Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





VW Golf vs Honda Civic

1212224262733

Comments

  • I also agree that lighter cars with capable engines (i.e. Honda HatchBack and/or Civic EX) can and will outperform a heavier car with soft suspension ( VW GTI 1.8/ VR6) on a track with alot of twisties, that's a given in my opinion. I didn't upgrade any of my previous VW's to race on the track and I'm not going to upgrade my current VW for that etheir. I know VW's don't do well at autoX's with lots of twisties because they're way to freakin heavy. I just wanted something that was enjoyable to drive, and something that would surprise the heck out of the occasional 5.0 or LT1. (stock) Never could beat Camero's or Firebirds. Sport Compact did a track comparison between a Type R and a 2000 Mustang GT. I can't remember which track they used but to their surprise the Stang beat the Type R. When they took a look at the lap times they realized that the Type R was always ahead on the twisties, but on the big long straight away the Stang killed the R. That's the way I feel about VW's and Honda's when it comes to performance to sum it all up.. Besides I'll save the track for my bike when I get the nerves to get out there. Stock tires or not that's an awsome track weapon.
  • I looked at the new '01 car classification for SCCA and it looks like my Turbo Beetle will be in GS class against the GSR. They moved both the Type-R and TT out of GS class. I don't plan on running slicks, but the stock 215/45ZR17 Pilot Sports should stick fine. I can't wait to see how it handles on the track.

    As for the Mustang GT and Type-R article. It is one of the best I have ever read in SCC. I love how they tried not to praise the Mustang GT for what it is. I was also surprised they compared a 25k Integra against a 22k Mustang. Why didn’t they use a 22k GSR against a 22k Mustang? That would have been a great story. I’m sure Hot Rod will do the same thing. Lets test a 25k Type-R against a 50k+ CobraR. Or better yet a CobraR against a NSX? When is Edmunds (or somebody) going to do a comparison test putting the ’01 GTI GLS 1.8T with 17’s against a GSR coupe? That is what we all really want to see. :)
  • I looked at the new 01 car classification for SCCA and it looks like my Turbo Beetle will be in GS class against the GSR. They moved both the Type-R and TT out of GS class. I don't plan on running slicks, but the stock 215/45ZR17 Pilot Sports should stick fine. I can't wait to see how it handles on the track.

