Drove a Mk 5 Golf in Germany at the start of June. It was LHD (obviously) and petrol, not Diesel.
Its a competent enough car, although I found the interior rather plasticky and rather too much road roar. I certainly couldn't get wildly enthusiastic about it, but not bad all round, until you get to look at the UK price which I rather think is a bit OTT. I guess VW are pitching the price quite high in the belief that there is enough 'elasticity of demand' to sell their quota for the year.
|
The problem with the Golf is that its a hell of a lot of money for not that much car. It has perceived build quality and perceived reliability rather than actual - it seems these days that VW reliability is no better, infact in some cases worse, than other mainstream manufacturers.
Someone I know spent £18,500 on a Golf TDI. Sure, it's a nice car, but it certainly isn't £18,500 worth of nice car. If I had that sort of money I'd buy a genuine prestige car, and get a used BMW 330d Sport.
|
|
|
I suppose there will never be a concensus on anything in life, but interesting to hear other opinions.
I took a short test drive in the new Astra. It was a 1.6 SXI, but the shiny silver plastic dash was a turn off. Nor did the interior seem as thoroughly engineered as the new Golf. Too much traffic on the road for me to test the handling.
Personally, using the Focus as a benchmark (most people seem to have tried one), I really like the Focus design. It's spacious, has great handling, direct steering and leaves an overall impression of agility. I'm less impressed with the road noise, firm ride, comparatively hard seats and some aspects of the build quality.
My first impressions were that the Golf V combined the apparently solid build quality of the previous Golf with the space and zest of the Focus (dubious interior plastics aside). It also seemed very practical; you don't have to remove all three rear head restraints, tumble the rear seat bases then finally fold the rear seats as with my car. The seat backs simply fold down.
Short of living with a car for a week or two, it's impossible to know whether a car is more comfortable or enjoyable to live with. I agree the new Golf is a bit dear, hence my hesitation.
Since my car has been good, it's difficult to argue the case for changing it at all. I did enjoy my couple of days in the 1.4S though. Extremely comfortable ride, direct steering and impressive around corners. The traffic harming bumps seemed to smooth out. Driving along the cobbled streets (I live in Edinburgh), there wasn't a single rattle and the rigid bodyshell seemed to be hewn from solid. I haven't driven another car that can do all that.
I read that the base Golfs now come with free A/C? No alloys though...
|
The new Octavia looks very interesting. Definitely worth a look if it rides and handles as well as the Golf.
Frankly I'm not bothered about the "Golf Image", but over three or four years a Golf can work out cheaper to run than a lot of other less expensive new cars, because of it's high resale value.
Trouble is, I have to park the car at the side of the road every night, and bigger cars just won't squeeze into small spaces. My bumpers are already becoming scuffed.
But that new DSG gearbox is very tempting... The Octavia could be the car to have when it is available on the diesel Octavias, if the latest VW Touran review is anything to go by.
|
But the high resale value of the Golf is offset by the higher purchase price, higher servicing costs, etc.
Lets compare, say, a Golf TDI 105bhp SE 5 door, which is about mid spec, with a Focus TDCi Zetec 115bhp 5 door.
The Focus has a list price of £15,150 but if you shop around you can have one delivered to your door, brand new, for a shade over £12499. Despite this, the depreciation is calculated on the list price, not the best price you can get it for. Or you can go for a nicer, plusher Ghia for £13000.
Now lets move onto the Golf. It has a list price of over £16000 and becuase its new and a VW, you'll be lucky to get discounts, but less assume you find an accomodating dealer or broker and manage to get one for £14900.
Currently, the Golf has cost you £2400 more to buy.
How much do you get back when you trade it in in a few years time? Let's estimate this using the current tradein value of a 2001/51 Golf TDI SE, and a 2001/51 Focus TDCi Zetec. Assuming mileage of 30k, the Focus is worth about £6600, and the Golf £8600.
So, the Focus has cost you £2400 less to buy, but when you come to trade it in, its only worth £2000 less than the Golf. So, in effect, the Focus was cheaper to own by £400. And that's not taking into account the extra cost of servicing at the wonderfully priced VW dealers.
Oh, and you've got a more powerful Focus for your money, and if you went for the Ghia (Which was worth an extra £400 at resale time, which gives you back the extra £400 it would cost to buy), a car with a better equipment level than the Golf, most probably.
