MK6 vs MK7

Hey folks,
I have questions about the two different generations. I understand the engine in the MK7 has an EA88 vs the previous CJAA. Most of the comparative threads I found on this were older, form when it was first released. Now, 5 years later, I am curious as to how these have done. I am deciding between a MK6 and 7 and want to know, essentially, which is better.
My understanding is the EA88 had quite a few upgrades to make it more powerful and efficient. I am worried that, as this is the last model sold in America, it will be tough to find parts and service down the road for a more complicated engine.
My feeling is that I'd rather get the older motor that was more common in the states, for part and service simplicity years down the year.
I'm really interested in the longevity of the vehicle and ease of service, not so much maxing out power etc.
Any thoughts on the two motors welcome.
Thanks.

It's an EA288 engine, Engine code CRUA in the MK7 Golf. Many think it's a significant improvement over the CJAA engine for several reasons:

• Air to water intercooler, eliminating cooler icing
• Lower fuel pressure and different injectors, decreasing likelihood of HPFP failure
• Uses adblue, allowing better driveability and fuel economy post-fix

It does make slightly more power, but probably not enough to be noticeable. And I don't think parts availability for the EA288 will be any more difficult than the earlier cars as they age.
The big improvement in the MK7s, in my opinion, is not the engine but the car they're in. I find the MK7 a big improvement over the VI in handling, NVH, and overall refinement. But that's a matter of preference.
Either are good cars. Drive both and buy the one you like better.

My wife and I own both, my wife has a 2015 Golf, and I have a 2013 JSW, both 6 speed manual cars. Her car does feel slightly quicker than mine, but engines aside the 2015 is a much more refined car in every way. It's more comfortable, MUCH quieter inside, smoother, it's basically the only car we choose for longer drives. Some people are worried about the DEF but I've only had to add 2.5gal over the 20k miles we've had the car. The newer engines are a bit more complex, dual loop cooling system, water to air intercooler etc, but they do not have the common intercooler icing issue the older cars have. Also I don't think that HPFP issues are as common. We also see much better fuel economy in the 2015, usually around 45-48mpg where my JSW is usually around 36-38mpg, granted I do drive a bit more aggressively than she does. Best thing you can do is drive both and feel for yourself, hope this helps!

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

The mk6 is easier to work on. Most notably the oil changes are far more pleasant to do with a topside oil filter. They are also quite cheap to buy these days. But the mk7s are pretty affordable now too. I'd say it's a toss up.

Surprised nobody brought up the rear suspension.

oilhammer said:

Surprised nobody brought up the rear suspension.

Click to expand...

sounds ominous, what are your thoughts?

oilhammer said:

Surprised nobody brought up the rear suspension.

Click to expand...

Lol. In my opinion it doesn't matter. In fact I prefer the trailing arm suspension. Works fine, simpler. Less to wear out.

At least they graced the mk7 tdi's with 4 wheel disc brakes!

The main thing I like about the IRS is the ability to actually align them better.

turbobrick240 said:

At least they graced the mk7 tdi's with 4 wheel disc brakes!

Click to expand...

All TDIs in NA post-A3 Jetta have had disc rear brakes. The base '11-13 Jettas had drums but only with the 2.slow engine.

There were some 2.5L NCS cars that had the rear drums too. And not to bash drum brakes, they actually normally work just fine, but the NCS' rear drums SUCK. They have horribly bad, short service life, and they trash the drums every time. They also wear out the shoe perches, which are available by themselves but idiots don't get them/don't know they exist then it ruins the brakes even faster along with the backing plates.

I seriously hate those brakes.

I can't stand any drum brakes. I've never had good luck with any of them. Dirty, rusty, brake dusty junk, imo. My first car, a '76 Volvo had 4 wheel discs. Any automaker that was/is still using drums in the 21st century should be ashamed of themselves.

Drum brakes are actually superior to disc in terms of effort to stop motion, due to the inherent way they duo-servo themselves tighter as they push the shoes against the drums while turning. Which is why many vehicles (even Volvos) retain a drum brake inside of a disc for the parking brake. Because once set, they will still get even tighter if acted upon. Disc brakes don't do that.

But where drums are AWFUL is for heat soak. So for long use over any given period, they will heat up and reduce their effectiveness rapidly. Runaway truck ramps are a good example of the extreme end of what happens when drum brakes get overheated, as many big trucks still use them.

I had a '61 Oldsmobile Super 88 that had drums front and rear, power assisted. Big heavy sled of a car. You had to REALLY be careful when you touched the brake pedal for the first time, especially when cold, or you'd bounce your face off the [unpadded] dashboard. And there were no seat belts to hold you in place. But after a few stops, they settled in and could be modulated easily. A stop from high speed? You had about five seconds of braking. And then it was over. You grabbed the wheel with both hands from underneath at the bottom, planted BOTH feet firmly on the GIANT brake pedal, and pushed as hard as you could until the car stopped.

Sounds like my dune buggy. No power assist and just two drums in the back. But I'm pretty sure something is wrong, the pedal is rock-like much more than it should be. I'm thinking it needs a new master cyl. and probably brake cylinders/brake kit too.

I thought I heard that drum brakes are lighter than discs. I wonder if that's partially the reason manufacturers use them for rear brakes in some cases. The rear brakes only handle about 25% of the stopping anyways.

So i went and test drove a MK6 and MK7. Honestly i did not notice a ton of difference, aside from that they felt worlds better than my 04 Passat. I am leaning towards a MK6 because they are quite a lot cheaper where i am looking.
I consider myself more of your average consumer than a diesel nut. Easier maintenance is very important to me and i think alot of the handling benefits noted in the replies above were lost on me.
All in all, both felt like great cars!

Johnsontf said:

I consider myself more of your average consumer than a diesel nut. Easier maintenance is very important to me

Click to expand...

In partial jest, maybe a 2003 ALH is the better TDI for you?

Although I'm a MkIV loyalist, we now have two Mk7's in the family. I purposely skipped the Mk6, but (she) got a zero-miles GSW when the stop-sale ended. I waited a year because I was dubious, but the car was so good, we now have two (both stick). IMO, the Mk7 is a better engine, in a better platform, and as an aside, I prefer the styling. My guess is that long term, the maintenance comparison between the 6 and 7 might be a wash, but the initial problems/complaints about the Mk6, and enough anecdotal stories from talking to owners (intercooler icing and HPFP concerns) made the transition to MQB worth the wait.

The mk6's are definitely bargain basement prices. If I had planned my buyback a little better, I could have bought another mk6 golf tdi for about the same price as I paid for my mk6 golf 2.5l replacement. About $5k.