Why do we prefer Mk1s?

Interesting thread about Mk2s ('bigger & better things') - I've got a Sept 89 Mk2 16v small bumper and I always thought that as an all round car to use and drive it was better than the Mk1.
Bigger, smoother, quieter, comfier, faster, better brakes, good economy, looked as good, handling a bit softer but grip just as good.
BUT when I stopped driving to work 2 years ago it was the Mk2 I put into storage. It needed some work, but it's the Mk1 I can't do without.
In reality, it's that the Mk1 is a bit more fun and involving but I've got a theory …….. it's that with some cars - and bikes- the intangibles start to take over.
The feeling of having something special, the other owners, the looks you get. We might have more in common with Harley and Morgan owners than we think……….

It was the first 'Hot Hatch' that started the whole thing, plus it's now regarded has a pure classic. I think back in the 80's it wasn't really looked at in that way and most people would have prefered the MK2 if they had the choice because of the things you mentioned.

For me I have always loved the way a Mk1 looks over any other VW out there and if I won the lotto I would still have a Mk1.  

well said, i have had 5 of the little chappys now, loved my mk2 Rallye, and my current Highline VR6 but people seriously look at a Mk1, whilst out in my sportline yesterday i saw untold people gawping as i passed them in cars and pedestrians and i even caught a 20 something couple turn around to have another glance!! now thats porsche or Ferrari territory,  the Mk1 definately has the same appeal to so many and it is still the best looking golf in my book

For me its a bit of everything, driving & fixing old cars, the Iconic
status of the MK, and more than anything really is watching peoples
faces when you pull up somewhere, or the comments……….
I had one of those, wish I hadnt sold it, etc.. etc..  .

Personally, I think the MK2 has got a few years to go before it
gets the same recognition, Ime not knocking them, if I had the space
I would have one tomorrow  :mrgreen:

Regards

Dibbler

I agree on the fact that the Mk2 is overall a better car but then it should be shouldnt it,its basically a bigger version of the MK1 that the VW Engineers have had time to iron out problems and evolve a better all round car over the period the Mk1 was in production.
I loved driving my Mk2 but you just cant beat the allround appeal of the original Gti,i always feel like i`m driving a rollerskate with an engine on it as it feels so flimsy but when i blast in or out of corners or see the look on people`s faces you just have to have a Mk1,the real Mcoy i reckon

looks, simplicity, originality.

i've said it before… i was in the market for a fun car to use daily. always wanted a convertable. wanted something i could work on. needed to be cheap(ish). fords don't do it for me (except really expensive ones - cosworths / rally prep mk2 escort / lotus cortina… ah.. not really ford fords!)…

the mk1 came out when i was a child… memories etc…

now i've got one, i love it… even when the gauges only work when they want to!!!

The "work on it yourself" aspect appeals to me too, i am quite adept at mechanical work etc, but i love tinkering with the mk1, changing and renewing parts is very easy to do and everything is so accessible on a mk1, even stuff like water pumps, gearbox gaskets, cam and alternator are all easy to get at, some new cars you gotta take half the front off and fight with clips and covers for an hour just to change a cam belt or headlight bulb! new cars will never have the same appeal for me as its all ecu this and sensor that etc etc.....basic mechanicals work, the German engineers proved that in 1974 thats why the imo over engineered mk1 is still alive today and it truly is a "peoples car"

The Mk 1 just has so much more character than a Mk2….the concave rear window, "shark nose" front, exhaust note.  It's got styling which stands out as "classic" today- unlike the much blander Mk2 which still blends in pretty much with the general motoring scene.  The Mk1 is also crisper to drive,with much more communication from the road (albeit at the expence of some refinement- especially at high speed). The Mk 1 has the ability to make every trip enjoyable.

And I only drive a 1500 auto!!

Cheers

M
______________________________
'82 GL auto
'77 LT28 Autostrada camper

I'd agree with all that has been said already. I drive a mk2 only cause it's the next best thing and less hassle. Ultimately i'd prefer to have a mk1 but due to their rarety and my budget (insurance, parts and reliability) i opted for the next best thing. The proof is that i signed up here and looked at mk1's for months before i considered mk2's.

Because it's too gorgeous for words.  

this reminds me of the conversation I had with mr gti before he got his white mk1.

You here a lot of people say that the mk2 is a lot more capable dynamically than the mk1 in standard trim. It isn't. What it is, is easier to drive quickly, it won't bite back like a mk1 can so the driver has more confidence.

A properly set up mk1 on the right hands will always be quicker and dynamically superior. That to me is what the mk1 has over the mk2. My first mk1 was a 1.6 with a pretty ropey engine and it would stay with a late mk2 16v driven by a driver of simlar ability around country lanes, ok a straight main road was no contest.

Strangely, this is why I have a mk2, I value my driving licience.

