Well all i can say is that i must be one of the lucky few that has a G40 that is as well spec'd as some modern cars! I have a sun roof, leccy windows as standard, and thanx to my alarm it also has central locking (what more do you need - other than air-con). Its got a few simple mods to the engine, and i can definately say that it will keep up with most cars i would want it too, and beat a few too.

Being 24 the car is cheap to insure, cheap to tax, Very easy to fix if you have some knowledge of cars, but not cheap to run! I have owned it for about 18months now, i have spent a fair amount on fixing its but i dont care, i always wanted one from the time i first owned my little Mk2 1.3 Coupe Parade, and now that i do own one i would never sell it (EVER) Its just the best car i have had, it takes the abuse it give it and, for me the handling is fine for my abuility.

Plus everyone looks at it and thinks its a granny wagon, till i start it and then they ask me what it is, so i tell them, and they all stand there amaised.

And for me, thats what the G is all about. Small, Very nippy, and stands out among all other cars its size!

Plus i fixed a few outstanding things on it the other day, and since then, i haven't stopped smiling when i drive it!!

G-Smiles all the way! (to the petrol station Grr)

Iain.

(ps Sorry about the spelling I'm shit at it)

a standard 205 gti should easily beat a standard g40, g40 in standard form isnt really fast imo fun to drive an all that tho.

A standard G40 is almost the same in performance figures to a 1.9 205 and considerably better than a 1.6 205. When they were new the 1.6 was the same price bracket as a G40 and the 1.9 was a fair bit more expensive.

The reason g40s go 'wrong' is that they are far from factory spec.

Leave them alone and I doubt we would have half as many problems as we do.

If you want a reliable engine ditch the g-lader. Say what you want about 'originality' etc but its probably the weakest part of the engine set up.

Plus g40 owners on here are proper anal. One squeak or rattle and half the car gets rebuilt. Nothing was 'wrong' with my g40 when I bought it. But I have managed to spend 4 complete days changing and adjusting things.

I agree with the rest of what you've said but need to pick out this paragraph in particular. I reckon you'd have less hassle running a 205 GTI as a daily, than a G40... And the tuning potential is massive for the 205 - 16v head? Turbo 8v? Turbo 16v? All from the Pug/Citroens of that time, 405s, XMs etc.

Plus, providing a G40 is built the same as any other Mk3 Polo, then you've got a far quieter cabin in a 205 GTI as well!

205 GTI FTW!

The 205 engines are already pretty heavily tuned. Tuning potential where you change most of the engine for a different one doesn't really count in my opinion. I tuned my first G40 from 113BHP to about 130 (about the same as a 1.9 205?) with just a chip, pulley and induction kit.

If G40's were every mans cup of tea, and if they were a good all rounder, they'd be shit.

I love them because they're bonkers.

A Polo is way more fun at 80 than any modern cruiser is at 160.

You'd have way more fun going down a hill in a shopping trolley than you would on a carbon-fibre pushbike with GripShift©

Whoa! Did someone say that a G40 could keep up with a 106 Rallye?!

If you've got straight roads then yeah, get to corners and the 106 will be gone. I've driven both, 106 Rallyes handle much better. You can actually oversteer in a 106, great cars for rallying.

If power is an issue the 1.3 can be swapped for a 1.6 16v GTI engine or better.

Pug has better handling but not as well built, not as fast, not as much tuning potential, less reliable. Still love both cars though

I reckon you'd have less hassle running a 205 GTI as a daily, than a G40...

You'd be wrong. Del's G40 never let him down once. They are bullet proof if looked after.

You'd have way more fun going down a hill in a shopping trolley than you would on a carbon-fibre pushbike with GripShift©

lov it..

Edited 31 December, 200718 yr by polokid

Sorry Tav, I can't agree with that statement.

Del's one may have been ok, but across the board and on average reliability isn't that good at all.

If I had to choose between the two, I know which I'd rather rely on as my only means of daily transport.

I agree with EeekiE though, its much more fun going fast in a shopping trolley Polo than in some bloated so called sports car.

Edited 31 December, 200718 yr by breadman

Like people have said the Polo's that go wrong are the highly tuned or hard driven ones.

If respected the component parts won't go wrong...what do people with G40's replace? Normally things attached to the engine that are feeling the brunt of the power.

