Comments on: 2009 Volkswagen Golf MkVI specifications

By: Tony Sullivan

Tony Sullivan — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 11:38:45 +0000

I have a 2006 Golf Sportline auto with leather sport seats.
Very happy with all aspects apart from the leather which is light tan and does need regular cleaning.
Should I go for the current drive away offer and a GT sport petrol or wait for the new Mark VI?
Nothin wrong woth the car but thinking about equiy and trade in values

By: Maca

Maca — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 03:04:33 +0000

Yes, at the end you do get metter mileage out of a higher RON car as compared to a lower.
I have a Mk4 Bora (2001) and it’s still a beautiful car to drive, and because I bought it last year with 140,000km on the clock, i’m starting to feel the heat of replacing this and buying a new that..

But it still hasn’t turned me off buying a VW, the only difference next time is that it will be new.

By: grant

grant — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 01:01:33 +0000

Hey guys,

Can anyone tell me the go with fuel for the Golf. If you have to buy Premium do you end up with better mileage or can you just run them on normal fuel.

Grant

By: Rod

Rod — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 21:30:04 +0000

Could not agree more, I bought my Golf 4 on absolute impulse because it was so fabulous in the showroom, and fabulous to drive and all friends jealous. Then $500 because window fell in door – apparently they all do. Several sets of disk rotors in 100k – what other car etc, $1,000 for platinum hairpin to measure air temp, off the road several days because of a 10 cent plastic pipe, new air con unit etc etc. But yes for the first couple of years it is a superb ride, My worry is that lately they are designed for the dhowroom not the road.

By: Golfschwein

Golfschwein — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 13:53:07 +0000

Yep. If I wanted an economy car to go from A to B, something from Hyundai’s stable would’ve done just fine.

The Golf’s not an economy car – although it is economical – it’s just the right car, more so than any other I’ve had.

After two and a half years and 52,000 kms, the dreaded European disc brakes need seeing to along with new tyres all round. The only two minor problems recorded were covered by warranty.

So far, it’s all still smiles.

By: Rod

Rod — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 08:42:57 +0000

Or the other conclusion you might reach from my experience (which includes that of other VW friends) is that a basic Audi with minimal fit out and low end engine – but still the quality build, might be comparable to a high end Golf. Just apart from that stupid skinny spare. As for me, well with extreme regret I am actually looking at a Corolla, given my wife’s unlikeable Yaris that replaced her unlikeable Echo – but neither cost her anything except petrol and chep service. The Corolla at least is comfortable.

By: SamR

SamR — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 08:29:45 +0000

Rod Says: “I have had two Golfs and both were excellent cars for the first couple of years. Inarguably better than anything else examined in the showroom. But after that couple of years little things started to go. Unfortunately each little thing tended to cost between $500-$1,000″

THAT is exactly the anecdotal evidence I hear ALL the time about Golfs and frankly Astra and other similar Euro cars as well.

YES nice car but costly to run. Some people don’t care about the cost they car about the car. For them the Golf is the right car.

For me, a car that needed $500-$1,000 spent on it regularly would not be acceptable in a city runabout. In my weekend fun car ? no problem.

By: Rod

Rod — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 06:42:21 +0000

I have had two Golfs and both were excellent cars for the first couple of years. Inarguably better than anything else examined in the showroom. But after that couple of years little things started to go. Unfortunately each little thing tended to cost between $500-$1,000. Only my A3 went through four years with zero failures, but that cost another $10,000. That is where VW reliability went, to Audi. And what about the skinny spare. That alone would stop me buying another Golf

By: Loud1

Loud1 — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 09:59:14 +0000

autoblog is reporting the R series of the Golf will no longer have the Aurally pleasing VR6 motor. They are going for the AWD, 2L turbo, 265HP to fill the new R-line.

By: JansJetta

JansJetta — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 06:56:34 +0000

I like the simple lines of the Golf6. Looks a bit like a Scirocco front end to me.
I took a Golf V to a Toyota dealer and asked for a Corolla with the same specs …. guess what, very similar price (that’s if it was an option in the Corolla).
Also re fuel – Milobob & SamR – my 1990 Audi ran on the higher RON fuel and cost me $5 more to fill, but guess what, I got 100klm further on a tank than if I used standard which equated to using 10 litres, saving me $10 at the time. Ummmm, that made me $5 better off per tank. My point? These engines are built to run on the higher RON which make them more economical in the long run. It annoys me every time a see a road report that say the downside is that a car uses Premium or 98Ron. I wish they would get to know the product for more than face value, just like comparing a Golf to a Corolla …… you can’t.

By: Tom

Tom — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 06:51:35 +0000

So it should be for the price. It is a premium small car versus a cheap small car. However, VW should be selling them for more than they are, hence the rush job of the mkVI.

I don’t know where this notion of VW reliability comes from. A little research shows that both in europe/uk and the USA they have a long way to go before reality matches their perceived quality. Also VW themselves admit that their quality has slipped as they try to cut costs.

