21st Feb 2003, 05:49

The VR6 is less than a second quicker than the mk3 16v and is about 8mph faster on top speed. The 16v handles better, is lighter (engine), more economic and slightly cheaper insurance too :)

31st Jul 2003, 03:01

Yes, but I think the VR6 is one of the best sounding engines on the road today.

28th Sep 2003, 15:08

The vr6 may only be a second faster 0-60, but after that it will really pick up and leave any 16v for dust.

27th Mar 2004, 12:41

I have a 1995 VR6 and the only heads it will turn are those who know what a VR6 is. The book specification for it is slightly inaccurate. 140pmh top speed!? My unmodified VR6 has already hit 145mph and was still pulling (no it was not down hill with the wind behind it). The V6 engine is solid and will last much longer than its chicken legged brother's rattly 4 cylinder GTI engine. The negative side to the car is its fuel economy. But if you are not prepared to foot the costs buy a Nova! As for the R32, what went wrong. It is only a fraction faster than the mkI GTI! Lazy!

29th Jul 2004, 10:58

I have recently purchased a 1997 VR6 which I expected to be very quick, but I am surprised a 2.8 V6 engine only produces 180bhp. There are a lot of hot hatches on the market which are producing more bhp on 2 litre engines. The build and interior quality is very good with leather seats and lots of mod cons, but nevertheless I am disappointed with performance. Am I alone?

19th Aug 2004, 17:23

I have found all the above comments regarding the Mk3 Golf very interesting.

This summer I have bought a 1997 VR6 High line, 1 owner, F V W S H trade in from a dealer with low miles. I don't really care if a Mk2 chipped 16v will be quicker because as a previous comment stated "the VR6 will only turn those heads who know what it is"... that is absolutely true!

If you are serious about buying a Mk 3 VR6 (high line or not) you are assured of buying a very fast, solidly built, quality driven hatchback which for the type of car it is... few can match. The acceleration in 2nd gear in my unmodified car is excellent (and yes I have driven other cars!) and mid range on the motorway overtaking has no issues.

The best way I can describe the Golf VR6 is that is it not necessarily a sports car, but it is certainly a very fast hatchback saloon, the likes of which it has taken a long time for other makes to match bearing in mind the VR6 has gone past it's decade since inception. Second hand it is a lot of car for relatively little money.

So to leave an open question... how many high performance hot hatches do you still see from other manufacturers which still look excellent after 8 or so years and which even today few can exceed in performance?

10th Jun 2007, 07:27

I have just bought an N.reg VR6, but all the gears are stiff. I've just had a new clutch fitted, but it still feels the same. Do I need a new gearbox, or is it a common feel on a VR6?

30th Sep 2007, 03:36

Neither the golf mk3 GTi or VR6 are earth shatteringly quick or as exciting to drive as a mk1 or 2. However with a little subtle lowering and stiffening the mk3 is a reliable, comfortable and practical daily driver that can still put a smile on your face when you want it to, my current golf is just a 1995 GTi 8v, but is still a bit of fun nonetheless.

1st Oct 2007, 05:05

I'm a mechanic and an MOT inspector, and the biggest problem I find with the mk3 Golf is that so many are rotboxes.

I have lost count of the number of outwardly tidy looking mk3 Golfs that I've actually gasped at when I've got underneath. I've failed countless of them on sill or floorpan corrosion, and often had to show customers as they can't believe what a state the car is in when it looks mint from "above".

In my opinion, this car was where the "deserved" part of VW's quality reputation started to fall apart. Mk1 and mk2 were brilliant, bulletproof, wonderfully engineered cars. The mk3 was good in parts, but not in others, and the mk4 was/is dreadful. Haven't worked on enough mk5's to comment yet, but the electrics aren't looking too promising so far...

If you want real engineering quality and longevity, these later Golfs cannot hold a candle to an equivalent aged Honda Civic. Given proper servicing, a Civic will do a genuine quarter of a million miles before it gives you any major bills. It's a far better car than a Golf, and cheaper too.

1st Oct 2007, 12:32

05:05. I am a VW man, but I do agree with the Honda comment. HOWEVER, the Honda can't compare when it comes to the solidness and therefore safety of the Golf. The Civic is a good car when it comes to reliability - probably better than the Golf - but that is it's only real forte. The Golf has it licked for practicality, re-sale, desirability, comfort, etc. Get a nice MK3 and not much can touch it of the same era.