Heavier but more refined, despite being great value now the Mk3 Golf GTi has never had the same following as VW’s first hot hatch. We looked at the possible reasons why…
‘Cosmic’ was how Roger Bell from Car magazine described the difference between the Mk3 GTi and the original GTi incarnation in a group test. The magazine was the first to road test the new car in the UK and managed to source a 14,000-mile 1979 Mk1 and a last of the line 1991 1.8 Mk2 to compare it against, the latter usefully bridging the gap between the two eras.
Yet on paper, having put on so much weight, the new car couldn’t get anywhere near the performance of the original. While the first Mk1 GTi tipped the scales at just 844kg, the Mk3 version came in at a hefty 1032kg. So, despite its 2.0-litre engine with Digifant multipoint electronic fuel injection which pushed up power to 115bhp, it still looked flaccid in terms of power to weight ratio. The Mk3 produced 113bhp per ton, against 133bhp for the first Mk1. That said, the newer car had better torque and a higher top speed, thanks largely to its smoother shape and taller final drive. The Mk3 was somehow marginally quicker off the mark as well, with a 0-60mph time of just 8.7 seconds compared to the original’s 9.6. Now whether that was down to VW ‘massaging’ the figures is open to debate; after all it wouldn’t have looked good if its spanking new GTi was slower than a car it made 13 years earlier…
Yet, revealingly, this is was precisely the case with the final incarnation of the original Mk1 GTi in five-speed 1.8 guise. That effectively smashed the Mk3, doing 0-60 in just 8.0 seconds and bettering the Mk3 by 22bhp in terms of power to weight ratio. VW obviously spotted the anomaly and two years later released the 16v version which soon put the Mk3 on more of a level with the Mk1.
If all this sounds a bit harsh and anti-Mk3 then we’re eager to point out that it’s a car that has plenty going for it in other respects. It’s significantly roomier, much quieter and far more refined than its predecessors. Underneath it’s similar to a Mk2 but more supple and with a less harsh ride, making it better for longer journeys. Power steering as standard also made it more relaxing to drive. And today, having been overlooked for so long, it’s totally affordable and represents excellent value for money.
In truth, the Mk3 was just ‘natural progression’. VW was keen to grow the Golf in line with its potential purchasers who demanded higher specification, more space and more refinement. And if you compare Golf GTi’s from the last few years with the first Mk1, you’ll find very little similarities apart from perhaps the chequered seat material and the GTi emblem on the grille.
Excuse the impertinence, but other manufacturers were perhaps less inclined to play it safe, and possibly the brash and frankly rather scary Peugeot 1.9 205 GTi bares testament to this. Or perhaps VW was good at listening to its customers, and when it heard people grumbling about the Golf suddenly getting too middle aged, they developed a spiritual successor. The Polo G40…
Ian
The opinions expressed here are the personal opinions of the author and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of VW Heritage
Ian
Couldnt agree more with your last statement about the Mk3 being just natural progression. Recently purchased a 1998 2.0 8V with just 95000 on the clock and a service history/receipts to die for (Even down to a receipt for a replacement interior bulb!!!) Its absolutely beautiful to drive and puts a smile on my face every time I get behind the wheel plus with it being one of the last off the production line its got Storm BBS Alloys which I think are the best looking Alloys fitted to any golf of any mark! (Personal Preference!!) People scoff at the Mk3 but personally think that given time all variants of the Golf with a GTI badge will be regarded as classic with the Mk3 but I am a biased VW “Nut” with the wife having a MK4 2.0 GTi and the Daughter a 2003 1.2 Polo (My other drive is a 2.5 TDi 102BHP T4)!!!! So as a family we’re a lost cause toVW!!!!! P.S. On the look out for a MK2 to join the fleet but the wife doesnt know YET!!
Can any body help just bought 1.8t gti mk3 but won’t start battery ok
It didn’t do pretty badly in teh States when the VR6 was dropped in it.
Why is it that every blogger that writes about the mk1 vs Mk3 always leaves out the one drivetrain in the Mk3 gti lineup that crushed the mk1’s 1.8 8v and the mk2’s 2.0 16v and that’s the introduction of the Mk3 gti 12v vr6. I’ve been a vw enthusiast since I got my driver’s license in 1993. I’ve owned countless numbers of mk2s and a couple mk1s and in the mid 90’s I had a really nice 2.0l 16v gti but it pained in comparison my friend’s Mk3 gti vr6 in every possible way. It accelerated to 60 at least 2 seconds before my mk2, it had a higher top speed, handled better in a way that would make the driver much more confident and it was way more comfortable. Sure, the Mk3 might have not been as fun to drive since the luxury and driver assisted aspects of the Mk3 left it a little boring at times, but it was still superior IMO. But I’d like to see an article that puts the mk1 gti up against the real Mk3 competitor the “VR6”
Sounds like a great road test to us! We’ll see what we can do!
The MK3 VR6 was ahead of its time big CC hothatch, just unfortunate that the handling was not quite as sharp as its predecessorsbespecially the Mk2, it was a bit nose heavy due the to the VR6 lump upfront!
It was great on the straight line and the noise from the VR6 is just glorious. More of a GT touring Hatch than hot hatch in my books!
The MK3 VR6 was ahead of its time big CC hothatch, just unfortunate that the handling was not quite as sharp as its predecessors especially the Mk2, it was a bit nose heavy due the to the VR6 lump upfront!
It was great on the straight line and the noise from the VR6 is just glorious. More of a GT touring Hatch than hot hatch in my books!