MK7 1.6tdi BMT SE mini review

[james_tiger_woo]

I'm in the market for a new (company) car and, owning a Mk6 Golf, the Mk7 was on my list - I have, parked outside, a Mk7 1.6tdi SE with auto park and front and rear sensors. Not sure if they're standard to be honest as I can't get to the VW website to check.

I've put 85k on my Mk6 so I feel that I know it pretty well, I've had 7 services, 1 MOT, 1 clutch, 1 gearbox and a new rear end - It's been a hoot (!). In all seriousness, I've learnt and accept its foibles and idiosyncrasies as well as it's great points.

So, the 1.6 5sp - how does it stack up?

Well - that's how I'd say, it doesn't feel like a real slouch compared to my 2.0 tdi GT with big (stupid) wheels - it's sold, dependable, doesn't crash over potholes/bumps, it's quiet, it's brisk and it's a good, decent car. It's economical and it's a lovely place to be. The displays are clear, I like how, when your hand comes close to the screen, the display changes a little - the car settings are just there and, it's all where you want it to be. Compared to my Mk6, it's a better technological place to be.

Electronic handbrake is great, in car storage is great as is the stereo - the little front quarter windows are handy and I wonder if the problem with spray on the mirrors has been fixed, but I don't think I'll get to try that out.

However, it feels dull. Safe. Boring even. It's not a fun place to be, it's functional, it's solid, it's just what you need in a solid car that you'll use for the next 4 years. It feels like a good, well designed, german strong car. It feels reliable (but then again, so did my Mk6 before the gearbox was replaced Clattering / Grinding in 4th and 6th - Dodgy gearbox? (http://www.vwaudiforum.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?140283) ).

Boot space, somehow, seems smaller - the load area seems higher and the space between the panel and the spare wheel is large, which I assume allows for oddment storage. Not great when you put a pushchair in it and suddenly you've no room - the Mk6 handles this better.

It's not a bad looker either, albeit a little uninteresting - I would have specd it with front fogs as that seems to break up the "face" line a bit better, but again, it's a good solid looking car.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-gzO3tcdsQME/UQ_JjcBH7DI/AAAAAAAAFfQ/v8B54vqU2Q4/s640/20130204_102116-1.jpg

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-uKpUHcBDCvQ/UQ_JsxzghyI/AAAAAAAAFfY/0Y4z0rte5yU/s640/20130204_102051-1.jpg


Will I order one? I doubt it, the V40 is nicer but that has space issues in the boot that are worse than the Golf and while rear legroom is phenomenal, the cabin is narrower which means 3 kids seats won't fit in the back.

The choice may be the Civic, no it's not german, but the interior space is just astonishing and the spec on the EX model covers all the bases - Leather, Nav, rear camera, upgraded stereo, etc.

So there you have it, my own personal view of the Mk7 Golf - Solid, good, reliable, dull.

(Sorry :beerchug:)

The Mk6 is, I think, better looking - But, again, that's my view :)

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-TYB_AviFxFs/Sounp56Iv1I/AAAAAAAACqQ/VW8cFUKTxRM/s400/3800922661_93b77bec86_b_3.jpg

[DaveB666]

The 1.6se probably will feel boring to your 2.0 gt mk6. I personally am moving from a 1.6se mk6 to a 2.0gt mk7 so am quite excited :biglaugh:

Fogs, nav and things like that all come as standard on the gt model of the mk7 (the comparable version of your current mk6).

In terms of boot space, the boot floor lowers by 100mm when required so that should (according to press) make the boot bigger than the mk6. Worth checking if this was a deal breaker for you?

[cs2009]

At first I thought that the GT was a much better buy than the SE, as it comes with a lot of extra spec. However, I've just costed up the two cars on the configurator (1.4 SE 122 and 1.4 GT 140), with the options that I would want and as near the same spec as possible, and the GT is still about £1200 more expensive. So that's £1200 for +18bhp, some alcantara on the seats, and shiny black instead of brushed finish dash.

