1990 Volkswagen Golf L 1.3 petrol
Summary:
Reasonable motoring, but at a cost
Faults:
I bought a new Golf in August 1990 because I wanted a bigger and better car than my previous car, an 87E Polo.
It was good for long journeys, but it was only the base 1.3 engine so the performance was nothing special.
For the first two years, the Golf gave good service.
General Comments:
But then came a phase where the car was cutting out and a fault occured with the suspension. I was told that it would cost £250 to repair because the warranty had finished. But I decided to sell it and to save money bought a Polo 1.3 CL.
The Polo lasted more than five years, but really got on my nerves.
The Golf was a reasonably good car, but it wasn't worth the money and didn't last as long as it should have done.
Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes
Review Date: 14th February, 2004
8th Oct 2003, 18:08
I think that this review is bang on! Having recently purchased a mk2 (Driver 1.6, Red - has to be!!) I was thrilled to read about someone calling it something other than an old banger. Having driven far more modern cars than the mk2, I still think that it drives and handles far better than all of them! It is great fun on B-roads and although struggles a bit up steeper hills there is plenty of power from the engine which, at 66,000 miles, is still teething! Not bad for a thirteen year old car!