Gt's

[Yoof]

As Andy said my GT was a good fun little motor- but £/bhp wise it wasn't that good to be honest, I went from being really happy with my TB'd motor, to driving Andy's Turbo and feeling the need for speed!

I'm thinking of one as a daily, personally if I where to mod a n/a polo again I'd go 1.6 AFH...

Emerald, Nitrous, 1.6 Bottom end when I get bored...Or I might just stick the eaton in there

You've got some money to burn! Plus the 1.6 bottom ends are poo- show them a ntirous bottle and they'll bend, hence me sticking with a 3f in the early days  

[breadman]

[quote pid=3767 author=Alex date=1220356034]Isn't the slam panel on a Mk2 more substantial, giving better front end stiffness?[/quote]

Yeah the mk2 is far stronger at the front due to the chassis rails being welded into a substantial double skinned valance. The inner skin is heavily profiled giving a lot of additional strength (and somewhere to mount the radiator).

The mk2 shell is slightly lighter which is good too. Not only that but it's far better looking than a mk3 (IMO of course!) LOL

Personally, I don't think we should be comparing the GT with the G40. The driving experience IMO is so different. The GT even in standard form is nippy enough and with its rev happy engine and short gearing makes for entertaining driving. The G40, although quicker in every respect is longer legged and in a way more refined.

For a daily driver, I'd prefer a modified GT (circa 90+bhp) over a pretty standard G40 anyday. I started to do a full GT conversion into my mk2 including fitting the mk3 bulhead/servo/pedal box. I intended to modify the engine to around the above figure and go out and have some fun. Typically, I got a bit carried away, hence the reason the car is still nowhere near finished!

[hayesey]

GTs are just bloody good fun, I still miss driving mine over the tops to work when I used to own it and my drive to work was pretty much all country b-roads.  Driving my passat over the m62 just isn't the same!  But then driving the gt breadvan over the m62 was no fun really, get blown about like a piece of tin foil.

[giorgio]

[quote pid=3992 author=Yoof date=1220890464]

Emerald, Nitrous, 1.6 Bottom end when I get bored...Or I might just stick the eaton in there

You've got some money to burn! Plus the 1.6 bottom ends are poo- show them a ntirous bottle and they'll bend, hence me sticking with a 3f in the early days  [/quote]


Still living the student loan dream over this end :wub:

Already got emerald, can borrow won kit of my mates impreza build. I am going to stop now as I am convinving myself its a 'feasible plan'

Got back into my GT today after driving my G as a daily since May. What a lovely car to drive. So smooth, so easy just lovely. But fuck me is slow as hell LOL

[jonboy]

i actually prefer driving my gt over the g40, yes the g40 is quicker but i dont find it half as much fun.  theres something very pleasing about the gt, its the way it'll rev itself of the clock all day long (something i wouldnt even dare to do in my g40)
its not really fair to compare the 2 cos they are 2 very different animals.
as for the aguement that tuning a gt is pointless, the same could be said of the g40 when you could go out and buy a raddo g60, which is far easier to get big bhp out off, also has decent handling and probably wouldnt cost that much more

[PeteG40]

disgree with the rado comment. G60s are as costly if not more to tune, are only 160bhp as standard and now are dear for what you get. A mildly tuned g40 will also see a mildly tuned rado off.

However I do agree with the  handling comment... most cars handle better!!!