[james_tiger_woo]

It's more the interior that's dull - perhaps I've likened the drive of the Mk7 to the 6 and that's what's influenced me. The GT mk7 is too expensive (on my car list) and economy is what is driving the 1.6 diesel choice. Annoyingly. The seats aren't as supportive either - but that definitely is a GT over the SE.

Boot space isn't the deal breaker, but if I don't like the Civic, I've got a real tough choice to make and the Golf may be my fall back option - although I may then just order a 1.6 A3 sportback anyway.

What has surprised me is that with the addition of the electronic handbrake I would have expected there to be more space freed up for a large console, but there isn't as much space as I would have expected. As for the boot space - I've lowered the shelf and it's made a difference, but I fail to see the point.

I do like the under seat draws though.

Interesting point on the spec of the SE and GT there too... :)

[DaveB666]

I hope you come to a decision suitable for yourself James :)

I'd have normally got the se (company car) but because we've ordered 2 Golfs from the dealer we've got an 11% discount which brings the bottom line cost for the GT to a shade over £21k inc metallic paint which brough it close enough to my £21k max price.

[james_tiger_woo]

I really wanted to like the Golf enough to just order it but it hasn't been the love that I had for my Mk6 - I'll try the Civic and see how it compares.

Saying that if I did, I'd get an SE with fogs, tinted rear glass,17s and parking sensors. It'd work out cheaper per month than the civic, but that also comes with leather and nav on top - but no 17s as that's a £1250 option!

[J400uk]

Try the A3, Nav as standard on the Sportback and the boot is slightly bigger. Foretasted residuals are strong so monthly rental should be similar. Needs the Comfort Pack though to bring equipment up to Golf levels.

[james_tiger_woo]

Nav is only standard if you order before the end of the month - I can't look at one before March though....

[cs2009]

...but if I don't like the Civic, I've got a real tough choice to make and the Golf may be my fall back option - although I may then just order a 1.6 A3 sportback anyway.

Have you looked at the V40 ?

[james_tiger_woo]

Ah, I took a long hard look at the V40 - http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=156&t=1234868

It's a lovely car and bigger, in the cabin, than the Golf (by a good few inches), but the boot was surprisingly narrow - I've got a Civic test planned too but in this company, I fear the Golf may be left wanting. The A3 Sportback is an interesting choice too, especially as if I order one before the end of Feb, it comes with free Nav....

[cs2009]

Ah, I took a long hard look at the V40 - http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=156&t=1234868

It's a lovely car and bigger, in the cabin, than the Golf (by a good few inches), but the boot was surprisingly narrow - I've got a Civic test planned too but in this company, I fear the Golf may be left wanting. The A3 Sportback is an interesting choice too, especially as if I order one before the end of Feb, it comes with free Nav....

Thanks for the link. I've seen quite a few good reviews of the V40, but not actually seen the car myself yet. Here's a good one:
Volvo V40 UK Review | carbuzz.co.uk (http://www.carbuzz.co.uk/blog/Volvo-V40-Review-234)
It gets a proper handbrake too !

I'm not at all keen on the A3 (as I have ranted about several times on this forum !) I just don't like the standard fit interior chav-pack.

[james_tiger_woo]

Good review there - it misses some things that I was concerned about like rear visibility (as the windows taper up a LOT) and boot space which is too narrow, but the V40 is a lovely car - were it not for the narrow boot, I would have ordered that....

Me, I like the A3, it isn't the most exciting car in the world, but I like it enough to consider it - I'll drive the Honda first though. However, I rather like the electronic brake, but I am genuinely surprised that more space where the handbrake was hasn't been freed up.

[cs2009]

I rather like the electronic brake, but I am genuinely surprised that more space where the handbrake was hasn't been freed up.

I'm still very nervous about the electric brake. There have been so many reports of it failing in VAG cars for my liking. What happens if you get a flat battery for example ? Presumably, you can neither apply nor release the brake ?