So thats the 'it has better residuals' arguement out of the window, anyway. Unless my calculations are inherently flawed, of course.
So, it isn't cheaper to own, it isnt *that* reliable, the build quality is down on the previous model and its more expensive to buy.
|
I agree with akr. My problems with VW's are well documented on this site. I had 3 VW's over an 8 year period -1 Polo & 2 Golfs.The Polo had a new gearbox at just over 1 year old and my Golf GT TDi 110 had, amongst many other things, a new engine,flywheel,ECU,sunroof motor,alarm system,water pump beore it was 2 years old.
Needless to say I would not go anywhere near a VW dealer now. I would not buy a Mk V Golf (although it drives well), even if their reputation for reliability was deserved, simply because they are about £2k overpriced.
I now drive a Honda. They are well-priced, have great build quality based on superb engineering and peerless reliability.
HectorG
|
|
|
|
The torsional rigidity of the new Golf bodyshell is 80 per cent higher than the already impressive level of the MkIV; your view that the "build quality is down on the previous model" presumably refers to the dropping of the "soft touch" interior plastics - VW officials stated that most people were either unaware or not bothered by such matters, hence the decision to put the savings into more technical areas such as the rear suspension design.
|
I agree that the Golf is too expensive, but as has been said, it will hold it's value much better. It will be much easier to sell a used Golf than a used Focus.
A Focus needs a service at 12500 miles, a Golf has the variable service interval, which can be up to 23000 miles. So a Focus needs to be serviced nearly twice as often.
I used to have a Mk 2 Golf, this was a horrible car. The wipers went the wrong way, the boot floor was not level and the engine would not pull the skin off a rice pudding. The paintwork was terrible too.
I have found the VW dealer in Derby much much better than the one for the blue oval.
I always used to be a Ford fan, I have had Cortinas, Sierras, Escorts, Mondeos and a Focus. But give me a VW any day, except when the cricket is on.
|
|
How can you say it holds its value better is a reason to buy one when I've posted figures which show that it doesnt hold enough value to counter the higher purchase price?
|
Ah, but the Golf will still be worth good money when the Ford reaches a stage where it will have to be virtually given away.
You can pick up Y-reg new shape Mondeos in this area for about half the price of a Golf of the same vintage - great for secondhand buyers but not for original private Ford owners.
|
|
|
How can you say it holds its value better is a reason to buy one when I've posted figures which show that it doesnt hold enough value to counter the higher purchase price?
Michael,
Hang on a minute, with respect you have SHOWN no such thing. Your earlier post on this was(as usual) well reasoned on the residuals but you added the disclaimer "So thats the 'it has better residuals' argument out of the window, anyway. Unless my calculations are inherently flawed, of course."
I am not saying your arguments are inherently flawed; however it is all based on your assumptions.
These include the price you for which you can obtain both cars and the second hand value based on 2001/51 cars with 30k miles (in the case of the Golf taking a Mk 4 and applying it to a Mk5). What is it the adverts say "past performance is no indication etc".
There is no point in my taking a different set of conditions and giving my estimates, but my gut feeling is that on the residuals argument the Golf will be a better buy; and many others share that feeling.
Leaving that aspect aside I fail to see how you have deduced that the Golf Mk 5 isn't that reliable and the build quality is down on the previous model(no soft touch plastic?).
However for myself, and it would appear others, I simply feel that the Golf is in a different class to the Focus and certainly I would never contemplate buying the latter.
C
|
I have a Bora and one of my offspring a Focus TDCI - we're both happy. The VW's got the build quality to ensure a long ownership span, whilst the offspring's got the great ride, handling and in-gear fun element until the Ford makes way for a replacement in two years' or so time.
Another point about the new Golf MkV - I pointed out earlier it has a five star NCAP rating but, it seems, it's actually proved the safest car ever tested to date.
Hardly seems to indicate that "the build quality is down on the previous model"?
If you want to find out about the MkIV's build quality have a word with Top Gear's Richard Dredge (Top Gear, Page 156, April 2003 edition), who hit a Citroen Berlingo "parked" in the outside lane of the M42 at 70mph.
His comment later, after climbing out uninjured, except for suffering slight whiplash for a couple of days, was: "Everything designed to protect did so and the reality is that there are dozens of other unsung bits of engineering hidden in the Golf's structure that save your bacon in events like this.