I respect any car that with 170k miles on the clock and that's been driven hard, done 1/4 miles, 1000 mile round trips and just keeps going. All the Mk3 Polo's we've got up here are pretty reliable...we just sort niggles rather than proper issues.

And there is one on our local forum with around 220k!

Mines just done over 144k and its still going strong, I've done 10k since i got the car.

Having owned G40's for around 10 years, I often thought about changing it for something more modern.

The thing is, there isn't anything that brings me the same smiles per pound. yes, I can go out and spend 4 or 5 grand on something more modern, but everything that I drive just doesn't bring me the same enjoyment. If you tune any car, you should expect issues. Increasing the power to 150bhp from the standard 113 is a 35-40% increase, like tuning a 200 brake car to 280.

What you need to realise it that it is a fairly highly strung car, and some(including mine)are approaching 17 yrs old and well over 100k.

I've driven 106's and 205's, but, even 10 years ago, these had knocks, squeaks and rattles. The handling was good, but they just seem to knock out balljoints, driveshafts etc.I only just replaced my lower TCA's, the old ones weren't worn. Panels were flimsy, corrosion plentiful.

CL, and E/W are all easily added. Who need PAS, that just takes away steering feel. In a G, you can feel how damp/slippery/grippy the road is. When was the last time you seriously needed to use the aircon in a car.

Then there is the engine note,hard to beat. 30+ MPG even when caning it. Zero depreciation.

Also when talking about reliability, what are we comparing it to. The achilles heel seems to be the charger, but these have lasted, on most cars with some care 150k+. They aren't necessarily unreliable, but expensive to replace. how many R5GTT owners still running the original turbo, or carb. 205's on original headgaskets, injection systems etc?

The G40 would have been perfect with a better lower wishbone with 2 mounting points to the chassis, like the MK1 golf. This would have made it pretty much untouchable back in 1991.

Edited 31 December, 200718 yr by G40

but i don't have a gt engine or a scooby

i got 3 mates that have them and use them as daily drives and have never had any problems with them (although one did blow a gear box, but he was ragging the living shit out of it like a fool ), how many G40 owners can say they use there car as a daily without and major costs?

i can, but then mine is standard engine wise, doesnt get thrashed all day everyday and gets a regular oil change. in 20k the only major prob I've had is the dizzy packing up, hardly as expensive to run as people make out. I've never had a problem with the handling either, but then its all I've known, seing as my only deviation from a mk3 polo was a mk4 (which i hated!) the key to going fast on bendy stuff with these cars is knowing how to drive them, you just cant drive them in the same way you can with cars that have suspension that wasnt designed in the 70s

Edited 31 December, 200718 yr by g40jon

so the g40 is getting a slating against the 205 gti.... but as touched on a few posts above, how many are modified with just an exhaust and filter? i'd say 90% of g40's have exhaust/filter and then more stress on the standard engine with ported chargers,chips etc. personally i'd compare the 205 to the golf not the polo.

I know a lad who used to used to run a G40 with G-lader (not turbo conversion) at around 180bhp as a daily, lowered 70mm on 15's. It was a great car, nothing he has had since has been quite the same and in the time since he sold the shell (but couldnt quite bear to sell the engine) he has frequently talked of buying another mk3 shell to drop it in.

This says to me that buying a pimp new golf, with much appreciation from seasoned VW fans, more power, better suspension and more luxuries, still doesnt quite fill the void left by his G. In other words, though they don't excel in any particular area, there's not much else that compares to them overall! And thats from someone whos never owned one.

they are the best cars in the world. ever. and forever more. better ...

All already been said, but i thought i would stick my foot in as well. It is true for the money you can get something much better, for a decent g40 you might be paying close to £3000. For that you could buy an evo 1 with fairly low miles. No doubt it would wipe the floor with a g40. In terms of running costs i never thought it was that bad. When standard i could get almost 50mpg and most of the work done on it was out of choice.

I will say though that i can't believe they handle that well unless they are caged up. When i used to jack mine up you could hear and see the whole car flexing, which is no doubt the main reason for poor handling. Mine gripped fairly well, but you had to make sure you took a good line. Its not a car that makes you feel confident round a fast corner and is anything but nimble.

But as said thats what makes them fun, weaving down a road trying to keep traction.