[DaveB666]

I'm still very nervous about the electric brake. There have been so many reports of it failing in VAG cars for my liking. What happens if you get a flat battery for example ? Presumably, you can neither apply nor release the brake ?

Nope - but you wouldn't be able to get into the car anyway so it wouldn't matter lol

[cs2009]

Nope - but you wouldn't be able to get into the car anyway so it wouldn't matter lol

The locks still work manually using the key.

[DaveB666]

sorry, I forgot the [/sarcasm] tags on my post ;)

[gamichea]

James, be interested to hear what you think of the dash and rear view out on the Civic. Also, I think its can of gunk only, not even a space saver.

I've an idea that a plus with the A3 1.6TDI is it comes with a six speeder so may be more driveable/quicker thru the gears.

cs2009, I too am a lover of the electronic handbrake, having covered over 70k across two cars. Had a switch failure at 20k on an 06 Passat that left the car driveable, just needed to park with care and in gear. Had no such problems with the CC so far at 38k. In conjunction with autohold I find it really good. I just need to switch off autohold when exiting my drive as poor sight lines mean I have to creep so slowly downhill autohold is likely to brake me to a halt believing the creep could be unintentional. I would be very reluctant to give it up.

[james_tiger_woo]

It is indeed a can of gunk - does anyone know how the boot size compares between the A3 and the golf?

[h5djr]

I've an idea that a plus with the A3 1.6TDI is it comes with a six speeder so may be more driveable/quicker thru the gears.

Unfortunately not. The 1.6 TDI comes with the cheaper 7-speed DSG. Only the 2.0 TDI gets the 6-speed.

[james_tiger_woo]

The manual is a 6sp box.

[Evil Dan]

I'm still very nervous about the electric brake. There have been so many reports of it failing in VAG cars for my liking. What happens if you get a flat battery for example ? Presumably, you can neither apply nor release the brake ?

I would assume that it is designed to be always on and that it requires electricity to be taken off the handbrake. That way in the event of a power failure your car isn't rolling off somewhere.

That's how I'd design it anyway!

[DaveB666]

Assuming the Golf mk7 is using a similiar EPB to the Passat CC it looks like it remains 'on' in the event of a flat battery;
VWVortex.com - 2010 CC Sport: Dead Battery - Parking Brake is Engaged (http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?5302973-2010-CC-Sport-Dead-Battery-Parking-Brake-is-Engaged&p=71628463)

[gamichea]

Unfortunately not. The 1.6 TDI comes with the cheaper 7-speed DSG. Only the 2.0 TDI gets the 6-speed.

As JTW tested a manual car I referred to the manual gearbox situation. A brief test in March What Car? confirms the A3 1.6TDI gets the six speed manual or 7 speed DSG.

[cs2009]

Assuming the Golf mk7 is using a similiar EPB to the Passat CC it looks like it remains 'on' in the event of a flat battery;
VWVortex.com - 2010 CC Sport: Dead Battery - Parking Brake is Engaged (http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?5302973-2010-CC-Sport-Dead-Battery-Parking-Brake-is-Engaged&p=71628463)

Thanks for that.

The post says:
"There are only two ways to manually disengage the parking brake, both involve crawling under the back of the car with some tools:
1) Unbolt the parking brake motor, mounted to the backside of each caliper,, and use a power-driver tool to retract the pads.
2) Pull the electrical connector off each parking brake motor, and apply 12VDC from a portable jump-starter (has a 12V battery inside) to the motor contacts, to retract the pads. If the pads don't retract, reverse the polarity of the applied 12V.

A full description (with pics) can be found in the B6 Passat forum, for a do-it-yourself write-up to replace the rear brake pads without using VAG-COM. (VAG-COM can be used to command the motors to retract the pads...but you need a good car battery)"

I'm even less impressed with the new parking brake now !

