Mk1 Golf - was it really so much better than the opposition?

[Formula Autos]

Following on from a recent debate that kicked off in another thread, I thought this question deserved a thread of its own.

 

The general gist of it was that the Allegro, and other comparable small family cars of the mid '70s onward, were beaten hands down by the all-round qualities and thorough modernity of the Golf.

 

Was this the case?

 

I have heard that, for instance, in the UK the Golf was expensive for that size of car. Which is just one reason why it may not have conquered all before it. Another could have been the arguably superior handling of the similarly sized Alfasud.

 

Any other reasons why the opposition didn't just keel over at the sight of the Golf?

[Cavcraft]

I' mot the best person to answer this because I cannot fucking stand the things. However I reckon they are (and were) over-rated, nothing special and possibly a bit of an 'unknown' marque at the time.

 

The only reason they eventually became a cult car (note the 'l' instead of the 'n') is probably down to very clever marketing and a handful of hooray Henries championing their cause back in the day.

I'm quite sure plenty of normal, ordinary people liked them for that they are but they just aren't all that special.

[Mr Lobster]

No.

 

The Mk1 Golf was a good car, but not streets ahead of anything else at the time. It was well designed, looked ok and was well packaged but it wasn't better than anything else especially inspite of what VW fans might have you believe. History has been very kind to it though and the effect of the GTi has boosted the image of it beyond what might be reasonable. I'm fairly certain that contemporary Japanese offering would have been both more reliable and better equiped.

 

A nice Mk1 does drive well enough, but no better than a well sorted Datsun / Peugeot / Vauxhall / Renault / Ford / Allegro or whatever else contemporary to it. That they are so popular today is partly down to pretty good parts availability and the image that goes with them. But they were by no means head and shoulders above anything else in terms of quality, equipment or reliabilty.

[r.welfare]

Oh, I have no doubt they drove and handled much better than the Japanese competition at the time, which were not renowned for technical sophistication (OHV engines, live axles, lots of plastic and garish styling), although such cars were more reliable.

 

The Golf was pricey - old CARs I have seem to indicate at least on a par with the class above, i.e. Cortinas etc - but it did seem to provide a complete package whereas say the Allegro did not, hampered by no hatchback, elderly (A-series) or ill-developed (E-series) drivelines, and indifferent assembly.

 

Don't forget that GM/Ford/Rootes small cars were very traditional RWD tin boxes, so not really fully comparable per se, and the French were really only directly in competition with the Simca 1100 (Renault bracketed the class with the 4/6 and 16 until the 14; Fiat's 128 was a saloon or estate, as was the GS).

 

I suspect also the "legendary" reliability of the Beetle also attracted a large number of existing air-cooled VW owners to trade-in, as well as a lot of conquest sales - because of the Beetle a lot of people were more drawn to the Golf as an "acceptable" foreign (i.e. European) car; the Sud and Citroen GS were equally impressive in their way, but had been on the UK market for at least 3 years prior to the Golf's launch - the Cit was, I suspect, hampered by it's small engine and high price, and 3 years was plenty long enough for the body dissolving antics of the Alfa to be well known. However! Early Golfs could rot with the best of 'em, but VW worked hard to develop the car sensibly as well - GTI, better rustproofing etc. The Mk2 certainly seemed to have something more of the "hewn from solid" about it from my experience though.

 

I'd be interested to know what the UK sales figures were for the Mk1 Golf - don't forget that in '77 Lancia was still outselling BMW in the UK, such was the bizarre nature of the UK market at the time (and it was the Datsun 120Y reaching No. 4 in '75s total UK sales chart that, fairly directly, led to the voluntary import restriction agreement for the Japanese). That said, the Golfs lasted well, and once everyone else had caught on to the concept (Escort Mk3, Astra Mk1 etc) the new breed weren't that much more advanced to drive or own I guess.

 

Interestingly, and to support Mr Lobster's point, CAR in May 1976 tested the R5 GTL, Opel Kadett City and (very) basic Golf 1.1N - the R5 won. But there's hardly any of those left and certainly no "scene tax" to speak of, except perhaps for the Gordini models.

