# MK3 vs MK4 (2.0 edition)



## bherman13 (Sep 10, 2010)

Ok, so I own a mk3 jetta glx that I've daily'd for about 3 years. Never driven another VW other than it so I'm not experienced with all the different kinds other that what I've read about.

Recently, my mom purchased a 2001 Jetta GLS 2.slow automatic. I've actually been driving that the past couple days while I'm looking for a coolant hose for my VR :banghead:. I've always heard the 2.0 is a dog, but I was surprised at how much torque this motor has right away. I like the ratios of the auto trans, but it's not the best otherwise. I also dislike the drive by wire response of this engine. The delay in response is frustrating to say the least.

From what I understand, they did some reworking in the middle of 2001 and this engine (AZG code) has a better torque curve than previous. I'm not sure when they made the change from throttle cable to DBW, but I believe mk3 2.0's are throttle cable(?).

*So, here's the question. If everything else where the same, as in, ignore all the other differences (weight, suspension, build quality) and just focus on the drive-train, which would you prefer? A MK3 2.0 5spd or a MK4 2.0 5spd?* I know there are just minor differences, so anyone with opinions chime in and give reasons why you chose what you chose. Remember, look at it as if you're comparing the different drive-trains if they both happen to be in the same car. Also, has to be completely stock when comparing.


----------



## 87vr6 (Jan 17, 2002)

MK3 for all the reasons you told me to ignore. 

As you stated yourself, you're inexperienced in the VW game. The MK4 2.0 is about one of the worst driving cars, ever. Especially with the slush box. My first VW was a 1996 gti 2.0, it was fun to drive. A friend had a brand new 99.5 MK4 2.0 GTI. It was absolutely horrible. Horrible. I cannot emphasize it enough.


----------



## Rockerchick (May 10, 2005)

I liked my New Beetle 2.0. It was a 5-speed though and it had a decent amount of pep. That said, I'm sure in a mk3 it would be even better. It was a solid engine and with the 5-speed, it was a very strong, reliable setup. I had the car for 6 1/2 years. Served me quite well.


----------



## Sanityana (Mar 4, 2012)

MK3 all the way.


----------



## Shannon Hamilton (Jun 17, 2004)

Coming from someone that has owned both. With a manual trans they are both about the same. 

The weight of the mk4 definitely makes acceleration sluggish but let's face it if you are buying a 2.0 it's not for the performance. They are both very reliable and somewhat fuel thrifty vehicles. There is still a variation of the 2.0 in the mk6 Jetta so that must tell you something about the motor.


----------



## bherman13 (Sep 10, 2010)

So you guys are saying the response given by the throttle cable in the mk3 trumps the better(?) torque curve of the mk4's 2.0? Also, remember we're only considering 5-speed units, not slushboxes, and weight doesn't matter. Just comparing engines and transmissions.


----------



## 87vr6 (Jan 17, 2002)

The torque curve isn't all that different, and the weight penalty of the MK4 eliminates any minute perceived advantage that might give. 

I'm a MK4 guy. I've owned two, driven numerous others. I've owned a MK1, three MK2's, and a MK3. 

Assuming the body isn't rusted and the miles aren't too high, I'd pick the MK3 2.0 over it's MK4 counterpart any day. 

And to Shannon who mentioned it's still in the MK6, the reasons are because it's cheaper for VW to manufacturer than the 2.5 they dropped in the MK5, which is a superior motor in all aspects, minus it's one or two mpg less fuel economy. The 2.5 shared nothing with most other VW motors (only the 10 cyl in the couple Audi's), whereas the basic design of the 2.0 has been around since 1975 or so.. 

In the MK4 chassis the 1.8t actually had higher EPA mpg ratings than the 2.0, and I can confirm that with my first MK4 1.8t got up to 35 mpg on the highway and it was modded.


----------



## rhodri45 (Feb 19, 2012)

87vr6 said:


> The torque curve isn't all that different, and the weight penalty of the MK4 eliminates any minute perceived advantage that might give.
> 
> I'm a MK4 guy. I've owned two, driven numerous others. I've owned a MK1, three MK2's, and a MK3.
> 
> ...


 idk what you're talking about, the mk6 jetta SE is a 2.5L...