    As for the Mustang GT and Type-R article. It is one of the best I have ever read in SCC. I love how they tried not to praise the Mustang GT for what it is. I was also surprised they compared a 25k Integra against a 22k Mustang. Why not compare a 22k GSR against a 22k Mustang? That would have been a great story. Im sure Hot Rod will do the same thing. Lets test a 25k Type-R against a 50k+ Cobra R. Or better yet a Cobra R against a NSX? When is Edmunds (or somebody) going to do a comparison test putting the 01 GTI GLS 1.8T with 17s against a 01 GSR coupe? That is what we all really want to see. :)
  • What A great discussion! It really points out the difficulty of getting a decent HBK in the states. I have owned Japanese cars for about 25 years. The last four being all Honda (81 Prelude SI, 81 Accord HBk, 88 Accord LXI Coupe, 89 Civic SI HBk) When I look back I believe I owned these cars for fuel economy, handling and recently with the Honda, reliability (each Honda easily going at least 125k with no problems). I now own a 2000 VW Golf Hbk 2.0L. Before I purchased the VW I had decided on another Civic SI Hbk. Hbks as I see it are the most practical shape for a small car. But Honda's decision to discontinue this line, bland Honda styling and rust prone sheet metal forced me to look at other makes. (e.g. Ford Focus ugh!). I was hesitant to buy a VW because the dismal reliability of my friends VWs. I remember when VW bugs would burst into flames, strange electrical problems, Rabbits that would not start. But I really loved the clean lines, great options on the GLS and solid feel of the MKIV. However, now that I've owned the Golf for a few months I find myself longing for the performance and handling of the Civic SI. The much larger engine of the Golf 2.0L vs 1.6L) does not produce the HP it should. The excessive body roll of the Golf on corners makes it feel more like a minivan. Should I take the huge financial hit and trade it in a for Golf Turbo with sport suspension? Maybe I'll just turn up the monsoon sound system and live with it!
  • I was thinking the same thing when I first saw the article on the front of SCC. I thought to myself, " they should be comparing a Mustang GT to an Integra GSR, or since the Type R is a special production race version of the GSR they should also use the SVT version of the Stang being the Cobra". That would of been funny though.
    Tommyhatchback, it's pretty easy to get some extra ponies out of that 2.0 of yours, but unless you want to spend the extra money to turbo it I would think about trading it in for the 1.8t instead. I had a 94 four banger that I invested alot of money in trying to get more power out of. To me the MK3 model had a better power to weight ratio compared to the MK4. The car tipped the scales at 2400 lbs. I purchased a European spec engine from German parts & Restoration out of CA for about 2k which out of the box produced 140hp and 138 ft/lbs of torque to the front wheels. You could do the same with your current car but you'd still be slower than the current 1.8t because of all the added weight the MK4 has. Not to mention that turbos also respond better to intake, exhaust, and chipping if you have that kind of stuff in mind.
  • Sell it and get the turbo. Maybe you can find a used '00 and take less of a hit.
  • only1harryonly1harry Posts: 1,136
    I don't really think that was an unfair comparison just because the ITR is $2K more than the GT. Don't forget the GT has 60+HP more than the ITR and it's a V8 vs. a lowly 1.8L 4cyl. V8 vs a I4 is and 60hp difference is what makes the comparison unfair. Still the ITR managed to beat in some categories.
    Wordman93: Do you really think it's fair comparing a 260hp GT against a 170hp GSR?? The price may be the same but they 're 2 different cars.
  • Now this I know plenty about......the NSX is my dream car. Please....please...please don't make the mistake of even trying to compare any CobraR to an NSX. I understand you know your share of cars through experiance and other factors, but you may want to do some reading on the NSX. They are incredible cars and will give any car under 100K a run for their money. Ivé seen many race and let me tell you.....it takes an incredible car to outpreform these things( and that car certainly isn't any mustang of any kind. I honostly believe it will beat a Viper on a curvy track. Japanese cars are known for being able to perform so well with little horse power due to the way they are built. So......try putting......say........750 hp on a japanese engine( many models vary). Along with an incredibly light body with an aerodynamic structure from h*ll, and you have a god among cars. And yes, my friend, I have seen plenty of GSR beat mustangs of the same price and class! Hondas and Acuras along with other imports perform based on how well you treat them and the quality of the products you put on them to upgrade them. With the right combination of the right material that you put on these things, you could have an incredible car, that will rightfully surprise and humble highhorse-powered vehicles(Mustangs,Camaro,etc.)
  • I was only trying to point out the fact that a Mustang GT is no super car in it's class while the Type R is. Look at the differences between a GSR and the ITR, then look at the differences between the Stang GT and the Stang SVT. I understand the whole comparison for the sake of the price, but not really for the performance aspect. The only thing the Mustang has going for it is it's 4.6 SOHC engine. That's really not a high performance V8, compared to the F-Bodies 5.7 V8's, yet the Cobra having basically the same 4.6 only with DOHC(and okay maybe some different bolt on objects) produces more power than the non ram air versions of the F-Bodies. I think that's good technology which is proble why the SVT's engine was choosen as one of ten best engines in 98 and 99 by JD Powers.
    I still wouldn't get a Mustang GT over the Type R though.
  • Check this out:

    http://Edmunds.com/road tests/first drive/2000/ford/mustang/43944/index.html


    I think the $55,000 CorbaR will beat a NIX on a track. A Z06 Corvette, BMW M3, and Viper GAS also will run with a NIX. Personally I would pick the new M3. At $47k (not 100% sure of the price, but at least 90% sure)it is a bargain. The M3 is an all out performance car that doubles as a German luxury coupe.


    As for comparing the Mustang CT to a GAR. I think it is fair. Honda people always brag about performance to anyone that buys anything different. The only performance that matters to me is how fast it will go on a road course. A stock Mustang CT in most cases will be faster then a stock GSR. A Type-R will stay close because of its great handling and even beat it on a tight course, but it cost 3k more then a GT. I'm sure 3k would buy you the handling to match the Type-R. Fords CobraR parts bin would be a great place to start. You can argue we are comparing a 4-cylinder to 8-cylinder until you are blue in the face. It is just a way of denying defeat. I used to always make that argument when I lost to Corvette or 911 Turbo. There are many ways to build a sports car. Which is right? (High-RPM low displacement, Medium RPM-Large Displacement, or Forced Induction? FWD, RWD, or AWD?) I can't say. I just try to look at things from the other guys point of view. I do believe that RWD and 6 or more cylinders is a good place to start building a sports car though.