[dieselnutjob]

In those days I had a Peugeot 305 and I thought it was a better car. The 305 estate was a particularly good car.

[Pete-M]

I've had two Mk1 Golf GTis. One was an early '79 1600 four speed job, the other was a late spec 1.8.

 

When I bought the early one I was 19 and it was my first proper 'hot hatch'. It felt very quick but the engine was the revelation. A different world from a tuned Kent or Pinto. It would keep up with a Mk2 RS2000 in a straight line and did pretty well in the corners, but the brakes were alarmingly shit. Being brought up on RWD tail-happy stuff, but having spent loads of time bouncing my mums old Mk1 Polo off the rev limiter, the Golf was a weird little thing to get used to. It was much better on fuel than a Mk2 RS but in truth I used to average around 23 mpg from it because this was before speed cameras... Well built little thing, but it had been driven pretty hard by its previous keepers so was a bit careworn.

 

The hatch was useful for carrying bulky items, but with the rear seats in position you could get a lot more smaller items in a Mk2 Escort boot so the whole 'it's practical' thing didn't do anything to put me off saloon cars and RWD. The fact I replaced it with an '82 323i confirms that. 323i wasn't that much bigger, but it was a whole world more fun and a fair bit faster.

 

Then last year I bought the black 1.8. It felt tiny, loud and raucous, but that response to the throttle was still there and the thing did its best to make me drive it like I'd stolen it. Not that quick compared to new stuff, but it was a laugh. I sold it before it got me banned.

 

Oh, my mum had a new X reg 1.3 CL 3 dr. Felt more expensive than the V reg 104 ZR it replaced, but didn't have any toys and wasn't as quick. A lot more room in the back of the Golf, but I missed the Pug.

[Guest Leonard Hatred]

Don't they do without a brake servo because VW couldn't be arsed to adapt it to RHD cars?

 

Golf GTi is a poor man's Allegro SS

[Pete-M]

Don't they do without a brake servo?

 

They have brake servos, but they're where they would be on a LHD car and connected by some very clumsy linkages to the RHD pedal. Adjusting the linkage makes a big difference, but the brakes are still crap on RHD ones. The servo is too small as well, as there's not much room around the inlet manifold on 'em. BRM did a weirdly shaped larger servo for them, that made a bit of a difference but you still ended up with more effective, spongy brakes.

[wuvvum]

the brakes were alarmingly shit.

In my experience that's pretty much a constant on old Volkswagens.

 

Don't they do without a brake servo because VW couldn't be arsed to adapt it to RHD cars?

Wasn't that the Mk2 Polo? I'm pretty sure the Golfs were all servo'd.

[Station]

I think the reason why it's so 'great' is because the journalists feel the need to conform to the rule book on 'best cars eva'. I really like the look of them, I prefer the mk2 for looks, which wasn't nice to drive (there's a difference between put together well plastic and 'great car to drive'), the mk2 Astra and Escort were better cars, just because their flaws made them more interesting - mk2 Golf was boring. I'd have either, the silly scene thing doesn't bother me too much on those two.

[Pete-M]

the brakes were alarmingly shit.

In my experience that's pretty much a constant on old Volkswagens.

 

Don't they do without a brake servo because VW couldn't be arsed to adapt it to RHD cars?

Wasn't that the Mk2 Polo? I'm pretty sure the Golfs were all servo'd.

 

Mums old Mk1 Polo didn't have a servo. Didn't stop too well either. Used to need brake pads far more often than it should. They'd only last a couple of months with me driving it.

[Pete-M]

I like Mk2 Golf GTis. Ran a LHD B plate one for about 18 months, a G reg 16v for a couple of months, and a G reg 1.8 (with the 2.0 block from a Mk3) for about 8 months. A good one is a decent car, a bad one is a bloody nightmare.

[Guest Leonard Hatred]

Don't they do without a brake servo because VW couldn't be arsed to adapt it to RHD cars?

Wasn't that the Mk2 Polo? I'm pretty sure the Golfs were all servo'd.

