This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lower Saxony, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Lower SaxonyWikipedia:WikiProject Lower SaxonyTemplate:WikiProject Lower SaxonyLower Saxony articles
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
[[Lithium-ion battery#High power cathode using lithium nickel manganese cobalt (NMC)|nickel manganese cobalt]] The anchor (#High power cathode using lithium nickel manganese cobalt (NMC)) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors
Unfortunately, McLernon tried to "Americanize" the Golf/Rabbit by softening the suspension and using cheaper materials for the interior.
This sounds too much like a point of view. The use of the word "unfortunately" makes this statement sound more like a car review than an encyclopedia. I would think you would be hardpressed to find this language in other articles. I'm not a language expert, so I will leave it to those of you out there who are excellent with wording to fix this up. Thanks! MatthewWilder 08:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
no one mentioning mileage here? the whole reason any of the small cars were built was due the the gas crisis...where is discussion on mileage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.175.51 (talk) 12:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to 'Wolfgang The Talking VW' (highly reputable source!), VW reclassified the VW Cabrio as A4 based in 1998, making the 1998 - 2002 Cabrios 'Mk. 4's. This is different to what happened the Mk.1 Cabriolet, which was still termed the Mk.1/A1 platform while sold alongside the Mk.2 hatchback.
Anyone else have any opinions? [[User:Akadruid|akaDruid (Talk)]] 15:14, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It is my understanding that the Mk.4 was produced and sold as a cabriolet as your pictures suggest. However, I think that the car was based on the Mk.3 and that all the rear-end bodywork was Mk.3. SamH 10:16, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
My opinion is that this is merely a facelifted Golf III, and a VW dealer I know concurs. It remained on the old platform (wheelbase and track are identical AFAIK). Stombs 09:32, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the so-called Mk.4 Cabrio is in fact a facelifted Mk.3. ApolloBoy
That would be correct, Stombs and ApolloBoy. The "MkIV" convertible was based on the MkIII, but was dressed up as IV.Kar98 16:35, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Taking into account cars that keep their concept and basic layout but not necessarily their name it's the best selling car of all time worldwide.
Surely this means
Excluding cars that keep their concept and basic layout but not their name...
There are now many cars of identical "concept and basic layout", so what distinguishes the Golf is the long use of the same name. Andy G 00:28, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have owned Mk 1-4 Rabbits/Golfs, and I have to say virtually every change ever made to these cars is a gradual improvement. I would have to say that yes, the Golf would have to be the best selling of the cars mentioned..
Taking into account cars that keep their concept and basic layout but not necessarily their name it's the best selling car of all time worldwide
I think this is really confusing. The original statement was:
Worldwide it's the best selling car of all times, considering cars that keep their concept and basic layout and not only their name.
If you take the Corolla: more cars named Corolla were sold, but first generation Corolla has nothing to do with the current model - except the name. --EricS 00:55, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Interesting. How much is similar between the different Golf generations? I know that A5 has an independent suspension, so that's a substantial change. But what else is similar between A1-A4? If the wheelbase, suspension, driveline, etc are similar, then I think we have something of a winner (for cars, the F-150 still beats all for "vehicles"). The Corolla switched from RWD to FWD half way through, and the suspension was changed dramatically. The old Beetle is impressive because it was basically a single design for all those 21,000,000 cars sold. Even the engine was roughly the same! --SFoskett 15:18, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
"The Golf IV was made in Germany, Brazil, Mexico, the Czech Republic and Belgium."
AFAIK the only cars made by VW in Czech Rep. are the Skoda brand. I never heard about any production of any Golf - maybe they buy few components. Unless someone knows better I'll remove CR from list at some time. Pavel Vozenilek 21:31, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I added a pic of the rear badge and the front grill of a mk1, should deffinatly split the article up as has been suggested by others before, then we can get far more photos and details into it all. Nick carson16:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a mistake on line that says "These cars produced 212 bhp, making them the most powerful VW Golfs ever produced, until the introduction of the Mark 5 Golf R32 in 2005." because Mark 4 R32 already had 241hp which can be read later on at the very same page.
I don't dare to change it since I've never written anything to Wikipedia but perhaps a registered user could check that and correct if necessary.
Regarding the phrase, "exclusively released on the continent in 1989 with 160 bhp (120 kW) and ABS braking," it's not clear whether it refers to the Golf Syncro model, or to the G60 model, or to both.
