Currently reading: Volkswagen Golf 1.0 TSI long-term test review: practicality test
Our hatchback proves it’s even more versatile than it’s cracked up to be
Autocar
News
2 mins read
10 October 2016

Some unusual demands have been made of the Golf in the past few weeks.

I’ve stringently tested its boot and back seat space and required it to have the gentlest ride possible. At times its passengers have numbered more than 20,000 – and they don’t like to be jostled about.

It’s been helping us out with a fairly new hobby: beekeeping. We first used the Golf to collect an ancient pair of unwanted hives from a nearby farm. Each hive was made up of a base, roof and four large sections that fit in between. Even though there were more large wooden sections than we’d imagined, I can confirm that the Golf can accommodate two people and two whole beehives – just.

Next was the daunting task of collecting 20,000 very stressed honey bees in a cardboard box and driving them to their new home.

Concerned about the security of the box, we drove home with our bee suits on, but again the Golf complied with another strange demand: head room was a bit tight for two beekeeper’s hats, but I was able to drive. We attracted a few strange looks, but I could cope with driving around Surrey looking a bit daft if it eliminated the possibility of being stung by tens of thousands of bees.

I’m relieved to say the Golf’s ride was beautifully compliant over the county’s most scarred roads, although I did drive carefully and, whenever possible, around anything that might send a big jolt through the cabin. In contrast to its juddery ride over the concrete sections of the M25, the Golf hid the majority of imperfections on asphalt roads well. As a result, the bees were relatively unflustered when we got home.

Although this latest suite of tests were far removed from a conventional Autocar road test, to us they were very important ones.

Claire Evans

VOLKSWAGEN GOLF 1.0 TSI 115 MATCH BLUEMOTION EDITION

Price £20,735 Price as tested £21,120 Economy 50.5mpg Faults None Expenses None Last seen 31.8.16

Read our previous reports here:

First report

An effective load lugger?

Join the debate

Comments
12
Add a comment…
Madasafish 11 October 2016

Beehive capacity

Rather unimpressed with capacity for only two beehives.
My 2012 Honda jazz carried 4 full beehives complete with bees and has luggage hooks in the boot area to strap them down safely..

The hives were of course all closed up to prevent exit of bees- and I wore a bee jacket - with veil attached but not in use - in case of bees escaping:-).

winniethewoo 10 October 2016

It's good though they got non

It's good though they got non petrol heads to review cars like this. You definitely get a different perspective compared to the usual Journo's. When Autocad regulars try to be objective and normal, it comes across as forced. Like when Holden wrote a whole article complementing the new Astra's infotainment system. Or Prior writes about Volvo's. They desperately want to say they suck because they don't lift off oversteer. You can smell it. Like a fat man on a diet eating salad but secretly hankering for a burger and chips. No such hankering detectable here.
Matt Burt 10 October 2016

[quote=winniethewoo]Like a

winniethewoo wrote:

Like a fat man on a diet eating salad but secretly hankering for a burger and chips.

Have you been spying on the Autocar canteen?

winniethewoo 10 October 2016

I bet if those same roads

I bet if those same roads were taken at speed, like a true autocad journalist, the Golf wouldn't have ridden as well. The solid axle rear definitely runs out of body control / ideas before the independent rear axle fitted to Golfs with more than 122bhp. For this reason, I'd say the 1.4 COD is a better bet if you need an economical petrol Golf... You'd probably only be 10% down on economy in the real world also.
xxxx 10 October 2016

Fishy

winniethewoo wrote:

I bet if those same roads were taken at speed, like a true autocad journalist, the Golf wouldn't have ridden as well. The solid axle rear definitely runs out of body control / ideas before the independent rear axle fitted to Golfs with more than 122bhp. For this reason, I'd say the 1.4 COD is a better bet if you need an economical petrol Golf... You'd probably only be 10% down on economy in the real world also.

From my experience of the COD engine you might actually be UP a few percentages points on mpg. And have a whole lot more fun getting there with 150ps on tap. You'd also get alot of the initial cost back too.