 

Aye, my Mk2 Polo did without a brake servo. I quite liked it that way, and found servo assisted setups snatchy.

[dieselnutjob]

my first pug 305 didn't have a servo either (it was a diesel and had no vacuum pump) and it was fine

On the VW thing I had to upgrade the brakes on my Passat TDI to golf GTI ones (with Corrado G60 discs) because I was smoking the brakes everyday on the A414 (all those roundabouts). VW fitted the same brakes on the Passat TDI estate as the Golf 1.4 and they just weren't big enough

[Richard]

Does anybody have access to sales figures? I don't think the Golf really caught on until the early 1980s, which is when it started to appeal to yuppie types, but I'm just going by my memory of seeing them on the road.

[warren t claim]

The Golf seemed to form a benchmark to which other cars are measured. Some Golf clones were better cars (Mk1 Astra) and some were pretty awful (Talbot Horizon).

[Guest Leonard Hatred]

Wasn't the Mk1 Golf in itself a clone of the Fiat 127 and 128?

[warren t claim]

The Mk1 Golf was a success wordwide though, it was still in production in Sud Afreeka until very recently.

[Guest Leonard Hatred]

Doesn't make it any more original.

[M'coli]

It was influenced by the 128 and the Simca 1100.

 

I don't think that it was that much better than the competition, but the 1600GTi was, and the competition in the engine size above it. Think on what else that had so much power and so little weight at the time - nothing, really. The GTi 1600 had 110 cuddies, the Sunbeam 1600ti about 100, the Allegro SS 95(and this with an engine 160cc larger) a weber carb'd pinto 1600 Escort 90-odd. The only thing that eventually came close was the Alfasud(105), which came secondhand in either lightweight (rust) or extra-heavyweight (wag) or the RS2000, but essentially it was the mk2 that cemented the reputation, partly through the yupie thing, but also through the fact that the car didn't rust as much as the competition.

[warren t claim]

The Hatchback Mk1 Golf predated the hatchback Fiat 127.

[Guest Leonard Hatred]

Didn't predate the VISIONARY Autobianchi Primula, with its 5 door hatchback design, transverse FWD with separate gearbox, etc.

[Pete-M]

Didn't predate the Traction Avant either, but that's irrelevant.

 

The Golf wasn't a bad old thing really. Popularising injection on mainstream stuff was a bloody good move, and they were pretty well screwed together for a 'normal' car in the '70s. Not as revolutionary as some suggest, but a nice enough family car in the days before everyone decided their kids weren't going to ride in anything not equipped with 400 seats, 2000 airbags and more crumple zones than an empty crisp packet.

 

Always a bit on the small side for my tastes, but neither brilliant nor shite in non-GTi form. The GTi was ahead of the game with what it offered, when it appeared the GTi was about the only thing out there which combined good fuel economy, decent handling and a fair bit of poke in a small but stylish package. The Sunbeam Lotus, RS 2000, Chevette HS could all go faster but they would use a lot more fuel. The other alternatives couldn't keep up. The right car at the right time.

 

Just a shame they couldn't get away with making something similar now. To pull off the same trick you'd need about 500 bhp, a carbon fibre shell, Bentley build quality, 120 mpg and to sell it for under £20k. Not gonna happen.

[Guest Leonard Hatred]

Didn't predate the Traction Avant either, but that's irrelevant.

 

Yes it is, because the Traction Avant has a completely different drivetrain setup.

[Des]

Golfs are definitely overrated, although they were fairly good, quite strong and solid in a bit of a bastard to hammer dents out of kind of way. Lousy brakes as has been mentioned and from what I remember could get through clutch cables, strut top bearings, occasional cooling system and carb problems but nothing terrible. I found them a bit boring and soulless, If I went back in time 30 years and needed a small hatchback I'd walk past the VW dealer, eyes front, and hit Peugeot for a 104.

[trigger]

Does anybody have access to sales figures?

 

I have the sales figures for Europe car sales from 1980 in front of me...