[Evil Dan]

Thanks for that.

The post says:
"There are only two ways to manually disengage the parking brake, both involve crawling under the back of the car with some tools:
1) Unbolt the parking brake motor, mounted to the backside of each caliper,, and use a power-driver tool to retract the pads.
2) Pull the electrical connector off each parking brake motor, and apply 12VDC from a portable jump-starter (has a 12V battery inside) to the motor contacts, to retract the pads. If the pads don't retract, reverse the polarity of the applied 12V.

A full description (with pics) can be found in the B6 Passat forum, for a do-it-yourself write-up to replace the rear brake pads without using VAG-COM. (VAG-COM can be used to command the motors to retract the pads...but you need a good car battery)"

I'm even less impressed with the new parking brake now !

That assumes the parking brake is identical.

How often do people really suffer a full-on totally flat battery? This is generally due to poor maintenance or failing to disconnect the battery when not using the car for long periods.

Surely the easiest way to resolve the problem would be to charge the battery or get a new one? Using powertools on the underside of the car seems extreme and unnecessary.

[cs2009]

Surely the easiest way to resolve the problem would be to charge the battery or get a new one? Using powertools on the underside of the car seems extreme and unnecessary.

Perhaps, but surely the point is that using an electric parking brake is completely unnecessary. It's deliberately designing in unreliability.
This 'feature' and the idiotic location of the (single disc) CD player makes it increasing unlikely that I will buy one (or the equally afflicted A3).

[DaveB666]

The fact its electronic doesn't really bother me. If it breaks then I'll call the RAC (although I have left my mk6 golf parked up for 6 weeks over Winter and it still started perfectly!). I don't think any flat battery issues will affect the 'first generation' owners.

I have an issue with the fact I can no longer 'enjoy' the snow :(

[a8toa6convert]

To the OP - if you test a 1.4 ACT or 2.0 TDI GT Mk7, I think you'll find it's at least as responsive and fun to drive as your Mk6. I took the 1.4 for a spin and found it preferable to a Mk6 2.0tdi GT I had a while back: better ride, better progression in the steering weight, and the refinement of the 1.4 petrol has to be experienced to be believed....

[a8toa6convert]

At first I thought that the GT was a much better buy than the SE, as it comes with a lot of extra spec. However, I've just costed up the two cars on the configurator (1.4 SE 122 and 1.4 GT 140), with the options that I would want and as near the same spec as possible, and the GT is still about £1200 more expensive. So that's £1200 for +18bhp, some alcantara on the seats, and shiny black instead of brushed finish dash.

The 1.4 in the GT is a peach, and I would expect the residuals to reflect that. When you specced up your SE, did you add 17's, basic nav, front fogs, front and rear parking sensors ? Those things alone cost more than the price difference between SE and GT.

[cs2009]

When you specced up your SE, did you add 17's, basic nav, front fogs, front and rear parking sensors ? Those things alone cost more than the price difference between SE and GT.

Yes I did, and no they don't.

For the GT 5 door man:
Basic price = £22960
Met paint = £500
2 zone A/C = £400
(17" wheels, alcant seats, SD nav, parking sensors, fogs, mirror pack, mats - all standard)
Total = £23860

For the SE 5 door man:
Basic price = £19645
17" Madrid alloy wheels = £580
Met paint = £500
Carpet mats = £80
2 zone A/C = £400
Front fogs = £240
Mirror pack = £95
SD nav = £735
Parking sensors = £445
Total = £22720

So the GT is £1140 more expensive, for 18bhp more and Alcantara seats.

[Evil Dan]

Yes I did, and no they don't.

For the GT 5 door man:
Basic price = £22960
Met paint = £500
2 zone A/C = £400
(17" wheels, alcant seats, SD nav, parking sensors, fogs, mirror pack, mats - all standard)
Total = £23860

For the SE 5 door man:
Basic price = £19645
17" Madrid alloy wheels = £580
Met paint = £500
Carpet mats = £80
2 zone A/C = £400
Front fogs = £240
Mirror pack = £95
SD nav = £735
Parking sensors = £445
Total = £22720

So the GT is £1140 more expensive, for 18bhp more and Alcantara seats.