"After thinking that the Golf might be very nice, but just a teensy bit overpriced, I can now see the benefits of finding a bit more cash when buying".
Everything still worked after the accident, apart from the driver's heated seat being a bit temperamental. Although the Golf was a writeoff, the actual passenger cell was completely intact.
|
You are confusing safety with build quality; they are not the same thing. I have driven some recent US cars that are very very safe in the event of an accident (would probably flatten a Golf) but are actually not that well put together.
The argument about residuals presented earlier is, I think, correct. My mother has bought several Polo's and always had to pay close to list - always seems to take quite a hit when selling (list minus trade-in) so I think that depreciation is not better than on a Ford/GM bought at discount.
I once had an Audi that I paid nearly list for and it certainly lost a fair bit over the three years I had it. I wouldn't buy new again anyway, there are car supermarkets offering 6 month old cars (eg Mondeo) at 30% off new price.
|
Aprilia,
I completely agree with your point regarding safety and bulid quality.People also confuse build quality with reliability.Typically German cars are perceived as having superior build quality to Japanese cars and often the former seem very well screwed together with nice interiors.However,recent experience seems to suggest that Japanese cars are very much more reliable than the German's that were the benchmark - notably VW and Mercedes.
My Honda CR-V does not shout 'quality', but close inspection reveals a very well constructed vehicle with no creaks or groans and a superb engine and gearbox. Above all else is totally reliable.
HectorG
|
I am certainly not confusing safety with build quality and I'm definitely not confusing the size of a vehicle with its safety levels - a four star NCAP rated supermini, for instance, is a long way removed from a four star upper medium class vehicle.
As for the Japanese, they have long since built stunningly reliable cars - right back to the early 1960s at least as those who use to own a Toyota or Datsun at the time would agree.
The main problem was that the bodies fell apart long before the engines and engineering bits and bobs, somewhat bizarre when you consider the reliability of their high-revving, well designed and technologically advanced car and motorbike engines.
In time the Japanese got the whole package right as well - a feat repeated with so many other products such as televisions, hi-fi, video recorders, cameras etc.
They went on to guide the rest of the world, including Honda enlightening British Leyland with the Acclaim and subsequent models, on how to build cars properly.
As for residuals, it's no great secret that some marques have high levels and some don't; some of it is based on quality and perceived image and some is controlled by the law of supply and demand (i.e. mass produced Fords, Vauxhalls etc).
That's not to say that mass produced cars are no good - far from the case. A Mondeo, for instance, is as enjoyable a driver's car as you can find and delivers a lot for a little, especially at secondhand prices.
But I don't want a car that virtually every Tom, Dick or Harry enjoys; I prefer to reveal some spark of individuality.
|
But I don't want a car that virtually every Tom, Dick or Harry enjoys; I prefer to reveal some spark of individuality.
So you drive a Volkswagen ("people's car") ??
|
Yes, I drive a VW but, and this is the difference, it's not a Golf which is seen everywhere, but a Bora; this is a VW model that is not seen in great numbers as UK buyers prefer hatchbacks to saloons.
From 1992 to 1995 I had an F-reg Jetta and then a 1.6 Jetta TX until last year, when I PX'd it for the Bora.
The first time a friend's wife saw the Bora - it's all silver - she made her mind up that she wanted one as well and in the same colour; she felt it would protect her young son and another child on the way far more effectively than their then car.
As a result I had to scour the county to find a suitable Bora for her as, in contrast to Golfs, sales are comparatively small. I succeeded in the end...:-)
|
I am certainly not confusing safety with build quality
Sorry, but I thought that this statement suggested that you were:
>>Another point about the new Golf MkV - I pointed out earlier it has a five star NCAP rating but, it seems, it's actually proved the safest car ever tested to date.
Hardly seems to indicate that "the build quality is down on the previous model"?
|
A cousin of mine from the USA is a Professor of Art History. Many years ago, he mused that Beethoven's Fifth Symphony was rubbish, because it was very popular. 'Hang on' I said, 'its popular because it's good'..
Apply to Mondeo but not a Vento/Bora.
--
Espada III - well if you have a family and need a Lamborghini, what else do you drive?
|
>>"...it's actually proved the safest car ever tested to date."
Yes, of every marque and make tested so far by NCAP - you have misconstrued what I have stated.
