it's like trying to drive a drunk fat lass and putting your foot down in one is like trying to wake a sleeping rhino up by kicking it in the ass... nothing nothing nothing it's stiring, nothing nothing, lot of noise SHIT A CORNER SLOW DOWN!

they are just really lazy engines wrapped up in a really shit car mate, they sound good but that is it

Also, I think going from a 1.05 mk3 to a 1.3 mk3 wouldn't have been enough of a change for me

If thats the only reason you didnt buy a GT then your an idiot tbh

Reason i got a polo was that i couldnt insure a mk1 gti and didnt want anything but a gti

There is something about a mk3 polo though, iv had an spi, 2 gt's and my current 16v and i just keep going back to them.....i will get my mk1 though

The very fact I used the word 'also' in the part of the post you quoted shows that wasn't the only reason given.

And I think 'idiot' is a bit of a sweeping statement tbh. Just because I wanted a different car doesn't make me an idiot. I'd imagine very few people outside of the VW scene had second cars that were exactly the same as the first just with a bigger engine.

To clarify, I would have got a GT, but I couldn't find one a) under 100k, b) under £1500, c) not a complete shitheap/project and most were a combination of all of those things.

I wasn't even looking for a car when I bought my golf, but as with McLovin it was for sale at a price that I couldn't refuse, especially for the condition it was in.

I personally challenge you to find a two-owner GT with 48k on the clock and almost immaculate bodywork for £850. 5 minutes down the road from me.

At the end of the day, I'm a VW enthusiast and I chose the best VW I could find for the money.

(and just a side note, I'm not trying to start an argument I get told a lot that I'm quite confrontational).

Also, I think going from a 1.05 mk3 to a 1.3 mk3 wouldn't have been enough of a change for me

If thats the only reason you didnt buy a GT then your an idiot tbh

Reason i got a polo was that i couldnt insure a mk1 gti and didnt want anything but a gti

There is something about a mk3 polo though, iv had an spi, 2 gt's and my current 16v and i just keep going back to them.....i will get my mk1 though

The very fact I used the word 'also' in the part of the post you quoted shows that wasn't the only reason given.

And I think 'idiot' is a bit of a sweeping statement tbh. Just because I wanted a different car doesn't make me an idiot. I'd imagine very few people outside of the VW scene had second cars that were exactly the same as the first just with a bigger engine.

To clarify, I would have got a GT, but I couldn't find one a) under 100k, b) under £1500, c) not a complete shitheap/project and most were a combination of all of those things.

I wasn't even looking for a car when I bought my golf, but as with McLovin it was for sale at a price that I couldn't refuse, especially for the condition it was in.

I personally challenge you to find a two-owner GT with 48k on the clock and almost immaculate bodywork for £850. 5 minutes down the road from me.

At the end of the day, I'm a VW enthusiast and I chose the best VW I could find for the money.

(and just a side note, I'm not trying to start an argument I get told a lot that I'm quite confrontational).

Nah tbh i probly read it wrong

I do see your point though, GTs are a lot of money at the moment and if I'm honest if i was looking for a car at the moment and didnt have my mk3, it would probably be a golf

It was the way i read it that you thought a GT wouldnt be much of a step up from your 1.0 with it only being a 1.3, which is madness as GT's are a shock when you think about it - especially a mildly tuned one

Oh I was talking about the Golf.. They are more superior in every way.

The only time you'd buy a polo over a golf is A) insurance, B) you get it cheap or C) it's a really special one. And even then you will see the equivalent spec golf and wish you had held out and bought one instead.

I had a Mk2 Golf GTI and a Mk2 Polo Coupe S sat side by side at the same time. No brainer, sold the Golf (incidently, owned 2 Golfs and a Jetta GTI over the years).

A) Insurance was witrhin £50 either way.

B) Both cars effectively cost me very little

C) Coupe S spec on the Polo is about the nearest thing to GTI spec on the Golf

Yeah, the Golf's probably the better car on paper, but then the Hyundai i30 I was driving earlier's probably got similar specs, doesn't mean I'm going to buy one. Polo handling's not bad for a small car of it's era, you've just got to know how to use it.

Why the Polo then? I enjoy the roadcraft of driving far more than I do the speed, the feedback from the Polo is second to none. 6 goot of me sits in a nice comfortable seat in a near perfect driving position. I've had them for that many years, I've got 100% spatial awareness with them. But that's by the by. Everytime I drive a Mk2 polo is makes me smile.

^^ hit the nail on the head the mk2 is smiles all round

polo makes you smile and laugh

Golf just gives you a smug look on your face

Because everyone I know owns at least 1 golf.

I drove a mates mk2 golf and it felt too big, moving it around the yard was a challenge as i just couldnt get used to the dimensions of it (bear in mind I have no issues moving a Saab 9000 around the same yard)

Currently own a mk4 golf after owning a mk2 coupe S and the difference for daily driving is huge, comfort, road noise, fuel economy, performance. By this i mean the Mk4 wins hands down.

However, i'm already bored of driving the golf and wished owning a mk3 g40 was possible as i've driven one before. In relation to "fun factor" the mk2 and mk3 polo's i've owned were amazing I really did enjoy them x10 more than the golf.

But at the end of the day when I'm chilling in a traffic jam with my temp gauge at 90 and the cold air on in the summer i'm thinking....

Mk2 polo? Don't even talk to me about mk2 polo's..What the fucks a mk2 polo?

With any of the mass polo's I've owned I've never thought, yeah.... i want a golf.

I picked up a pretty mint genuine polo GT, awsome good engine that wasnt messed around with, and would have been putting out around 80bhp easy.

Only problem it had was it was on crappy aged bbs, got it for £550 from a VW entusiast - this guy actualy new it wasnt gods gift from vw and didnt need 80% scene tax like the others out there.