It would be good to re-word the sentence to make that point more clear. Hackercraft (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It refers to the G60 model. In the UK, the Syncro was available as a 90bhp 1.8 carburettor fed 5-door but we never recieved the option of a supercharged Mk2 Golf — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveGTI (talk • contribs) 09:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not like the Mk. 4 Golf.
I don't like how the Mk. 4 was Volkswagen's attempt to bring Volkswagen more upscale, and have Seat and Skoda as the the cheap, low end brands.
I don't like how the Mk. 4 could be equipped with luxury leather, rain sense wipers, in addition to the Mk. 4 being the heavist generation of all.
I'm glad that the Mk. 5 will take the car back to where it was during the Mk.2 and the Mk.3.
The Mk. 2, and the Mk.3 are the generations I like the best, I don't care about the Mk.4 at all, and the only Mk. 1 that I care about is the pickup truck.
The Mk.1 Golf/Rabiit is nothing but the size of a new Mini Cooper, and today's current generation Polo.
I also don't like Volkswagen's weirdo commercials, all these sales they've been having.
I like Volkswagen's Fahrvergnugen commercials better, the ones where it starts out with the Fahrvergnugen driver symbol, and then the scene views into the car driving inside the Fahrvergnugen symbol, and the actor says: Slip into the 1990 Volkswagen Golf, or slip into the 1990 Volkswagen Jetta and experience Fahrvergnugen.
US-American commercial? Is that Fahrvergnugen commercial US-American? I don't remember seeing it in Europe, just the USA. --TGC5521:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like the auto, don't buy one -- but really, it's just a "transportation device or option" -- you are not going to breed with one or sell your eldest son for one. BTW, it would help if you signed your comments or at least dated them.--TGC5521:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are two generations of 1.9 Diesel engines (the standard and the PD) in varing power outputs which appear to have been missed off. I'll get my owners manual out and add them later on if this wasn't done for a reason. Mnd99915:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the article is said "There was also a 2.8 L four-wheel drive Golf VR6 4Motion version available, succeeding the Mk3 VR6 which used a 2.8 L VR6 and only had front-wheel drive." This is no true, golf III has a 190HP version of the 2.8VR6 engine with four wheel traction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.24.24.125 (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Mk 5 Golf is definitely the best Golf in a number of years. Is handling and feel is much closer to that of the original model. For me the original and the current model are the best and the models in between were just too boring or by the Mk 4 too big and heavy. Even Volkswagen have realised that the original Model was the best as the cloth on the seat material in the current GTi is the same as the cloth on the original model. Although the Golf models have changed over the last 25 years, you can still tell its a Golf, unlike other models of car who keep their same name but look nothing like its predecessors. I think the Golf will always remain a Golf no matter how it changes in future generations.
The Golf IV section of the article says "The Golf IV was the heaviest, largest and slowest version to date". This sounds very close to being NPOV to me: *every* new generation of Golf has been the heaviest and largest to date, and this is probably true for virtually every other car in the world, too. (Why don't we say "The Golf V is the heaviest and largest version to date" in the Golf V section?)
It sounds like a not-so-subtle way of some writer saying he's not happy with the engine in his Golf. :-)
Can't blame him, it's great on surface streets but I say a prayer every time I take my Golf IV on the highway.
GH - a suggestion; although this page may not be the ideal place, somewhere, I suggest, it would be good to have a comparison of the various models of [here] VW Golf: length, width, height and kerb weight. I understand that the Mk V is almost twice the weight of the Mk I [17xx Kg to 9xx Kg, I believe]. How much of this is because of legally mandated safety [etc.] systems, such as air bags, crumple zones and so on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.59.206 (talk) 05:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Years later and there's still no dimensions, esp length, width, & weight. Doe anybody know where to find this info? All other makes on WP have this info. Santamoly (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I already added an image of a Golf Pink Floyd a while ago. However, there were several other Golf editions that included a distinct exterior decal package, at least in Europe, that should probably be mentioned in the article. As far as I know, these were:
I have added the gallery to the article to prevent the photos from being deleted. I have pictures of the other editions as well, which I will upload in a day or two (except for the Bon Jovi, which I'm still searching for... ProhibitOnions12:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh-heh. Basically, yes. Actually, the edition usually included a list of specific extras. This seemed to be a Volkswagen Big Idea at the time, but they haven't repeated it with later Golfs. I like both Pink Floyd and the Rolling Stones, but I'm not sure I'd want to drive around in a car with their logo on it. ProhibitOnions23:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously I don't think this section on the Jetta belongs in the Golf article at all. At best it deserves a single line with a link to the Jetta article, since the Jetta is a totally different car, even if they are related/share some components.