Have to disagree, the Mk2 is dynamically a better car. The improved braking performance alone gives it better back to back laptimes (as driven in Autocar comparison test of the GTis).

dubboy said

Have to disagree, the Mk2 is dynamically a better car. The improved braking performance alone gives it better back to back laptimes (as driven in Autocar comparison test of the GTis).

Surely this would depend on the track completely. I would guess the mk1 would be quicker on some tracks and the mk2 on others. It may have better brakes but it's the speeds the car can carry round the corners. The mk2 is considerably heavier.

dubboy said

Have to disagree, the Mk2 is dynamically a better car. The improved braking performance alone gives it better back to back laptimes (as driven in Autocar comparison test of the GTis).

I'm assuming the test was done with right hand drive Mk1? If it was left hand drive the brakes would be better cos of the servo situ?

kins said

dubboy said

Have to disagree, the Mk2 is dynamically a better car. The improved braking performance alone gives it better back to back laptimes (as driven in Autocar comparison test of the GTis).

Surely this would depend on the track completely. I would guess the mk1 would be quicker on some tracks and the mk2 on others. It may have better brakes but it's the speeds the car can carry round the corners. The mk2 is considerably heavier.

The centre of gravity is more important then the mass itself, and I don't think there is much difference between the Mk1 and Mk2. One of the biggest factors for cornering speed is tyre size, and Mk2s have larger tyres producing more grip. This also helps reducing the braking distance.

dubboy said

kins said

dubboy said

Have to disagree, the Mk2 is dynamically a better car. The improved braking performance alone gives it better back to back laptimes (as driven in Autocar comparison test of the GTis).

Surely this would depend on the track completely. I would guess the mk1 would be quicker on some tracks and the mk2 on others. It may have better brakes but it's the speeds the car can carry round the corners. The mk2 is considerably heavier.

The centre of gravity is more important then the mass itself, and I don't think there is much difference between the Mk1 and Mk2. One of the biggest factors for cornering speed is tyre size, and Mk2s have larger tyres producing more grip. This also helps reducing the braking distance.

I agree tyres have a lot to do with grip. It not necessarily the case the wider the tyre the more grip though.

The tyre on the left could be a mk1 say and the mk2 on the right….




I got this from this website, check it out this page it's class:
http://www.carbibles.com/tyre_bible.html
Scroll down to "Fat or thin? The question of contact patches and grip."
A very interesting read. :read:

Would you say it's fairest to match a Campaign against the first mk2 gti 8v? The engineers have had time to evolve it and it?s the next gti on really. I know where I'd put my cash.

I think low mass is equally important if not more so as C.O.G. On a race track power to weight is extremely important. A car with less mass is easier to accelerate and decelerate. Reducing unsprung mass also helps how a car handles dynamically. Granted cars with a nicely balanced, centre of gravity aalways have the potential to handle well but if the mass is significantly greater it makes it difficult to be faster. I think a mk1 should be able to brake later and also carry more speed into a corner than a mk2.

Or here is a good idea stick 15's on your mk1 with quality tyres and lower its belly. Well I thought it was a good idea :mrgreen:

With regards to cornering, the centre of gravity is very important as this changes the polar moment of inertia.

The more 'centred' a car is the easier it is to change direction and therefore get round a corner, unfortunately it means that the car will just want to keep going and will tend to spin off if you overdo it.
The mass of a car will not affect it's moment of inertia.

Think about when you spin on an office chair, tuck your legs in to bring in your centre of gravity and you go faster with no difference to your weight.












(P.S we know what you're all going to do first thing Monday :wink

Due to more connection with the road (for the driver) on a Mk1- sharper set-up (due in part to lighter weight- which helps with pick-up response) - it's possible to have more fun at lower speeds with a Mk1 as opposed to the Mk2. You don't necessarly need all the go-faster goodies….low profile tyres,uprated suspension,modified engine etc to bring a big grin to the face!

Modern cars generally have much more power and grip than the average Mk 1, but the speeds needed to create the same level of driver stimulation  are much greater. Something may have been lost in the quest for greater refinement?

The Mk 2 I owned a few years back drove a bit like a tank- with less steering feel (due in part to p.a.s), felt slow to get going (despite 1.8 carb engine) and the grey interior was dull dull dull!  I'll take the Mk 1 anyday.

Cheers, M

dose anyone know the diffrent wights of a mk2 gti from the first and best A reg gti 8v sportline with no extras and an 1992 J or K reg runout 8v with pas ew more sound profing plus some had air con as my B reg was always faster than my J reg and felt a lot lighter
mk2 are great and always lead to a dabble with a mk1 at some point and will be a classic one day with the mk1 especially the rare A reg and early B-D regs and 16v small bumpers g60 rallye and rare motorsport cars of the 80s which i hav one