    Check out this BMW M3 link. http://roadandtrack.com/RoadAndTrack/Article/jan2001/0101_bmw_m3_pg1.html

  • carladycarlady Posts: 35
    We are still talking about the VW Golf and the Honda Civic, are we not? ;-)

    carlady
    Host
    News & Views and Hatchbacks Message Boards
  • How does that sound Carlady?
  • Hello everyone,

    This is my first post on the Edmunds TownHall and just wanted to share a little fact with everyone. My '89 VW Golf GL just surpassed the 150,000 mile mark today and it looks like she'll probably be merrily chugging along past the 200,000 mile mark. : ) I have read that a lot of people have been complaining about the reliability of VW's and I felt the need to mention that not all vehicles are necessarily error prone. This is my second VW and it has not had any major problems the entire time I have owned the vehicle, which is 6 years now. My father bought it brand new in '89 and aside from minor repairs he never had any trouble with it either. Before this one I owned a 1985 VW Jetta Diesel (probably the exact opposite of a turbo diesel) that had over 250,000 miles on it when I sold it. The thing had slower acceleration then a riding lawnmower, but it sure kept going and going and going... Anyhoo, just wanted to share my personal experience with VW's. : )

    I'm looking at getting myself a brand-spanking-new 2001 VW Golf GTI GLS and was wondering if people feel the upgrade to the 17 inch wheels is a justifiable expense. As I've never had a car with anything even resembling extras I was wondering what people's input was on this. Is there really a noticeable difference between the 17's and the 15's?
  • carladycarlady Posts: 35
    Sounds like a fine topic to create! I look forward to joining you.

    carlady
    Host
    News & Views and Hatchbacks Message Boards
  • Get them. The 15's ride nice on the highway, but suck in the corners. My Beetle has the 17's and I love the way the make the car handle and look. The Wheels are only a $600 option, but you will have a tough time finding a car with them.
  • only1harryonly1harry Posts: 1,136
    I posted on this topic a few weeks ago on the Sports/coupes/convertibles board. I believe it doesn't include the GTI though. I think it's Impreza 2.5, GSR, Celica & Eclipse.
  • carladycarlady Posts: 35
    If there is already a topic in Coupes, Sports Cars & Convertibles, why not participate there rather than begin another topic here?

    carlady
    Host
    News & Views and Hatchbacks Message Boards
  • only1harryonly1harry Posts: 1,136
    that's what I was hinting "my lady" :-)
  • I'd like to echo yars007's comments on the reliability of older VWs. I have an '87 Golf GT that I bought in 1990 for $4,900 with 50,000 miles on the odometer. Other than routine maintenance (oil/filter changes, timing belts, battery, tires, etc.) the car has required few repairs in the past eleven years. Today, with more than 170,000 miles, it still handles great ('87 and '88 Golf GT models were based on the 1986 8-valve GTI model -- suspension/engine upgrades and all, plus 4-doors), and the car routinely gets 30-plus mpg, even in high-altitude, mountainous Colorado. The engine uses 1/2-quart of oil every 3,000 miles.

    Before owning the Golf I had a 1981 Civic. The Honda burned oil like crazy (soft valves), the engine's 3-barrel carburetor vapor-locked during summer months, and frequent brake repairs on the car were costly.

    Hondas are certainly more reliable today than 20 years ago, but I'll stick with my Golf. I prefer the way VWs shift, steer, handle and feel on the road. The only Japanese make I've driven that came close to the "feel" of a VW was a Mazda Protoge EX.
  • Hello all.
    I thinking of buying a VW GOLF,
    but I am unsure if I should get a CL or GL.
    I want a 2 door version though, I want it to be a little sporty.
    Unfortunately I don't have enough cash for a new one
    so I am geting a 1995.

    Can any one advise me on the GL or CL side of things... as in speed etc..?
Sign In or Register to comment.