--Cbwallace 20:21, 13 September 2006
While I don't disagree that the Jetta deserves its own article, but it is not a totally different car. There are minor differences in styling of the front end, but the only real difference is the addition of a trunk. Wheelbase, engines, drivetrains, etc. are all the same.
This was a separate article which I merged into this article as a section, per the consensus at AfD. I didn't edit the section at all, and it's not the greatest section, reads sort of like a puff piece. Herostratus01:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the external references section you merged from the rabbit gti article can now be deleted. It was useful when this article still incorporated the whole rabbit gti article. But since this has been chopped down and rewritten to a appropriate sub-section, I don't think all those references for an article that doesn't even exist anymore are still needed.--BSI10:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Links to sites like myfastgti.com,clubgti,golfmkv.com and more are relevant. The sites:
Used Car Safety Ratings - Volkswagen Golf ------- GOES TO A PAGE NOT FOUND
Volkswagen Golf V Specifications and Road Test ----COMMERCIAL. SITE
VW Golf Information Site ----COMMERCIAL. SITE
VW New Rabbit Information Site ----COMMERCIAL. SITE
I've readded several other gti and rabbit sites because they have good quality information.
Hi, I was wondering if anyone has seen the ad for the "Rabbit" in Canada (and it could be the same elsewhere). There is a song playing in the ad, and it is very catchy, but I have no idea what it is or where I could find it. Does anyone know?--156.34.211.5916:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is far too long, it needs to be shortened. How about splitting it into generations? Something like Volkswagen Golf (Mk I), Volkswagen Golf (Mk II), Volkswagen Golf (Mk III)... The Golf GTI could get an own page, since a quite part of the article is dedicated to it. We should also change many, many links to the correspondant article, something which will take a long, long time. Any other suggestions? -- NaBUru3802:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this needs to be split up.
Maybe its time to split the article up into smaller sections. I think a reasonable format would go something like this:
The main article should retain its content concerning the golf in general, encompassing all 5 generations.
Each generation ex: Mk2, Mk3, etc, should have its own seperate article.
Under each generation section in the main article there should be a link to Main article: Volkswagen Golf Mark 5 (for example) followed by a small description and the retention of the template with one photo that visually describes the generation in one hit.
This would allow for the main article to contain more content about the Golf in general, and allow for seperate articles to go into far more detail concerning each individual generation.
So what are everyones thoughts on this? Oppose? Support? or have a better idea? It has to be done sooner or later, and I can come up with a million pictures of the mark 1 alone, and go into vast detail, but theres just not the space for it in the main article. I volenteer to create a Mark 1 article if editors decide this whole thing is a good idea. Thanks. Nick carson16:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. These are all seperate cars and should be listed seperatly as such. This should be broken up between the MKs for one entry and then each model have their own entry; linking them together would be important in the see also section. Being a proud MK1 Rabbit owner, its appauling to see it coupled as a golf and not have its own section strickly for Rabbits (even though I understand the reasons for doing so)
I know someone rewrote the article page to say the Mark 4 Golf ended producion in 2003, but as the article itself says, it's still made and/or sold in at least four countries, even though European production ended in 2003 and 2006 was the last year for the Golf 4 in the United States.
Forget about all of those, because the Mini predates all of 'em! To be fair though, the Golf is vastly more successful than all of these FWD hatchbacks put together. But even so, "widely successful" sounds too vague; "one of the most successful FWD hatchbacks" sounds better. Andy Nguyen22:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I've put in a range of trivial copyedits today, but I've stopped short of trying to solve the internationalisation problem. The article certainly is very North America heavy, but the info is by no means invalid, it's just that European info is missing, so rather than just cropping it, I'd want to use some of the available sources to pad it out with info from other continents... which will take some time to do.
Aesthetically, I'm not at all convinced that the images of special edition badges are worth having – I think a link to a Wikimedia Commons category would be better, keeping the article looking a bit cleaner. But I've left them alone since somebody's obviously put a lot of work into finding the models to photograph, so I wouldn't want to "clean" that up unless there was a consensus to do so. – Kieran T(talk | contribs)18:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, how about someone from Europe adding some info? Are your fingers broken?