You are missing the rear tinted glass at £240 too. That brings it down to £900.
For that £900 you get ambient LED cabin lighting, sport suspension, sport seats and GT styling features. It all depends whether those things are important to you.

[cs2009]

You are missing the rear tinted glass at £240 too. That brings it down to £900.
For that £900 you get ambient LED cabin lighting, sport suspension, sport seats and GT styling features. It all depends whether those things are important to you.

I wouldn't bother with the rear tinted glass - I have on my car and it just looks naff and chavvy. If I bought the GT, I would deselect sports suspension too - it ruins the ride. What styling features ?

Actually I wouldn't bother with sat nav either. I don't currently have a sat nav, or have ever felt the need for one. Just read the map ! So that puts the difference up to almost £2000.

[Pommyboi]

Sounds like you wouldn't benefit from a GT but I guess it's all down to personal choice, taste and budgets in the end.

I love the slightly tinted windows against the white paint on my car - not too dark and chavy like after market jobs can be. The GT (with it's more sophisticated suspension) hardly has a poor ride. I've just done another 3hr drive through the lovely rain and snow as I have done a number of times since getting the car and I'm pleased that I no longer arrive home tired like I did in my Audi. If I went back to an Audi again I would deselect the sport suspension as I had it on my last car, it is nothing like the ride and handling on the Golf GT which is nicely compliant.

With the discount I got on the car there was a difference of £450 between a new order SE or the GT I purchased so it seems good value. I also prefer the chrome styling features and fog lights on the front of the GT which stops the Golf looking like a totally dull and shapeless blob.

[yesnaby]

Discover Pro sat nav is great. I too hate tinted glass, but it is standard on the GT, I had a quote to remove it and fit clear glass of £1100. Can't see why you cannot specify clear glass as an option. Sports suspension is also standard, not optional.

[h5djr]

Sounds like you wouldn't benefit from a GT but I guess it's all down to personal choice, taste and budgets in the end.

I love the slightly tinted windows against the white paint on my car - not too dark and chavy like after market jobs can be. The GT (with it's more sophisticated suspension) hardly has a poor ride. I've just done another 3hr drive through the lovely rain and snow as I have done a number of times since getting the car and I'm pleased that I no longer arrive home tired like I did in my Audi. If I went back to an Audi again I would deselect the sport suspension as I had it on my last car, it is nothing like the ride and handling on the Golf GT which is nicely compliant.

With the discount I got on the car there was a difference of £450 between a new order SE or the GT I purchased so it seems good value. I also prefer the chrome styling features and fog lights on the front of the GT which stops the Golf looking like a totally dull and shapeless blob.

Your mention of the better ride of the new Golf GT than your previous Audi. I currently have an Audi A3 2.0 TDI Sportback in SE trim. I have driven several similar A3s but Sport models and the suspension has always seemed a bit harsh to me. With mine I have driven almost no stop across France and into Germany for around 8 hrs and got out feeling fine. I don't think that would be the case with the A3 sport suspension. Perhaps the suspension on the new A3 is better as it's the same as on the new Golf.

[cs2009]

Sports suspension is also standard, not optional.

Yes you're right, you can't deselect it. Carbuzz were fairly damning about the sports suspension.
I have ACC in my current car, and even in 'comfort' mode the ride is terrible.

[cs2009]

The GT with it's more sophisticated suspension......

Both the 1.4 SE and GT have the same design of multi-link suspension.
Only models below 122PS have torsion beam.

[james_tiger_woo]

The mk6 ride in GT is pretty hard - spec 18s for a really rubbish ride on rural roads like where I live.....

[a8toa6convert]

Yes I did, and no they don't.

