Page 3 of 3
Re: 1.4 160PS vs 2.0 210PS
Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:10 pm
by tartangti
Had a mk5 Golf GTI so would have felt like the car would be a drop in performance from what I was used to if I went for the 160bhp 1.4. That and, as others have said, all the extra options on the GT pack (18s,Climate control,fogs, tints) are boxes that I would have ticked so given that it wasn't much more expensive for the 2.0 over the 1.4. I only do 5k miles a years and im over 30 so insurance/economy wasn't a big factor for me either though I guess depending on your circumstances the extra 5 mpg and being several insurance groups higher could easily be a deal breaker.
Re: 1.4 160PS vs 2.0 210PS
Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:13 pm
by andres
1.4 is ok, until you have driven the 2.0
Re: 1.4 160PS vs 2.0 210PS
Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:39 pm
by ZephyR
andres wrote:1.4 is ok, until you have driven the 2.0
2.0 is OK until you have driven the R.
R is OK until you have driven a M3.
M3 is OK until you have driven a Lamo.
Errrr .... where does this stop ?
Re: 1.4 160PS vs 2.0 210PS
Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:59 pm
by rhcp128
Well, I suppose nothing quite like launching in space shuttle
Re: 1.4 160PS vs 2.0 210PS
Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 4:19 pm
by Tallguy
The bottom line to this post surely is that the various Scirocco models (petrol + diesel) are all good and you choose the one that best meets your needs/pocket.
I have to say one or two 2.0 litre GT owners have displayed a bit of arrogance in their comments but as others have mentioned if you were really loaded you would not buy a mass produced car!
Re: 1.4 160PS vs 2.0 210PS
Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 7:46 am
by The Darkness
I honestly think I'd have been happy with either, but I fancied the GT spec and after that there wasnt a lot in it price wise between the 1.4 and the 2L. Was wary about the economy but its been amazing; better than the 1.8 diesel mondeo it replaced. I guess petrol engines have come a long way in 7 years.....