Can somebody possibly French or from France name that recentish French rap video which features a Golf R32 with a lot of footage of rioting and motorcycle stunts Willirennen 00.08 December 1 2006
Presumably somebody thought it made sense because it was the first truly famous "GTi", but I'd agree that it's inappropriate. A disambiguation page or a new page in the mould of the car body styles articles might be called for. – Kieran T(talk)13:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the US, it's sold as the Volkswagen GTI. No golf or rabbit there. I personally believe the GTI deserves it's own page because of this. Anyone else agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guticb (talk • contribs) 03:42, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
Yep, the GTI should be represented on its own page.
I agree, the GTI should have its own web page, and I am also willing to start a discussion about the GTI, just to talk about performance, handling, etc. I will start this discussion with a topic on my "User" page- AClements3 (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe someone can add some information on the upcoming Golf/Rabbit R36... it comes with the 3.6 liter engine from the passat!
This has yet to be officially confirmed. As Wikipedia is not in the business of speculation, nothing should be added until an official announcement is made.--Analogue Kid12:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that page should be started up "right now" because the R32 is already on sale, plus I've already seen one at a VW dealership in West Palm Beach, FL. I am willing to help you start the web page if you're up to it. Please respond to "my talk" on my user page- AClements3 (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just spotted this reversion [2] which takes it back six months [3], which had no edit summary, and undid over 400 edits. I suspect that this may have been the result of accidentally editing from an old article in the history, so to be safe, I have undone it. Notinasnaid14:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the Golf V's
My understanding is that the 5 doors (including GTI variants) are built in South Africa. 3 door variants are built in Wolfsburg Germany.
It depends on where you are. In the USA, all GTIs and Golfs (Rabbits) are built in Wolfsburg. However, much of the world (particularly in Asia) is supplied by the South African plant.--Analogue Kid12:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a new performance oriented model from VW with a 1.4TSI engine, 17" alloys, and a sport suspension. Perhaps someone can update it? I'm still new to Wikipedia so don't know how to add a section.
Here's how to add a section: Type ====Golf GT====, then start typing youre info. below it, but make sure to leave a space between the title and the article body. If you need some more help you can contact me on "my talk" on my user page- AClements3 (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i saw a picture of a new golf thats called W12 its the same Golf GTI but has a W21 engien 650 hp....thats all i know maybe some one can bring more information about it.
The W12 is currently a concept car, but it's actually functional model and VW are considering putting it into production - given enough support/hype. I think it deserves putting into the article. Unless there are any objections I'll locate some reliable sources soon --Sevengoods09:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This paragraph is not clear. It appears in the section listed above but is unclear as to which version it refers.
"The latest model remained faithful to the Golf concept but included some of the new "arched" styling themes first seen on the Mark 4 Passat. The overall effect is far more pleasing than the previous model."
So, is the Mark 4 the latest model and is the Mark 3 the previous model?
I once saw a picture of a US Mark I model with rectangular (probably sealed) headlights and a huge, ugly, protruding front bumper made from black plastics. I guessed at the time that this was according to some trade regulations, to make access to the US market more difficult for Volkswagen, but of course I could be wrong. Unfortunately, this design is not reflected in the article. Does anyone know about this? -- 79013:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is actually a later Mk I model which was made in the Pennsylvania factory. Early Golf/Rabbits in the USA were identical to their German counterparts with round sealed beam headlights. The differences it had were minor, including a slightly different bumper and emissions controls. Indeed, US regulations for bumper strength are higher than they are in Europe. Additionally, from 1974-1982, cars sold in the USA had to have bumpers strong enough to withstand a 5 mph (8 km/h) impact with no damage. Ronald Reagan weakened the standard in the deregulation frenzy of the early 1980's. The current standard is the bumper must protect safety related equipment (headlights, etc.) in a 2.5 mph impact. Massive damage is totally allowable now, which is ridiculous, but oh well. The standards were not intended to make things more difficult for VW, all manufacturers had to meet the same standards. The only policy decision that affected VW was the chicken war, which put a 25% tax on imported trucks (i.e. the VW bus). This did end up making the Bus, the Vanagon, and the Eurovan a much more expensive proposition than it needed to be, which culled sales significantly.--Analogue Kid14:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that all US-made "Rabbits" had rectangular headlights but I could be wrong. The photo used is of such an ugly junker that if no one minds I'll replace it with a picture of my Rabbit, which frankly is a much nicer example.Armona (talk) 03:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I personally believe that the GTI deserves it's own page.