Michael Rodgers, Wed, 01-16 wrote: >>"So, it isn't cheaper to own, it isnt *that* reliable, the build quality is down on the previous model and its more expensive to buy."
That was the posting to which my comment referred, not the NCAP test.
Because the postings slot in at different points, days and times despite attempting to link them as appropriate, you appear to be mixing them up...:-)
|
It's very difficult to decide whether one new car will lose more in depreciation than another. It depends whether the car has to be sold "below book" to a dealer when you sell it (my green 5 year old Primera!) or whether private buyers are queuing up (Golf TDI's when 3 years old?!)
Depreciation is always described in the press as a percentage of "list price", but you can usually buy a new car with a good discount. This makes comparisons between cars very complicated. The discount is sometimes much greater than the What Car? Target Price. I've seen brand new UK Yaris D4D's advertised on the web at £8400, with 5 doors. In theory these should only drop by £3000 over 3 years. A bargain which almost tempted me - until I drove one - glad to get back to the Golf!
So buying decisions don't always come down to money. But I do think that money lost in depreciation often cars averages out, as the Focus / Golf example above shows. £400 is virtually nothing, £10/month, and just an estimate anyway. Even second hand cars continue to depreciate, and they might cost you more in maintenance.
Big discount when new = less residual value when you come to sell. This just means you can run a VW for the same price as a Ford.
Which brings me to the second point raised here. Does anyone understand why VW Golfs and Polos come in for some much stick on this site when it comes to reliability?
Can the VW group cars which are mechanically similar to the Golf - Seat Leon, Toledo, Skoda Octavia and Audi A3 really be more reliable? Likewise are the Ibiza and Fabia so much better than the Polo?
Or is it that a lot of the earlier cars off the production line can be pretty duff? Do people like knocking VW? Cars seem to get more reliable over the production cycle. My BMW Mini Cooper was a build quality nightmare and I had to reject it. This was an early October 2002 car, hopefully Minis are better now...
|
|
I should have said the Mini was October 2001, I ordered it just after it was introduced. That is all history now anyway!
|
Which brings me to the second point raised here. Does anyone understand why VW Golfs and Polos come in for some much stick on this site when it comes to reliability?
Because they are not very reliable?
My elderly mother bought a brand new Polo 1.4 in 2002. It was a nightmare and left her stranded a couple of times (despite the fact that she only does a *very* low mileage. The dealers treated her appallingly (probably on account of her age). She sold the car early this year and, for some reason, decided to buy another Polo. Fortunately this one has been reliable so far.
|
>> Which brings me to the second point raised here. Does anyone >> understand why VW Golfs and Polos come in for some much >> stick on this site when it comes to reliability? >> Because they are not very reliable? My elderly mother bought a brand new Polo 1.4 in 2002. It was a nightmare and left her stranded a couple of times (despite the fact that she only does a *very* low mileage. The dealers treated her appallingly (probably on account of her age). She sold the car early this year and, for some reason, decided to buy another Polo. Fortunately this one has been reliable so far.
So from your sample size of one you assume VWs are unreliable?
Unfortunately most modern cars seem to have some problems, no doubt some worth than others. Even cars like Hondas, Nissan etc have problems.
|
Aprilia,
The question, and it has been asked many times, was why are VW's slated in the Backroom for their reliability but Seat & Skoda get praised.
Same platforms, same engines, most parts from the same bin.
Perhaps one needs a degree in psychology rather than engineering to answer that question!! IMO its down to expectations and those who buy Seat/Skoda wanting to justify their decision.
C
|
Good point Cardew and not it hasn't been answered (yet).
Seats certainly suffered from the faulty coil syndrome, however Seats are seen as sporty numbers with latin flair.
Skoda's are seen as value for money cars for smart money.
VW shot their own albatross down in flames with their
'If everything in life was as reliable..............'
Brilliant advertising campaign, absolutely superb - because everyone remembers it and will keep remembering it everytime a VW fails for whatever reason.
It would also help if some VW dealers were a little more CRM orientated.
|
It's somewhat unfair to claim that VW "shot their own albatross down in flames with their 'If everything in life..'" ad campaign.
That ran long before the present somewhat pathetic "Bash VW at every opportunity" phase reared its head.
If we all had a crystal ball we'd be millionaires.