By: Richo

Richo — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 03:10:11 +0000

also in terms of refinement, noise suppresion and ride quality, again the golf is significantly better, so it IS a higher quality automobile.

By: Richo

Richo — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 03:08:29 +0000

SamR says “But more reliable, longer lasting, higher quality and cheaper to run, it is not!”

how do you know its not as reliable and long lasting? Both the current corolla and current golf have only been on the market for a few years! Just because previous corollas have proven to be long lasting doesn’t mean the current model will be! And anyone golfs have also proven themselfs to be very long lasting and reliable too so i really don’t know where you are pulling that from.

Cheaper to run? Again don’t know where you got that from considering most golfs are considerably more economical then corolla’s, atleast in australia.

Higher quality? Sit in a current model golf and then sit in a current model corolla and try and make that argument stick! The golf is significantly superior in terms of quality of interior materials and build. It just is, end of story, no arguments, if you don’t believe me go to a toyota and a VW dealership and see for yourself. I guarantee i am right.

By: Richo

Richo — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 02:59:22 +0000

the corolla is to toyota what golf is to VW. The only difference is the golf is half a class further down the road in terms of price, and thank goodness for toyota’s sake because it IS a much better car. It just is

By: The Axe

The Axe — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 02:36:02 +0000

In the Australian market Corolla does not have ESP, so in Australia it will never have any star rating.
That is Toyota’s attempt at cost cutting…

How can all new cars be 100% reliable?!?!?! Nothing is 100% reliable. If that is the way people think then they will be sadly dissapointed with every purchase they make.

By: Golfschwein

Golfschwein — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 11:21:35 +0000

Agreed.

By: SamR

SamR — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 11:12:52 +0000

The Corolla has 6 speed manual, galvanized body (don’t they all now?) Diesel (overseas) Multi air bags and I believe 5-star with the safety pack on base models.

Look!, I agree the Golf is a better car from a features and dynamics point of view and a better drivers car BUT it is a more expensive in a higher market segment. It SHOULD be better.

But more reliable, longer lasting, higher quality and cheaper to run, it is not!

They are not directly comparable. No-one goes to buy a car and says “What do I get a Golf or Corolla, I have $35,000 to spend”

Different market segments, different prices.

They sell a Corolla in Japan with a V6 engine in it.

By: Golfschwein

Golfschwein — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 10:43:41 +0000

The Golf’s worth every cent of the difference, SamR. We’re not talking cup holders here. The Golf is fundamentally superior from the ground up. You can’t add fully galvanised body shells, 6 speed transmissions across the range, direct fuel injection or diesel choices, multi link rear suspensions, ESP, 6 airbags and 5 star crash safety to the Corolla by going on a spending spree at Supercheap.

The Golf has it all in the beginning, and I’m talking about the soon-to-be superseded Mk V.

Uh-oh…I missed the heated rear view mirrors. Don’t worry. There’s plenty more from where that came from.

By: SamR

SamR — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 10:11:35 +0000

Neo Utopia Says: “I know because I have owned both of the latest models. Yes the Toyota was a BIT more reliable”

If that is true then that is a sad indictment of the Golf as NEW cars should be 100% reliable. The current Corolla has only been out a year or so.

The problem with the Golf and particularly the Astra and Focus is that you would have to be nuts to own one long term after the warranty runs out. They are a horror for an economy car.

Remember you can buy a Corolla for a little more the $20,000 drive away (haggling) with $120 services for 3 years. A Golf will cost you a lot more so it should be a much better car, it’s not.

By: Neo Utopia

Neo Utopia — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 09:53:33 +0000

I own a Volkswagen Golf 5, so to be a fair Golf owner I will be objective, not subjective.

I think the Golf 6 looks modern in a evolutionary way forward from the Golf 5. I still wish it had a little more of a masculinity design though, maybe the forthcoming GTI will have that. Notice the attractive models in the picture, that maybe the main target demographic VW is aiming to sell to (especially in Europe and China). The interior looks to be of a higher quality and the ergonomics seem to be slightly better designed (new door grab handles etc.).

I read somewhere VW will introduce a Golf hybrid called ‘Twin Drive’ which is claiming to be able to achieve 113 mpg, or close to only 2.5 litres per 100 kilometres and still accelerate to 100 km in 9.9 seconds without sacrificing interior room! If the next Toyota or Honda hybrid can’t achieve even near that fuel consumption then as Toyota tries to brainwash the television addict in one of its commercial ‘the game has now changed’. VW was about 3 years late to the hybrid race, but it seems they will definitely make up for it’s lateness. I hope it will be almost as reliable as the Toyota and Honda hybrids, for VW’s sake.

Think of the Golf 6 as a car for people who actually take care in their presentation and who actually have taste in design, Corolla is too toy-like for me and has the driving experience of a wooden, well, wood, whereas the Golf is like a titanium aluminum driver! PING! I know because I have owned both of the latest models. Yes the Toyota was a BIT more reliable but gee I do notice I enjoy driving my Golf a lot more and I get heaps more complements from friends when I have to taxi them around.