For the GT 5 door man:
Basic price = £22960
Met paint = £500
2 zone A/C = £400
(17" wheels, alcant seats, SD nav, parking sensors, fogs, mirror pack, mats - all standard)
Total = £23860

For the SE 5 door man:
Basic price = £19645
17" Madrid alloy wheels = £580
Met paint = £500
Carpet mats = £80
2 zone A/C = £400
Front fogs = £240
Mirror pack = £95
SD nav = £735
Parking sensors = £445
Total = £22720

So the GT is £1140 more expensive, for 18bhp more and Alcantara seats.

The fact the GT still works out more expensive in your example is not due to the trim/equipment levels at all, it's due to the fact that it has a totally different and far more advanced, powerful and economical engine than the one you picked for the SE, an engine which has little in common with the SE one apart from its nominal 1.4 litre displacement.

Compare prices of a 2.0d SE and GT if you want to see the price of jumping to GT spec: it's less than the cost of those 4 options alone, as I said.....

[cs2009]

The fact the GT still works out more expensive in your example is not due to the trim/equipment levels at all, it's due to the fact that it has a totally different and far more advanced, powerful and economical engine than the one you picked for the SE, an engine which has little in common with the SE one apart from its nominal 1.4 litre displacement.

Nonsense.

The two engines are identical, except that the GT version has the valve disabling motors fitted to cylinders 2 and 3. The economy of the two cars is very similar and the GT version gives just 18bhp more. Not 'far more powerful' at all ! The GT is overpriced for what it is.

[DaveB666]

The GT is overpriced for what it is.

You're comparing list prices though - who pays list anyway?

[Evil Dan]

19455
Nonsense.

The two engines are identical, except that the GT version has the valve disabling motors fitted to cylinders 2 and 3. The economy of the two cars is very similar and the GT version gives just 18bhp more. Not 'far more powerful' at all ! The GT is overpriced for what it is.

You are wrong. On the continent there is a 140bhp 1.4 without ACT which is the same engine minus the ACT. The 122bhp engine is not the same as the 140bhp. If they were why would they limit the power in the 122bhp?

We get that you don't want the GT - that's fine. Why do you need to keep pushing things with statements that are patently untrue?

[james_tiger_woo]

Nonsense.

The two engines are identical, except that the GT version has the valve disabling motors fitted to cylinders 2 and 3. The economy of the two cars is very similar and the GT version gives just 18bhp more. Not 'far more powerful' at all ! The GT is overpriced for what it is.

Hang on hang on - 18bhp more? We talking the diesels here as the 1.6 has 105 and the 2.0 (GT) has 150....

[cs2009]

You are wrong. On the continent there is a 140bhp 1.4 without ACT which is the same engine minus the ACT. The 122bhp engine is not the same as the 140bhp. If they were why would they limit the power in the 122bhp?

It is the same basic design.
The GT version has more power in 4 cyl mode simply because the turbo boost is a bit higher. Probably just a different map too. I am also very skeptical about the economy figures for the ACT engine. I'm sure the testing has been contrived so that it spends a lot of time in 2 cyl mode. Some reviews have also commented that it feels gutless and laggy in 2 cyl mode.

VW have set the engine powers to satisfy the marketing men and differentiate the two models, so the gullible will be tempted by the more expensive car. They have succeeded apparently !

[Evil Dan]

It is the same basic design.
The GT version has more power in 4 cyl mode simply because the turbo boost is a bit higher. Probably just a different map too. I am also very skeptical about the economy figures for the ACT engine. I'm sure the testing has been contrived so that it spends a lot of time in 2 cyl mode. Some reviews have also commented that it feels gutless and laggy in 2 cyl mode.

VW have set the engine powers to satisfy the marketing men and differentiate the two models, so the gullible will be tempted by the more expensive car. They have succeeded apparently !

Odd. All reviews I have seen have said that you cannot tell when it drops from 4 to 2 cylinder and back. Do you have a link to one of these reviews?

