![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
![Image](http://www.vrdetailing.co.uk/images/MK1%201.jpg)
![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
Moderators: IMOC Moderators, IMOC Committee Members
bburn13 wrote:IMHO
You`ll never feel as happy with a mk2.
They don`t have that something special,
that gets under your skin
Dave
I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way.So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness.
Jaspa wrote:I'm gonna surprise a few people and agree with the comments above.
I've had my rev3 turbo for just over 3 years, It was the only car I have wanted since childhood, Black, Tbar Turbo mk2 and I have to say I am enjoying the mk1 even more.
So much so that I am considering delaying putting the turbo engine in the back for the time being.
You'll be back in a mk1![]()
midenginedmaniac wrote:
Its a Glimited.168bhp supposedly.
Much to learn
midenginedmaniac wrote:Image Replaced With URL For Quote
![]()
http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r122 ... G_5138.jpg
Its a Glimited.168bhp supposedly.
Much to learn
andyj wrote:I'm a mark 1 man currently running a Rev3 NA by way of change.
Mark 2 is lovely cruiser, doesn't suffer from rust(wheel arch/windscreen header) problems and from late REV 2 on, has really lovely variable power steering.
Combined with great dashboard layout, better comfort and helpful 50% bigger rear boot, it's a nice car.
It feels a much bigger car.It's much less agile.
Even with 173 bhp on REV 3 NA spec.
it's quite slow and feels less exciting to drive quickly.
I'm not sure which is best.![]()
They're just different.
![]()
I love them both.