Some interesting reasons on how and why VW built up its image for reliability and longevity can be found about half-way down this link:
www.matey-matey.com/dis_6.shtml
|
I'm not disagreeing that VW's reputation for reliability was established before they ran the advertising campaign.
My point is and was - having run the campaign, VW set their stall out, there's no denying that VW reliability in the past 3 years has not been what it was.
There are various reasons for this, but the fact remains VW put themselves on a pedestal with that advert.
|
|
The advert is just one of many superb VW adverts over a 30 year period - there's even been a book published about them - so it is, as I have already stated, unappropriate to compare today's VWs with adverts from around a decade ago.
|
Should read "inappropriate".
Funnily enough, studies of the VW adverts have shown that the Paula Hamilton ad wasn't the most popular - it was runnerup to the man whose mystery car interior squeak turned out to be his wife's earrings.
|
Well the best analogy I can put forward is that my perception of VW is that they ARE reliable - as three VWs and many thousands of miles have proved since 1992...:-)
What's more, the combined total mileage of all three before I actually owned them was 149,000 miles plus.....
|
So from your sample size of one you assume VWs are unreliable? Unfortunately most modern cars seem to have some problems, no doubt some worth than others. Even cars like Hondas, Nissan etc have problems.
Of course not - but it doesn't instill confidence. Moreover I have carried out a large number of repairs on other recent VW cars - all less than 5 years old and all under 100k miles. Things are wearing out that shouldn't wear out and things are failing that shouldn't fail. I changed the timing belts (2) on a 2002 2.4 Polo on Saturday - unnecessarily complex and poorly engineered.
I was always a big fan of VW/Audi - we used to sell a lot of used VW-Audi and service them too. They were always relatively trouble free and what few problems they did have were not too difficult or expensive to fix. The dealers we liaised with were also a pretty good bunch. That changed a long time ago. VAG sacked a lot of the smaller dealers and would only really support the big groups (who tend to have rather an arrogant approach to their customers). A lot of VW component manufacture has been outsourced to Eastern Europe and that has not helped quality either.
Many customer surveys, both here and in other countries, indicate that VW have a problem. They are getting a poor reputation in the US.
|
Many customer surveys, both here and in other countries, indicate that VW have a problem. They are getting a poor reputation in the US.
Maybe so but like someone else said that is probably at least partly due to people's expectations being high when they think they are buying a premium product. In the recent survey in Top Gear magazine (or was it What Car?) Mercedes did terribly with several of their cars in the last 10 of 150 vehicles surveyed. Mercedes still managed to maintain their peerless quality reputation despite this.
I also believe that things have got a lot worse for VW/Audi in the last few years with the coil pack failure scandal which were faulty parts sourced from another manufacturer. They have not handled it well or reacted quickly enough to resolve problems for some owners - part of this is no doubt due to poor dealers. This of course should be in the past so hopefully things will improve for them.
|
Maybe so but like someone else said that is probably at least partly due to people's expectations being high when they think they are buying a premium product. In the recent survey in Top Gear magazine (or was it What Car?) Mercedes did terribly with several of their cars in the last 10 of 150 vehicles surveyed. Mercedes still managed to maintain their peerless quality reputation despite this.
Not sure this is entirely true. Last time I was in Germany I was reading one of the German motoring mags and they had a big feature on the falling quality of Mercedes. Some pretty harsh comments. I believe the latest ADAC (German AA-equivalent) breakdown stats on MB are not too healthy.
I know the coil pack problem is often mentioned WRT VW - but it is wider than than. Passat problems include aggravating squeaking dash, premature wishbone and CV joint failures, alternator failure (they're £360), door latch failure, central locking & alarm failure, early failure of air-con evaporator. These are common problems and I've seen them on just two cars that I know of.
There was also the wonderful problem we had Easter 2003 with a Sharan. Gearbox went noisy under warranty at 45k miles - dealer said it was OK. Eventually failed just outside of warranty - VW didn't want to know. I stripped it and found major bearing failure plus wrecked layshaft (£1500 of parts).
VW UK couldn't obtain layshaft. It was on order for a whole month - vehicle off raod (a taxi!!). I eventaully rang VW in Germany and found that UK office had missed an 'L' off the end of the part number - Germany had 52 of this part in stock! Got one two days later via DHL. VW UK is totally hopeless and not interested in supporting the product IMHO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