If an engine has different 0-60 speed, different max torque, different max speed then it is not the same engine!

EDIT: It will be in 2 cylinder mode only when your speed is fairly stable. Why would it feel "gutless"?

[gamichea]

Nonsense.

The two engines are identical, except that the GT version has the valve disabling motors fitted to cylinders 2 and 3. The economy of the two cars is very similar and the GT version gives just 18bhp more. Not 'far more powerful' at all ! The GT is overpriced for what it is.

"just" 18 bhp equates to a not inconsiderable 14.75% increase. Much more telling is the increase in torque, the other measurement of 'power' which is up by 25% from 148 lbft to 185. Those are facts which should not be ignored, unlike opinions which can be.

[cs2009]

Those are facts which should not be ignored

As is the £1200 difference in price.

The paper performance figures mean very little in practice. My engine is 158bhp and 177ftlb for example, yet feels much weaker than a Mk.6 122PS Golf in normal driving (1500 to 3500rpm).

[james_tiger_woo]

Back on topic - 1.6 or 2.0 diesel? :)

[gamichea]

As is the £1200 difference in price.

Can't disagree, but its meaningless so falls in the same category as opinions.

[gamichea]

Back on topic - 1.6 or 2.0 diesel? :)

2.0 every time for me, but I don't have company car considerations to take account of.

[DaveB666]

2.0 every time for me, but I don't have company car considerations to take account of.

As a company car owner, and someone who's getting a 2.0 GT this time (over a 1.6se mk6 last time) the difference equates to around £35 a month extra (give or take) for the 2.0 over the 1.6.

IMO, for the enjoyment the 2.0 will bring, I'm happy I'm getting the larger engine.

[james_tiger_woo]

Don't bring enjoyment in to this. Please.

I will have the 1.6 as a company car. The 2.0 would be lovely, but the increase would be £40 a month and I'm trying to get a cheaper car than my current Golf.

[cs2009]

Can't disagree, but its meaningless so falls in the same category as opinions.

The £1200 is a factual difference, so is hardly meaningless or subject to opinion.
However, if the typical discount on the GT is more than that on the SE, then that implies the dealers expect the GT to depreciate more. (That is certainly the case with my car).

[DaveB666]

Don't bring enjoyment in to this. Please.

Why not? If you're bringing budget into it why can't I mention enjoyment? The increase powered and torque will bring a more enjoyable drive, which for a tenner a week is, IMO, a bargain.

[james_tiger_woo]

Why not? If you're bringing budget into it why can't I mention enjoyment? The increase powered and torque will bring a more enjoyable drive, which for a tenner a week is, IMO, a bargain.

Because I'll then choose to forget about sensible, "as high economy as I can get" and choose the 2.0 150ps model instead....

[Pommyboi]

Because I'll then choose to forget about sensible, "as high economy as I can get" and choose the 2.0 150ps model instead....

If you're buying a golf no one would say you forgot to be sensible what ever you got unless it was a Golf R.

Why don't you drive them back to back and compare? I wonder what real world economy people are getting in the Mk7 1.6 diesel?

[a8toa6convert]

It is the same basic design.
The GT version has more power in 4 cyl mode simply because the turbo boost is a bit higher. Probably just a different map too. I am also very skeptical about the economy figures for the ACT engine. I'm sure the testing has been contrived so that it spends a lot of time in 2 cyl mode. Some reviews have also commented that it feels gutless and laggy in 2 cyl mode.

VW have set the engine powers to satisfy the marketing men and differentiate the two models, so the gullible will be tempted by the more expensive car. They have succeeded apparently !

"Nonsense", "gullible", blah blah blah. Where's all this macho stuff and the little digs coming from ? Don't get it in the A6 section here, don't get it on the S-Max forum, didn't get it on the A8 forum.