----------



## Shannon Hamilton (Jun 17, 2004)

They make a mk6 Jetta with a 2.0 as well. It's the budget Jetta. Aka the bait and switch car. It's the $15,500 Jetta that was a huge selling point but not many were made because for a few thousand more you get a whole lot more car. 

My point was that while it is cheap for Vw to use the 2.0 motor it is also a tried and true power plant with minimal issues and easy to maintain. They will dump the 2.5 for a 1.8 or 2.0 soon anyway. As you said the block has been around for decades in some form.


----------



## 87vr6 (Jan 17, 2002)

rhodri45 said:


> idk what you're talking about, the mk6 jetta SE is a 2.5L...


 idk know what you're talking about, but the first two jettas in the lineup are 2.slows... 

http://www.vw.com/en/models/jetta/trims-specs.html


----------



## Rockerchick (May 10, 2005)

87vr6 said:


> In the MK4 chassis the 1.8t actually had higher EPA mpg ratings than the 2.0, and I can confirm that with my first MK4 1.8t got up to 35 mpg on the highest and it was modded.


 
That I can also confirm. My 1.8T has gotten consistently higher mileage than my 2.0 by 1-2 MPGs. I'd get 22 around town in my 2.0 during the summer with the AC on and was getting 28-29 highway the last few years owning the car. My 1.8T gets 23 easy around town and 30-31 highway, cruise set at 75. Now, I do have a 6th gear vs. the 5-speed in my 2.0, but there is definitely still a difference.


----------



## 87vr6 (Jan 17, 2002)

Rockerchick said:


> My 1.8T gets 23 easy around town and 30-31 highway, cruise set at 75. Now, I do have a 6th gear vs. the 5-speed in my 2.0, but there is definitely still a difference.


 See, it's funny, I haven't been able to achieve the same figures as my 2000 jetta 5-speed with my 20th with a 6-speed... by about 2-3 mpg... I once got 475 miles out of a tank of gas in my jetta, don't think I've gotten more than 415-420 out of the IY...


----------



## Rockerchick (May 10, 2005)

I think I got around 420 miles on a tank in the Beetle once. But that was really running it near empty. I got 36mpg once in the Beetle but that was definitely a fluke. I've been happy to get 30+ highway running at 75 in the 20th. Same speed was not hitting 30 in the Beetle. 

If I could solidly get 25mpg around town in the 20th though, I'd be thrilled. It would make buying premium fuel feel a little more worth it.


----------



## 1VR62NV (Sep 13, 2003)

Mk3 with a big lead


----------



## feels_road (Jan 27, 2005)

I owned my MkIII 2.slow MT Golf for 17 years. Did not regret a single one of those years, and in that car the 2._slow_ really isn't. :thumbup:


----------



## TOMPASS (Apr 6, 2010)

I've had a MKIII 2.0 automatic and a MKIV 2.0 automatic Jetta. Both were GL models. The MKIV 2.0 had a lower RPM horsepower and torque rating, and it had a 4speed automatic. I much preferred the MKIV - noticably spunkier than the MKIII (not a Porsche, by any means), the suspension was better tuned (I could be wrong, but I think it was based on the Plus suspension of the MKIII GLI), overall a sense of higher quality. I much prefer the styling of the MKIV-the MKIII with its US bumpers always made me think it needed a diaper change (maybe I was influenced by having an infant son at the time). The only issue I ever had with the MKIV was the frequent CEL with no apparent cause. My MKIII had some loose body trim, but otherwise was trouble-free. I've driven several higher mileage MKIII GL/GLS (no GLI's, please note) and found them to feel worn out. I haven't driven similar MKIV's, so I can't comment on them. As for soft suspensions, both have plenty of aftermarket upgrades to address that. On the MKIV, you need to drop the engine carrier to replace the front roll bar. Performance upgrades for the 2.0 are minimal.
Overall, I felt that the MKIII was not much more than a forgettable appliance, and never missed it. I had a MKII Jetta GL automatic, which I also preferred over the MKIII. 
My personal recommendation would be to take the MKIV, with the caveat that a MKIII GLI should be far superior to the GL/GLS.
Having said all of that, I traded the MKIV for a MKIV1.8T tiptronic with the sport suspension-a major improvement in every possible way.


----------

