I take it all back...

DervMan wrote of 205 GTis:

They wanted it to be 0.1 better than the Golf.

Douglas

Heh. Didn't they forget about the build quality?

"Hmm, better drive or better longevity?"

"Better drive or better longevity?"

"Better drive or better longevity?"

"Aw bugger this, I'll get the 205, I'm only young once."

Turbo Hayabusa. With nitrous. And the 12 seconds you stay alive on it will be fastest of your life.

Fraser

So you agree the 1.9 is better then ?

Damnit, the 1.9 is quicker. The end :)

They're the same car - I fail to see why anyone would say the slower one was better !

Loonacy ! Loonacy I say :)

Yeah, that's the case as I remember it too.

Oh, I wasn't trying to. But I'd think twice about owning one :)

No idea how many miles my mate's had. He was a mobile phone salesman at the time, so he drove all over the North - it probably had starship mileage :)

WTF?

You really *are* that stupid, aren't you!

ROTFL

You've just said yourself, the 1.9 is a bit quicker within reasonable sight of UK speed limits. And it's a bit quicker still when you get above them. And it makes more torque and is less revvy by nature, as a free bonus. I can't think of any reasons to choose the 1.6, unless you like rowing ?

Yep, I'm exactly that stupid.

Have fun !

Exactly.

The 1.6 GTi 205 that I experienced, was perfectly capable. More power, more torque, and a less revvy nature, would have made it even better. It's definitely "the one to have".

In what way ? The 1.6 getting rear drums is the only difference I know of ?

LOL

I can't beleive you're making this much fuss over semantics ! Even if the

Just to make you happy, feel free to use the 105bhp figure from the earlier

Who cares ?!?

So what ?!?!?!

How is this important to the debate ?

So you're suggesting my innacurate percentage estimation, wasn't very accurate ?

If it was supposed to be an accurate figure, I'd have loaded up calculator.exe and worked it out properly. But there was no need, cos I thought we all knew that the 1.9 made more power. Apparently though, whether it makes 10% more, 12% more, or 16.3% more, or 20% more, is of some sort of importance ?

An innacurate estimation can't be wrong - it's an estimation ! The whole

I didn't do any arithmetic - I just looked at the figures, and decided "almost 20%" was close enough.

And from that, I draw the conclusion that hot hatches, as in ones that actually meet the criteria of being quick, fun to drive, and that encourage you to thrash them to within an inch of their life, are not for you... and IMHO, if a 'hot hatch' doesn't meet that criteria overall, then it's not a hot hatch in the true sense.

The 1.9 was a good car in its day, and still is... but the 1.6 is most definitely the better choice for those who actually want more of a drivers car.

Some of us actually run more than one car, is more to the point - I suspect you don't.

When all I ran was my tuned, slammed to the floor GTE 16v, I got pissed off with its inability to have anyone sitting in the back, without rubbing the wheels in the arches, the noisy drone from the pipe on a long run etc.

I loved the way it blew off recent supposedly quicker stuff.

If I owned it now, alongside one of my more sensible cars, I'd probably be more keen on keeping it, and then only using it when the mood takes me.

If I Were You.

...did quite grasp the concept of what a car actually feels like to drive makes all the difference, over a load of figures on paper.

Hardly - it's giving away around *5 mph*, and 0.9 of a second to 60 - real world performance, you'll be swapping cogs more in the 1.6, but whereas the

The 1.9 should, given the stats on paper, be a lot quicker when both are thrashed, than the 1.6, than it is.

ROTFL! 'Tard

Jesus H Christ... in a cooking diesel, maybe... or a big executive saloon... but a hot hatch???

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA, I was right... you're a mong.

I like diesels, and I like hot hatches... but for different reasons, and I know what I want from both.

Sure... and we can use the 122bhp post cat figure as well if you like, what with that, and the 105bph 1.6 both being the lesser produced of their respective engine sized models...

You seem to...

Yes, one is less peaky, yet needs a higher octane fuel?

The 1.6 surely, is the one more likely to be in need of this.

Try reading up on the actual car we're discussing, before drawing the apparent conclusion that your lower tuned heap, will be the same, as the 1.9

;-)

It's a bit like me drawing several conclusions about a 150bhp VAG PD TDI, because I've driven a 1.9 SDI, also made by VAG

Aye, but then as we've already established, you've missed one of the point of 'hot hatches', and what makes for one that's the most exciting to drive.

You've accurately drawn the parallel elsewhere, between the low down grunt of a 205 GTi 1.9, and various diesels... and that... explains what you just don't get about hot hatches that get the juices flowing, and thus makes a proper drivers car, than anything else.

And finally... Saxo VTR vs Saxo VTS - nobody really argues the merits of the VTR vs those of the VTS... I could reel off a load of other examples, whereby the more powerful car is accepted overall by all, as the better drivers car.

The 205 GTi is the main exception to the hot hatch rule in this respect - lots of people, as confirmed by Carl Gibbs elsewhere in this thread, argue the toss over which is the better machine to have out of the 1.9 and the

You seem to prefer the lardy, lazy approach... I'm more for the one that will actually beg to be beaten that bit more, and turn me back into a feckless boy racer... which after all, is what most hot hatches are, and should be about.

If you don't want that, f*ck off and buy the equivalent Ghia / CDX / GL model :-)

Repeat : All my previous points.

I'm bored of this - bye !

...which are flawed, this has been pointed out to you (by others, not just me), and you know you're backing a loser.

See above.

Woooooah there.

I'm bowing out because I have nothing else to say, not because I think I'm backing the loser.

I think the 1.9 is the better car, simply because it's quicker.

I also think it's the more fun car, simply because you don't have to wring-it's-neck / try-as-hard to make maximum progress. More torque = Less effort = More fun. The extra bhp of the 1.9 is a free bonus !

You seem to think this is a point in the 1.6's favour though. I don't see

You have completely failed to prove otherwise, and hence I stand by my original statement - the 1.9 205 GTi is the one to have.

But we have already been through all this - I dunno why I'm repeating myself !

I have my viewpoint, and you have yours. Neither one of us is changing our minds !

And I really am bored now. Have a nice day !

"revs are bad...mmkay"

"noise is bad....mmkay"

"small is bad....mmkay"

You've no real idea of just how much quicker the lardier 1.9 is, when pushed hard through a load of twisties, have you!

Which is bollocks, in this particular case... and I'm not the only one who's bothered to argue this in relation to the 205 GTi, over years.

Stick to nice refined repwagons, mate... they're so *you*, going by what you've stated that you want out of a car. :-)

Go onto the PGAC forums. Post you think the 1.6 GTi is better. Watch at the amount of people who, in all honesty will probably tell you its been done to death and you should stop trolling, but the amount of people who are serious enthusiasts who prefer the 1.9, and the amount that prefer the 1.6. There won't be much in it :) Its a never ending argument. And PCs are better than Macs.

Pah! Bollocks. The Amiga is better than both ;-)