Mk3 2.0 8v Golf Vs Arosa 16v Sport

[gordysmit]

I have a golf 8V how much diffrence in performence to a AROSA SPORT 16V would not like to have a beter car than me

 

[WeeJase]

you don't want to have a better car than yourself?

 

[m0rk]

2.0 8v - 115bhp, arosa sport - 100bhp (and it has revs)

the arosa is considerably lighter (certainly 10%) so I think you will be disappointed

 

[cupra_joe]

Agreed, a lighter, revier car is far more pleasing to drive than a heavier more restricted car.

Ive had a couple of mk3 golfs and the best one is prob the 2.0 16v, although it is rubbish on fuel. the vr6 has great performance but even worse mpg.

Stick with smaller, lighter engined cars for best performance and most importantly the power to weight ratio.

 

[gordysmit]

I have a golf 8V how much diffrence in performence to a AROSA SPORT 16V would not like to have a beter car than me

"would not like my wife to have a better car than me"
two key words I missed out "MY WIFE"

 

[beefy]

easilly forgotten......

 

[gordysmit]

so that meens a 16v will be faster and better on fuel less on ins as it is only a group 5 and my golf is 14 ish and its not that fast

 

[m0rk]

your golf's insurance group is a left over from the hot hatch era of insurance.

Now even luke warm ones have more power, and the rating is altered accordingly

 

[Fl@pper]

if you need the space and drive a few miles id go for the comfy solid golf but if you zip about in a town enviroment and hardly go anywhere really then the arosa 16v is great fun - nearly bought one new meself once but dont knock the arosa for long journey's either just thats it more fun doing the one way system

as Cupra_joe says - power to weight

use the golf to go to work and back and at the weekend while she's shopping offer the bigger (golf) boot and take her arosa out for some weekend fun - best of both worlds - cos if ya married you'll end up paying to keep both running anyway