The GTI is NOT the same as the Golf. In fact, in the Americas, it's not sold as a Golf GTI. it's sold as a GTI. The GTI actually even has it's own fanbase.
It may be sold as a separate car, but who is really fooled? I think it should stay on this page. Functionally, it is still a Golf or Rabbit if you prefer with slightly different trim.--Analogue Kid21:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. I'll use the MKV as an example. You can't get an MKV GTI with a 5 speed manual, yet you can't get an MKV rabbit with a 6 speed manual. Also, The MKV rabbit lacks a huge program that the GTI has called Launch Control. This SHOOTS the car forward by letting you rev to 3000 RPM and then engaging the clutch (Launch control is only available with a DSG transmission on an MKV GTI). The GTI is a totally different car. Guticb02:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact you can get a MkV Golf with a 6 speed manual - at least in Germany/Europe. For petrol engines only the smallest 2 (1.4 L 59kW and 1.6L 75kW) are available with the five speed, the stronger engines have the 6 speed as a standard, and the 105kW 1.4L TSI is available with the DSG transmission.--BSI14:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. How do we start off though? We can't just copy and paste the current GTI sections into a new page..... Can we? Also, do we have to get it approved? Guticb05:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope no need for approval. A copy paste will work a brief lead paragraph would also be good as would some photos. Let me know if you need any help. --Daniel J. Leivick08:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So the fact that I can get a 6 speed automatic with a Pontiac G6 on the GXP model instead of a 4 speed on the base trim means it's a totally different car then too, right? Launch control, while an interesting feature, does not make the car totally unique as you claim. That's like saying since one car has power windows and another doesn't, they must be totally different.
Keep in mind that having a separate page for the GTI is also being US-centric. In Europe, the car has never been sold as a separate model. WikiProject Autos generally encourages formatting/naming/etc. in the style as found in the cars "home country" which of course would be Germany. Check out the VW website and roll your mouse over the Ausstattungsvarianten button. There you'll see the available trim lines, which even includes the R32 and Edition 30. Thus, it would be imprudent to make a new GTI page.--Analogue Kid17:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The GTI has a life and history distinct from the lesser models, to me launch control and trans options are secondary. I propose a page called Volkswagen Golf GTI not just GTI. The GXP at this point has no history apart from the G6 and does not need a page especially seeing that it is only marginally different from it lesser siblings. The GTI is considered a seperate model both in the US and elsewhere In general I support a page split if there is a culture and history built around a top level model, I feel the the GTI is in the same vane as Nissan Skyline GTR. --Daniel J. Leivick18:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with calling it Volkswagen Golf GTI though, is that in the US, and the majority of the world, actually, it is simply sold as a Volkswagen GTI, not a Golf GTI. Here in the US, if you tell someone you have a golf GTI, they'll think you're a moron. Guticb07:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just GTI in the Majority of the world? Don't think so.
If a separate GTi page is created, it should be as "Volkswagen Golf GTi", as at some stage or another one of the 5 generations of Golf GTis have been sold as that in almost every territory its marketed. There's no reason why the GTi page has to be as US-centric as the Golf one. Walter8812:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's this confusing line in ¶3 of the History section:
The Audi technology in the Golf would regain for Volkswagen the engineering lead over rear drive cars that Ferdinand Porsche had bestowed on the original Beetle over its large conventional peers.
Can anybody please rewrite it in a less ambiguous form? I am not a Beetle owner or avid fan, and so I have no idea what this line is trying to say.
Also follows is a very abrupt statement:
The small Golf had to succeed in replacing the high volume Volkswagen sedan.
I have no idea why why user Jonas bognar felt the need to delete an entire topic, class it as a minor edit and provide no explanation as to why opposed the topic. Hence I've reinstated the topic.
I was under the impression that the new 2008 models of City Golf and City Jetta were based on the Mk5 model, but after seeing this review, I noticed that these were Mk4-Mk5 ugly hybrids. See for yourself [4]. We need more information IMO... Laurent20:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I notice there are no diesel engines listed for the mk4 Golf. I don't have the full details of available engines but I am aware that the following were available:
1.9 SDi in the following states of tune: 64bhp, 68bhp
As has been suggested before (to great acclaim, as it seems), this article should be split into separate entries for Golf 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
In its present state, it is far too long and somewhat unmanageable, I think; also, shorter sections on the different generations might help make the separate sections more world-oriented and allow further additions without cluttering the article even more.
