Golf GT TSI Owners

G

Golf_GT_TSI

Guest
id like to only hear from golf gt tsi owners and there thoughts on the car and how good or bad they are

122bhp . 140bhp . 170bhp models
 
I had a 140 and a 170 last year, loved both cars, plenty of poke, not as flash as a GTI or expensive and didn't attract the attention of the GTI. A few mates of mine have the new GTI and two of them have been robbed.

Bought the 140 had it for 6 months and then traded it in for a demo 170, both cars gave me a bit of trouble with the clutch pedel, couldn't get used to it at all, felt wrong under the foot, got a flash update on both cars and it sorted both out.
 

What is a flash update?
 
The ECU in the car is programed to respond in certain ways, a flash update feeds new info to the ecu and re-programes the way the car responds, ie. idel speed etc. There are many control units and many cd's that flash the control units.

It sounds more complicated than it is.
 
good thing i didnt order the 122bhp model

140bhp in white with 18" GTI Alloys and sunroof and arm rest etc
 
Have a 140hp - got it last week and I love it - Its a savage drive
 
is it taxed as a 1.4 or what ????

whats yer insurance like
 
It is taxed as a 1.4 but the mazda RX8 is a 1.3 and is taxed as a 1.8
 
just thought because it was a turbo i though it might be down as something else

man i cant wait , im dying for it
 
Why should a roatry engine make a differance? The output from the mazda and the 170hp tsi is pretty much the same - if the the golf was a v6 would it be taxed as a 2.3 v6? I dont think so!! There has to be some other reason,
 
The reason is clear enough: the Revenue try and gouge as much VRT as they possibly can, using whatever excuse they can. Logic and facts (like the 1.3 displacement of the RX8 rotary engine) have nothing to do with it.

I can only assume they get away with it because nobody is going to the bother and expense of mounting a legal challenge.

I assume the argument they use with the RX8 is that a rotary engine is completely different from other engines (which it is) and so doesn't have a displacement capacity as such, but I'd say that's a highly questionable argument at best.
 

Exactly.
 
Stephenkelly said:
Why should a roatry engine make a differance? The output from the mazda and the 170hp tsi is pretty much the same - if the the golf was a v6 would it be taxed as a 2.3 v6? I dont think so!! There has to be some other reason,
Click to expand...

2 power levels - 192bhp AND 231bhp.

With the exception of the RX-8 every car, regardless of cylinder arrangement, is taxed strictly according to it's displacement.

A rotary engine, by it's very nature, does not have a strict cubic capacity as such.
 
Of course it has! A rotary engine works in exactly the same way as a petrol engine. A fuel/air mixture is pulled into a combustion chamber, compressed, ignited by a spark plug, resultant combustion drives the engine's mechanics and the waste exhausted out. The only difference is that one goes up and down, the other round and round.

Now Mazda, if memory serves, calculate their displacement is 1.3 litres: the Revenue beg to differ. On what grounds? greater technical knowledge? what do you think?
 
Internal combustion engines yes, but the difference is that unlike every other conventional engine where pistons go up and down (or in and out - as in a boxer arrangement) in cylinders, and where the cubic capacity of the engine is calculated by reference to the bore and stroke of each cylinder, and their number, a rotary engine does not have the same criteria for the calculation.

In any I think your question on the 1.3/1.8 tax issue is one best asked to Mazda or Revenue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register