but its a mk4 polo......

mk5? like mine?

I've got about a grand. 1.6 bora????? 1.6 golf? Hmm

B5 passat. cheap workhorses.

B5 passat. cheap workhorses.

Haven't done the front control arms yet then ?

my mates got a 1.6 16v mk4 golf, and my 1.4 8v 6n was faster

Polo 1.4 8v (63 bhp/ton @ 60bhp)

Golf 1.6 16v (88bhp/ton @100bhp)

POLO 1.4 16v (100bhp/ton @100bhp

No brainer.

Although a 1.4 8v 106 is probably cheaper to insure and more fun to drive.

I'd agree but a 6n2 16v is so much more of a car than a 6n 16v, and handles better. the 106 is still more fun.

I'd agree but a 6n2 16v is so much more of a car than a 6n 16v, and handles better.

Why would it handle better? I was under the impression that the 6n2 16v had the same basic running gear as the 6n 16v, just heavier and with less power? (obviously the power would be the same if you had the hens teeth 100bhp 6n2 but its still heavier)

but its still heavier

Dont forget gayer too

Yeah but I thought that went without saying?

some people need reminding

Edited 23 November, 201114 yr by Tramp

Comparing fun factor between 6n's and 6n2's is like comparing eating shit and being shot.

Comparing fun factor between 6n's and 6n2's is like comparing eating shit and being shot.

:lol:

I'd agree but a 6n2 16v is so much more of a car than a 6n 16v, and handles better.

Why would it handle better? I was under the impression that the 6n2 16v had the same basic running gear as the 6n 16v, just heavier and with less power? (obviously the power would be the same if you had the hens teeth 100bhp 6n2 but its still heavier)

then 6n2 was released because the 6n had many faults, the 6n2 rectified them (not all of them. Gearbox and pedal box for example) the engines is the SE 16v (75hp) and the 16v (100hp) are alloy, so lighter than the iron AFH, and to be honest the only major difference between them in terms of components is the interior which I don't think would be any heavier. also the chassis is slightly stronger too, that plus the addition of twin airbags as standard made the 6n2 a four star NCAP car as opposed to the 6n which was 2 and a half stars.

The revised front suspension on the 6n2 provides a more compliant ride and has better damping, not to mention thicker ARB's and the 16v proper, it has wider, lower profile tyres.

there is differences, minute they may be, but there is. vw wouldn't have made the 6n2 if it wasn't any better than the 6n.

as for gayness, meh, a inanimate object can't be gay but it thats your opinion then you are entitled to it.

I am in no way saying the 6n2 16v (100hp) is the best car you can get for a grand but its better equipped and quicker than a 1.4 golf (it is possible to get a 12 year old BMW 728 for £500!)

1.4 106. Hmmmmmmm.

I'd agree but a 6n2 16v is so much more of a car than a 6n 16v, and handles better.

Why would it handle better? I was under the impression that the 6n2 16v had the same basic running gear as the 6n 16v, just heavier and with less power? (obviously the power would be the same if you had the hens teeth 100bhp 6n2 but its still heavier)

then 6n2 was released because the 6n had many faults, the 6n2 rectified them (not all of them. Gearbox and pedal box for example) the engines is the SE 16v (75hp) and the 16v (100hp) are alloy, so lighter than the iron AFH, and to be honest the only major difference between them in terms of components is the interior which I don't think would be any heavier. also the chassis is slightly stronger too, that plus the addition of twin airbags as standard made the 6n2 a four star NCAP car as opposed to the 6n which was 2 and a half stars.

The revised front suspension on the 6n2 provides a more compliant ride and has better damping, not to mention thicker ARB's and the 16v proper, it has wider, lower profile tyres.

there is differences, minute they may be, but there is. vw wouldn't have made the 6n2 if it wasn't any better than the 6n.

as for gayness, meh, a inanimate object can't be gay but it thats your opinion then you are entitled to it.

I am in no way saying the 6n2 16v (100hp) is the best car you can get for a grand but its better equipped and quicker than a 1.4 golf (it is possible to get a 12 year old BMW 728 for £500!)

you bum 6n2s far too much

Comparing fun factor between 6n's and 6n2's is like comparing eating shit and being shot.

:lol:

LMFAO!

Comparing fun factor between 6n's and 6n2's is like comparing eating shit and being shot.

:lol:

LMFAO!

Course it is... if you get shot, you might live, if you eat shit, you'll feel like you want to die (probably)

Save up more money and then get something that you really want. No point spending your grand on something you might regret and want rid of in a few months :)

Or... Ford Ka with YB Blue top Cossie lump

Edited 24 November, 201114 yr by Matt Mk3loon

get a ford ka fit the ford puma lump and your a winner.

Guy near me had one with a RS Turbo engine and it absolutely flew! He did look like a idiot driving it though lol

1.4 106. Hmmmmmmm.

106's are french crap! So are badly designed/made, a mate of my Dads who has a garage hates when he has anything french come in, as they are apparently a pain to work on. And ford Ka's are the worst car ever. Almost every girl i know has 1 or had 1, and that says it all. Plus they rot like crazy, i've seen 2002's with rotten sills and holes round the filler flap. Mk4 Golfs with the small engines are SHIT, everything wears out quick because the engines/ gearboxes arent up to the job lugging their lardy ass around. And they're so dull to drive. Your polo's a nice solid shell, and a good base car. You should keep it and you could just wait for mods. I did. I drove a standard MK1 for 2 years until i got my MK3 and then i started modding. If you want any other Dub, i'd suggest a Lupo 1.4 16v. Same engine as the golf, and almost half the weight. I've been in 1 (gearbox was buggered so didnt buy it) and it really was pretty rapid, cheaper to insure than a Golf too .

not a biased opinion atall

Biased, me? Naaah

Well. honestly, being a die hard Vee Dubber, probablly am biased, but i cant change the truth.

Edited 24 November, 201114 yr by malaga red

bora?

I'd agree but a 6n2 16v is so much more of a car than a 6n 16v, and handles better.

Why would it handle better? I was under the impression that the 6n2 16v had the same basic running gear as the 6n 16v, just heavier and with less power? (obviously the power would be the same if you had the hens teeth 100bhp 6n2 but its still heavier)

then 6n2 was released because the 6n had many faults, the 6n2 rectified them (not all of them. Gearbox and pedal box for example) the engines is the SE 16v (75hp) and the 16v (100hp) are alloy, so lighter than the iron AFH, and to be honest the only major difference between them in terms of components is the interior which I don't think would be any heavier. also the chassis is slightly stronger too, that plus the addition of twin airbags as standard made the 6n2 a four star NCAP car as opposed to the 6n which was 2 and a half stars.

The revised front suspension on the 6n2 provides a more compliant ride and has better damping, not to mention thicker ARB's and the 16v proper, it has wider, lower profile tyres.

there is differences, minute they may be, but there is. vw wouldn't have made the 6n2 if it wasn't any better than the 6n.

as for gayness, meh, a inanimate object can't be gay but it thats your opinion then you are entitled to it.

I am in no way saying the 6n2 16v (100hp) is the best car you can get for a grand but its better equipped and quicker than a 1.4 golf (it is possible to get a 12 year old BMW 728 for £500!)

Yep turns out your right and the 6n is about 7kg's heavier than the 6n2, although that's 7kg's I'd be willing to sacrifice so In return for not having a god awful alloy block lump

Bores that like to go oval, rings that like to wear, cams that like to wear away thier bearings, all normally before 100k... vorsprung durch technik