I´d propose to leave a short survey entry on all Golfs containing links to the different generations (like on de:wp). If only I knew how to technically do it.
Hi, yes this is good idea to split the page to generations pages, I suggest you just cut/copy and paste the relevant generation text to new page and leave short summary to the old page and top of that generation {{main|Generation 1 etc.}} see for example
Hi again, and thanks. A friendly fellow gave me some advice on how to do it on my talk page, so sooner or later I´ll go ahead and do it. Probably sooner, as this question was already discussed here and there seemed to be a consenus. Regards, --328cia (talk) 08:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I split the article into five separate entries. What is now needed are, I guess, a few sentences on the single generations; I´ve prepared the sections by inserting a picture in each and will possibly add a survey of generations 1 through 5 in the near future. If anyone else is willing to do this, please feel free to go ahead. --328cia (talk) 11:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind words, Charles; although you can hardly call it a case of "in die Nesseln greifen", as the question of splitting up the whole thing has been around for two years without opposition. --328cia (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I´ve given a source for 3-door vs. 5-door production for 1974 to 1987 that proves that the 3-door was the more popular body style then. Nowadays however, the 5-door is by far more popular, at least here in Germany; according to my local VW dealer, with the introduction of the Golf III 5-door models began to surpass the 3-doors, saleswise; currently he estimates the percentage of 3-doors to run around 7 to 8 % of all Golf sales. In the absence of written sources, though, it will be hard to determine which body style has been more successful over the whole time span of Golf production.
www.Mobile.de (a used car sale internet platform) lists the following number of cars:
Is it really necessary to write ==Golf Mk1 (A1 17) (1974-present)== in the section heading (and the equivalent for the other generations)? It is a very "technical" heading; its ok if you are already familiar with the different codes, but if you are familiar you wont need to read them, and if you are not familiar it is a bit overwhelming. I would think it would be better to write ==Golf Mk1== and put the production years, manufacturer codes, etc in the paragraph below. That would also mean the section headings would more closely mirror the daughter articles which are linked to; the cars arent at Volkswagen Golf Mk1 (A1 17) (1974-present) after all. Just a thought. Songs of ts steiner (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The VR6-engined version accelerated from 0–60 mph (0–97 km/h) in 7.1 seconds, posting a record 10.5 1/4-mile time at 90.5 mph."
I question the veracity of this information - a 10.5s quarter mile from a car doing 0-60 in 7.1 seconds is very, very unlikely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.221.132 (talk) 06:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
agreed, a standard Corrado VR6 (which has the 2.9 engine) does a standing quarter in around 15.9s so there is no way that a 10.5 was set by a standard Golf VR6. SteveGTI (talk) 10:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it a Mk 5 and not the current, most recent Mk 6? Will make newcomers think the current Golf is more dated than it actually is. Feudonym (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Several sections of this article are wildly outdated, stemming from 2008 - especially the Golf IV section. Also, why do the production dates in the section titles correspond to US sales? The Golf IV was sold until 2003 in Europe (its home market), 2006 in the US, 2010 in Canada, 2008 in China, and is presumably still available in some Latin American countries. To me the title should read either 1997-2003 or 1997-current. 1997-2006 only makes sense to US readers. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 08:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the sentence "All variants proved instantly popular with the only notable technical flaw being the poor braking in RHD models, due to the master cylinder for the brakes being placed on the left for LHD cars, as Volkswagen never intended the Golf to be sold abroad." Various reasons:
Unsourced
Popularity and only notable technical flaw unrelated
The allegation that "Volkswagen never intended the Golf to be sold abroad" is obviously nonsense. See further down that the Golf was popular in the UK ever since its introduction in 1974.BsBsBs (talk) 11:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all! A recent edit of mine in the "etimology" section was reverted even though it was properly sourced to VW document and the reference was dismissed as not serious. Could somebody else please look at it, as the source advocating alternate name explanation is an editorial opinion of the MSN. Furthermore, choice of name "Caddy" for a utility version of Golf is quite indicative, not to mention that no VW model since Golf introduction in 1974 was named after a wind for quite a while (Jetta).--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So they used the slogan "Golf: The new national pastime" and named a variant "Caddy". That's your entire argument? I just added four more high quality sources, bringing the total to nine, which say the cars were (mostly at that time) named after winds, and that the Golf was named after the Gulf Stream. The New York Times says specifically in 1984 that VW told them the name comes from golfstrom. Popular Science, Motor Trend, Business Week, and others back this up. The standards of WP:Reliable sources have clearly been met.
