|
|
Sept 9, 2009 10:59:36 GMT
|
I'd get a mk3 polo with Mpi, GT ideally.
I've had a 1.0 spi, 1.3 spi and a GT. I found the GT to be just as good on fuel as the previous two, but miles faster and more refined.
I'm currently thinking of getting another GT, mine was better on juice than my mk3 Tdi in traffic, and heaps more fun to drive!
Joe
|
|
|
|
|
MPG - golf 1300 mk2retrowagen1234
@GUEST
|
Sept 9, 2009 11:12:59 GMT
|
yeah the gt lumps are damn good for what they are.... its when you move up to g40 the fuel issues get worse.... realy worse lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 9, 2009 11:38:08 GMT
|
I can highly recommend the car if its in reasonable condition
I have a Mk2 1300 4 speed best i have done on a full tank of juice was 400 miles doing 70 miles a day to work n back a bit of motorway and A roads regularly get 350+ miles to a full tank and I believe its about 40 liters top to bottom.
Mine has no mods apart from a set of 14" BBS rims the engine is totally standard even the original p'berg carb, has had a few problems but took the carb off and used a whole can of carb cleaner on it. The only other things I have done to the car is put a new fuel pump and fuel filter and usual service of plugs oil / filter.
|
|
|
|
g40jon
Posted a lot
Posts: 2,569
|
|
Sept 9, 2009 11:53:52 GMT
|
yeah the gt lumps are damn good for what they are.... its when you move up to g40 the fuel issues get worse.... realy worse lol how so? i don't find much difference between my g40 and gt, both return around 40 mpg. the gt is slightly better on fuel, but not by much
|
|
|
|
|
MPG - golf 1300 mk2retrowagen1234
@GUEST
|
Sept 9, 2009 12:29:32 GMT
|
yeah the gt lumps are damn good for what they are.... its when you move up to g40 the fuel issues get worse.... realy worse lol how so? I don't find much difference between my g40 and gt, both return around 40 mpg. the gt is slightly better on fuel, but not by much my g40 was worse on fuel than my 1.8 santana, my gt wasnt far off that... (only had it three days and noticed it) i guess its how ya drive em, but they were both driven quite normally but round town rathr than mway work.... the gt was better, its a known fact that charged engines drink more fuel... they simply have to
|
|
|
|
g40jon
Posted a lot
Posts: 2,569
|
|
Sept 10, 2009 8:05:39 GMT
|
well heres the official figures for the charged engine Fuel Consumption: Official govt. figs, mpg/ltr per 100 km Urban cycle 31.4/9.0 at constant 56 mph (90 km/h) 51.4/ 5.5 at constant 75 mph (120 km/h) 37.2/7.6 taken from here www.polog40.co.uk/article_origspec.phpjust goes to show that an under-powered engine can be worse on fuel than one that has more than enough power for the car its fitted too. but back to the question of 1.3 golfs, i'd be very reluctant to drive a golf fitted with the 1300 carbed engine. its slow in a polo, so its gonna be deadly slow in a golf! if you wanted to do some work and sling a polo gt engine in the golf, i reckon that would be reasonable, as the mk2 is only 100kg or so heavier than a polo, so it wouldnt be dog slow and would still give good mpg figures especially mated to an 8p gearbox (has longer ratios than the gt box
|
|
|
|
|
MPG - golf 1300 mk2retrowagen1234
@GUEST
|
Sept 10, 2009 9:26:54 GMT
|
personally if its just a daily hack, id leave messing with it too much except maybe for a 5 speed, the 1300 would see you up to a ton ok if you so wished, and they arnt too bad from a standing....
the 1300 was never a slow engine in a polo. but it wasnt fast, just nippy like a small hatch should be.... youll find it slower than most golfs obviously but don't forget they were fitting smaller engines than the 1300 in the mk1 golfs....
|
|
|
|