MK3 98 Jetta 2.0 as a beater/potential challenge car?

Picked up a running yet very scruffy one for $250 this weekend. It is a gt model with a lot off my favorite options (5 speed,color,seats,manual windows, etc). The original plan was to flip it but it may serve me better as a beater if I can bring it back up to snuff. Pictures will follow tomorrow.

Eventual plan is a high mpg daily commuter/850 mile trip taker that can double as an auto-x/rally-x car. If I can keep it under challenge budget I would love to have a second project option if the e30 vert goes over budget (which will lead to me selling it for less then challenge budget. )

Anyway, any grassroots input on these? Doesn't seem come up at all while searching around here. I also find Volkswagen specific sites to be more then a little bias when it comes to discussions about these cars. I had a similar one back in high school but I honestly cant remember liking or hating it, I also drove it maybe 10 miles a week.

Ooh, want. What's the rust like?

Exhaust, chip and cam. Easy reliable hp. Bilsteins, Good pads and discs.

Get a spare transmission.

DaveEstey wrote: Get a spare transmission.

This. And prepare for the front strut towers to rust out.

My thoughts on VWs of that era are as follows.

Pros: You aren't driving a Dodge.

Cons: You have a 90s VW.

I didnt know cars this modern, let alone German ones could rust like that. Also, pick up a nice Fluke meter, you'll need it.

I've got a 98 VR6, and knock on wood I haven't had any major issues with it yet. No rusting, transmission's in good shape (though the synchro in first is showing signs of going). Besides parts that are pricey I think these are great cars. In fact, I didn't know rust was a big issue on these - then again I live in Florida. I'll also say I see quite a few mark 3's driving around Gainesville that look to be in decent shape, which makes me think I'm not the only one with a relatively reliable, rustless one.

thefinker wrote: I've got a 98 VR6, and knock on wood I haven't had any major issues with it yet. No rusting, transmission's in good shape (though the synchro in first is showing signs of going). Besides parts that are pricey I think these are great cars. In fact, I didn't know rust was a big issue on these - then again I live in Florida. I'll also say I see quite a few mark 3's driving around Gainesville that look to be in decent shape, which makes me think I'm not the only one with a relatively reliable, rustless one.

Up here in the rust belt they are actually known for rusting out more than Mk2s, if that tells you anything.

Door molding fall off. Heater core is a major chore to do. Rust is bad in cars from the rust belt. Other than that drive it. I have a 97 Jetta GT that I bought for $250 and been using it as my DD. 30 mpg and cheap. What is not to like?

The vr6 ones have a better transmission, the 4 cylinder ones are pretty weak. I'd add timing belt and Audi tt control arm bushings and new strut mounts to what people already said, then just drive it if you like it, no reason it can't be a useful car.

Kenny_McCormic wrote: My thoughts on VWs of that era are as follows. Pros: You aren't driving a Dodge. Cons: You have a 90s VW.

Oh that's beautiful. That's exactly what I was thinking! That's like asking, "what would you rather step in, a cat turd or a dog turd"?

Kenny_McCormic wrote: Pros: You aren't driving a Dodge.

Hater.

moparman76_69 wrote:

Kenny_McCormic wrote: Pros: You aren't driving a Dodge.

Hater.

Not necessarily. My Dad was a Chrysler engineer and I am still a big Mopar fan it's just the 80s and 90s were not stellar years for Dodge.

In reply to Feedyurhed:

Challenge! I have owned Mopars built from 1969 to 2007 and I will stack up my recently-sold 84 Charger against any of them. The 2.2 is as solid as the Slant 6 and that engine is as durable as any made. Floors are the big problem here in the rust belt, but I have seen cars of all makes have floor issues in as little as five years. I will stack my 84 Charger up against my old 69 Plymouth Suburban wagon and my 73 Charger any time.

Moparman wrote: In reply to Feedyurhed: Challenge! I have owned Mopars built from 1969 to 2007 and I will stack up my recently-sold 84 Charger against any of them. The 2.2 is as solid as the Slant 6 and that engine is as durable as any made. Floors are the big problem here in the rust belt, but I have seen cars of all makes have floor issues in as little as five years. I will stack my 84 Charger up against my old 69 Plymouth Suburban wagon and my 73 Charger any time.

We are on the same side here. I am not really questioning reliability as much as quality. My 71 Dodge Challenger, which I dearly loved was in a constant state of needing repair. It never let me down as far as running but I think everything that could fall off or quit working eventually did. There's nothing quite like driving home in an ice storm in a Michigan winter when the blower motor quits followed by the wipers quitting a short time later with the window down and my head stuck out the window to drive. Anyway, I don't want to bad mouth Mopars because as I said I really do like them. I have an older Jeep right now that I play with and enjoy. Coincidentally it threw a check engine light yesterday....... and I thought I had that fixed!

I had a 95 Golf that has 335,000 kms (208K miles). It wasn't rusted out or a piece of crap when I sold it. It was starting to go, but easily would have made another 3-4 years.

Without a doubt one of the most reliable cars I ever owned. It was a diesel and had very few options. No power windows, etc.

I loved the A3 VW's.

NGTD wrote: I had a 95 Golf that has 335,000 kms (208K miles). It wasn't rusted out or a piece of crap when I sold it. It was starting to go, but easily would have made another 3-4 years. Without a doubt one of the most reliable cars I ever owned. It was a diesel and had very few options. No power windows, etc. I loved the A3 VW's.