[J400uk]

The £1200 is a factual difference, so is hardly meaningless or subject to opinion.
However, if the typical discount on the GT is more than that on the SE, then that implies the dealers expect the GT to depreciate more. (That is certainly the case with my car).

GT gets a bigger discount as they have more margin to pay with. Would have thought that's fairly obvious. If all you care about is residuals then the 1.2 S is the one to go for as its the cheapest!

[cs2009]

GT gets a bigger discount as they have more margin to pay with. Would have thought that's fairly obvious. If all you care about is residuals then the 1.2 S is the one to go for as its the cheapest!

I don't really have any axe to grind either way, as I won't be buying a new Golf (either model). I already have the Mk.6 GT, as shown in my signature, so the new GT was an obvious car to consider when changing. Checking out the comparison with the SE, albeit when spec'd up, also seemed like a sensible move.

[iallen1@btinter]

I had a run in the car this morning, was nothing special really the touch screen was good and you could tell it was 100kg lighter it was faster than my 1.6tdi mk6, but the vents looked like they were cut out from a black 4.99 tool box ive never seen anything like it, the door hinges are flimsy as well and the button to adjust the door mirrors is fiddly.
The indicator stalks look like there out of a lucky bag, the rear ceiling light housing was hanging out the headlining, dont think i will be rushing for one at the moment not until there are bigger discounts

[steve67]

I had a run in the car this morning, was nothing special really the touch screen was good and you could tell it was 100kg lighter it was faster than my 1.6tdi mk6, but the vents looked like they were cut out from a black 4.99 tool box ive never seen anything like it, the door hinges are flimsy as well and the button to adjust the door mirrors is fiddly.
The indicator stalks look like there out of a lucky bag, the rear ceiling light housing was hanging out the headlining, dont think i will be rushing for one at the moment not until there are bigger discounts


I agree,

test drove the mk7 a few weeks ago, doesn't make me want to swap just yet..

[steve67]

Don't bring enjoyment in to this. Please.

I will have the 1.6 as a company car. The 2.0 would be lovely, but the increase would be £40 a month and I'm trying to get a cheaper car than my current Golf.


have you looked at the new seat leon, not got the badge but still basically a golf.

[james_tiger_woo]

I like how the new Leon looks - it's just not on our car list

The Golf is definitely out. It's just not as nice as the mk6.

[steve67]

I like how the new Leon looks - it's just not on our car list

The Golf is definitely out. It's just not as nice as the mk6.

vw are still selling the mk6, bet there are some great deals about, maybe worth exploring?

[james_tiger_woo]

It's got to be a car from our company's car list - the mk6 isnt on it unfortunately.

[iallen1@btinter]

I did sit in the Audi A3 as well and the dash was a cut above the Golf although its a bit more expensive, theres so much more the Golf could of done, there isnt much different in preformance figures to say its 100kg lighter, to say they have all these so called design boffins at vw the vents still reflect bad on the windscreen, as the mk 6 does.

[h5djr]

I did sit in the Audi A3 as well and the dash was a cut above the Golf although its a bit more expensive, theres so much more the Golf could of done, there isnt much different in preformance figures to say its 100kg lighter, to say they have all these so called design boffins at vw the vents still reflect bad on the windscreen, as the mk 6 does.
I currently driving my 8th A3 and the vents also reflect in the windscreen. They have done ever since they changed the black surround to a shiny one. Personally I prefer the dashboard in the new Golf to than in the new A3, so much so that, although my last 8 cars have been A3s, number nine is more likely to be a Golf, possibly even a Golf Estate. Based on my current spec it would also works out around £2k cheaper which is relevant as I buy my own cars.

[andyCYM]

James, I've done 400 miles in my new Mk7 today and guess what - door mirrors clean and dry! Sure you can't be tempted? The 1.4 ACT is a cracker if budget stretches to it, feels as quick as my old GTD.

[james_tiger_woo]

Heh heh - I'm pleased they sorted that, it was a real bugbear of mine - the a3 order is in though :)