If you want to cite an alternative view, you need to find an independent, authoritative sources that says explicitly, "The car was named after the game of golf, not the gulf stream." Otherwise you're inserting your own original research. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there's no room for WP:OR, but I suppose Volkswagen AG corporate site is an independent and authoritative source that warrants amending the claim to something to the effect of: "At its introduction, the car was marketed as the new national pastime hinting at the sport of golf". I'm aware there's google books, I'm just pointing at what the manufacturer says.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And what you are doing is interpreting the source by trying to find meaning in something that is not explicitly stated. A single tag line from an advertising campaign reproduced on VW's website is not an independent and authoritative source. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While the car was obviously named after the Gulf Stream, Volkswagen did sometimes playfully refer to the game of Golf (with the Mk1 GTi gearknob, for instance). There is nothing more to it. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a source can be found that supports the idea that they were using a games theme for their alternative names, like Caddy and Polo, that they used in the US. And the golf ball knob. Business Week touches on it[6]. But the slogan alone is not nearly enough. Keep searching and a decent source for it will probably turn up. If not, then leave it out and allow readers to speculate on their own. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Polo, Derby and Cadddy were there in Europe too. I'll try to find a source for that, there are bound to be some, folks at the VW museum were quite adamant about the sports reference...--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most WP automobile articles include dimensions, but this article is noticeably deficient on numbers. Does anyone have access to dimensions, esp length and width? Santamoly (talk) 05:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet - see WP:CRYSTAL: Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. If and when definitive official information is released by VW, then we can start adding more reliably-sourced details. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
This article seems to use headings based on production years as opposed to model years which is inconsistent with other car pages on wikipedia. What are everyone's thoughts on changing this? 108.172.114.141 (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the Mark 5 and Mark 6 sections are particularly bad. In addition the Mark 6 section includes a large amount of extraneous mark 5 information, further adding to confusion about the model years of design changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:A80:5424:76D4:35FF:FE09:A421 (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The (current) production version of the e-Golf is basically a Mk7 with an electric motor instead of the internal combustion engine and a battery fitted where the gas tank and exhaust system would go. Same body, (mostly) same standard and optional equipment, etc. Perhaps that section should be moved to the Volkswagen Golf Mk7 article until the e-Golf becomes sufficiently notable to rate its own? DES (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The 4th generation Golf is described as being "rated at 384 kW (515 bhp)"! Seems like a bit over the top for an econobox, wouldn't you think? Are there any Golf experts who can confirm this prodigious output? Santamoly (talk) 08:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 6 external links on Volkswagen Golf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
As I heard from Motorpasion Mexico, the upcoming eighth generation will not enter the North American (USA and Canada) nor Mexican markets, only in Europe, but R-Line and GTI versions for North America and Mexico will. Also, the factory where the Golf is produced in Mexico will be occupied by the also-upcoming Tarek. Reference here. 201.145.7.116 (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need a section on Volkswagen emissions scandal
The Volkswagen emissions scandal was not just the Golf but it affected the Jetta the Passat the Touareg and many other models why is the a whole section when other articles do not mention it or only briefly mention it besides the separate article on the scandal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.180.90 (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems strange that no one has noted how the Mk6 has similar creases in the C-columns and sides, very similar to the setup on the Mk3. The headlights also seem to be like a modern rendition of a Mk3 sketch. Was the Mk6 supposed to be styled as an Mk3 tribute? By comparison, the Mk 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 are more slab-sided. 78.90.63.158 (talk) 08:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I second your restoration - these hatnotes are often applied indiscriminately and for no reason, but this is the perfect case of when to use it. Mr.choppers | ✎ 00:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was an accident on my part. Someone else put an auto-redirect onto the page for the Golf to automatically redirect you to the Gol, despite there being a page for it. I must've fat-fingered it. My bad! V92 (talk) 02:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
Golf Rolling Stones Collection, seen at a used car lot, a 1996 model
Golf New Orleans
Golf Europe
Close-up of Pink Floyd lettering on Golf Pink Floyd wagon
