Too tight to mention
With regard your very enjoyable
i20N versus rivals old and new hot hatches article (August issue), I note the VW Golf GTI had just 400 miles on the clock. I’ve driven Mk2 Golfs since the late ’80s. They are nicely run-in, and noticeably faster, after 60,000 miles or so. A 400-mile Golf will be too tight. I note the reference to its torque. Obviously, you couldn’t cane it, because of its ridiculously low miles, but the real fun of the 16-valve is not its torque (it doesn’t have much) but when you rev it out. Much more so than the eight-valve Golf, if you’re not caning the 16-valve at every opportunity, the point of the car is somewhat lost. By contrast, the 205 is fully lit at lower revs.
Admittedly, for a skilled driver, the 205 was marginally more rewarding. But for an average driver on challenging back roads, the Golf was easily the real-world faster car. My mate had a 1.9 205. I could always lose him in my Golf, but when we swapped cars, he too (on the same road) could also lose me in the Golf. Compared to the 205, the Golf had idiot-proof handling, and could cope with frankly stupid entry speeds. Throw in the different-league build quality and the harder-edged engine note, and you can see why the Pug was only ever a wonderful toy, but the Golf was a genuine do-it-all car.
Seán mac Cann
You’re surely not re-opening the can of worms labelled ‘Mk2 Golf GTI or Pug 205 – which is best?’ are you Seán? Cos for a moment there, it looked that way. I can vouch for the trickiness of the 205 on the limit. A mate of mine spent years gleefully driving various quick-ish front-drive hatches well outside of their intended usage envelope, and without incident. But his red 205 1.9 GTI lasted less than a week. BM