 

Austria - Golf No. 1 9.5 Per Cent of total market sales

Belgain - Golf No. 1 4.6 " " " " " "

Norway - Golf No. 8 3.6 " " " " " "

Sweden - Golf No. 3 5.6 " " " " " "

Switzerland - Golf No. 1 5.9 " " " " "

West Germany - Golf No. 1 7.8 " " " " "

 

The other european counties do not list the Golf (Including the UK)

 

also the sales figures for world car production 1978-79.....

 

The VW Golf is No. 2 - 1978 616,081 and 1979 612,598, The number one seller was the Toyota Corolla.

 

I do have a lot more figures if any one else is interested.

 

Also the road test for the 1976 VW Golf 1600 LS http://www.flickr.com/photos/triggersca ... 949361034/

 

And the road test for the 1982 VW Golf 1800 GTi http://www.flickr.com/photos/triggersca ... 386338246/

[morris_ital_lover]

Its a standard case of time being the great decider, my 'rents are committed golf nutters however thei description of early gols (I think it might of been the mk2 though) is that of a good performer however they do have the criticisms.

 

Golfs have benefitted where Marinas and allegro's failed, their parent company survived (for one reason or another I realise that the two aforementioned cars had a role in the downfall of BL). Young motoring journos especially like to make stupid line-ups of of "crap cars" which are normally full of BL rammle and other such defunct brands (which havent survived though a parent company unlike Talbot) or are foreign and they know that there is little chance of come back from an angry company (Lada, various other brands). The marina had its faults, but I have heard many non petrol heads go on about how they hated Datsuns, Fords, Vauxhalls of the era but yet the motoring press rarely drop pianos on vivas despite the fact that they rusted to buggery amongst other issues.

 

Back to the golfs, they were innovative for the time, HOWEVER, they didnt start the hatchback revolution they were just there near the beginning and have claimed the extra kudos for this. Im sure that amongst the range there were some horrendous petrol/diesel versions that would struggle in a drag race with a fat asthamtic kid on a broken tricycle, but the second reason for the "shit its a golf" syndrome, is that VW managed for the first time (?) to pull off the vaguely fast car that costs a fortune range of models. But this is now seen as the pinnacle of seventies motoring , again because lazy journos would far rather arrange a photo shoot with a mk1 golf owner, copy and past a colleagues twaddle about how this car was so revolutionary etc than go out to experience the competition and its other hot hatches. Few mention the Golf GTIs competitors throughout history, renault 5 gordini, williams clio, astra gte to name a few.Many of which actually pulled somethingout of the hat in motorsport.

 

In conclusion, time has favoured the golf which, whilst interesting and based on a new concept, was no Citroen DS in terms of innovation and the presence of the GTI boosted the Golf's and VW's image from German company building old designs and aircooled engined odd balls into a hip modern firm.

 

My 2p worth,

 

m0rris

[254575]

ive come to the conclusion recently that it is all about marketing

 

if you tell the public often enough that your car is 'reliable' then the public will believe you. all recent reliability surveys show VAG to be pretty poor, but ask the man in the pub and he will tell you to buy german.

 

and as VAG has gotten themselves to this pinnacle, the are now indulging in a bit of revisionism, a la the MK1 golf.

 

in a similar sort of vein, Rover products are now talked down massively, far below what their capabilities deserve.

[Rocket88]

The Golf succeeded, because the Germans did what the Germans do best........and built the bloody thing properly. It wasn't particularly innovative, it wasn't cheap, it wasn't fast, and it wasn't particularly economical, but it did do what a surprising number of cars of that era failed to do, which was to start, first time and everytime. To the dirver of the equivalent BL / Vauxhall chod of the time, this was a bloody miracle!

[boobydoo]

I have heard that, for instance, in the UK the Golf was expensive for that size of car.

 

New car prices from June 1975 for basic 4 door model in the range:

 

Golf N 4dr 1100 £1795

 

Allegro 1300DL 4dr £1580

Escort 1100 4dr £1497

Avenger 1300 DL 4dr £1506

Simca 1100 LS £1443

Renault 12 L £1597

 

In fact its hard to find a similar class of car thats actually more expensive than the Golf. Remember, even £200 in 1975 was a lot of money!!