2000 Citroen Saxo Reviews - Page 5 of 19

2000 Citroen Saxo Forte 1.1 from UK and Ireland

Model year2000
Year of manufacture2000
First year of ownership2002
Most recent year of ownership2004
Engine and transmission 1.1 Manual
Performance marks 5 / 10
Reliability marks 2 / 10
Comfort marks 3 / 10
Dealer Service marks 0 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 3 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
2.6 / 10
Distance when acquired42000 miles
Most recent distance82000 miles
Previous carCitroen Saxo

Summary:

Cheap, but high maintenance

Faults:

Brake light switch broke.

Key got stuck in the ignition, now I have a separate key to start the car as the dealers sent me two incorrect ignition barrels.

Seat adjuster has broken.

Car revs when stationery from between 1000 to 2000 revs.

Rear screen washer no longer works (Yes there is water in there)

General Comments:

Car does not handle well in wet weather.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? No

Review Date: 30th November, 2004

2000 Citroen Saxo furio 1.4 from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture2000
First year of ownership2002
Most recent year of ownership2004
Engine and transmission 1.4 Manual
Performance marks 9 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Dealer Service marks 8 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 9 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.8 / 10
Distance when acquired19000 miles
Most recent distance45000 miles

Summary:

Excellent sporting commuter

Faults:

Exhaust blowing, unable to get replacement from local garage, had to replace with similar Peugeot exhaust.

General Comments:

Excellent nippy town car.

Can take on most "hot hatches" at the junctions over the first few yards.

Comfortable takes four persons over journeys of around a hour.

Good looking exterior.

Good looking and practicable interior.

Great for use as a commuter car re able to park anywhere.

Good fuel economy even when driven hard.

Handles well of twisty roads.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 4th November, 2004

2000 Citroen Saxo VTR 1.6 8v from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture2000
First year of ownership2000
Most recent year of ownership2004
Engine and transmission 1.6 8v Manual
Performance marks 10 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Dealer Service marks 10 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 10 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
9.6 / 10
Distance when acquired80 miles
Most recent distance69000 miles

Summary:

Honda type R

Faults:

My coil unit caused misfire, when slowing down, phoned my dealer, was replaced straight away at no charge.

Dealer informed me of rust, at bottom of radiator, again was replaced at no charge.

Have only replaced all brake disc's, this year and pads,very good.

General Comments:

Still own the car, and still drives like new, has been fantastic, most of my driving was on motor ways, and have never been let down.

Still enjoy driving my saxo, think it still great for its age.

Sill on its same battery, great.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 30th June, 2004

7th Jul 2004, 07:24

Not Quite a Honda type R, 100 bhp more and you will be there.

31st Oct 2004, 05:39

I know VTR owners always over rate their performance, But Type-R, don't take the piss!

8th Nov 2005, 04:05

Saxo vtr are really slow! 0-60 in 10.9sec.

1st Apr 2006, 01:25

Actually its 9.5 to 60, still not an animal I know, 10.9 is the Nova SRi time.

2000 Citroen Saxo VTS 1.6i 16v from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture2000
First year of ownership2004
Most recent year of ownership2004
Engine and transmission 1.6i 16v Manual
Performance marks 9 / 10
Reliability marks 8 / 10
Comfort marks 5 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.3 / 10
Distance when acquired26000 miles
Most recent distance27000 miles
Previous carCitroen Saxo

Summary:

Very fast car!!

Faults:

Only had the car for just over a month now. There appears to be a rattle from behind the dash.

The accelerator pedal vibrates badly around 3200rpm. (as does my friends model)

General Comments:

I bought my VTS in February 2004. My previous car was a VTR and now that I'm 25 I can finally afford the insurance.

Being a VTR owner for 3 years I wanted to experience the increased power of the VTS. I wasn't to be disappointed...

Between 1000-3000rpm is moderate (very similar to the VTR). Then at around 4000rpm the VTS comes alive, the acceleration is fantastic, reaching 65mph in 2nd gear then drop it into 3rd and your doing 80mph before you can say "poor old VTR"

The Cornering in this car is superb, (as was my VTR with all respect) allowing you to take them at very high speeds and still feel in control of the car.

A truly wonderful car

Hot Hatch legend!!!

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 8th March, 2004

15th Mar 2004, 10:47

I would agree with the majority in saying the VTS has fantastic handling and a very quick 0-60 engine. The problem is however, the FRENCH build quality in regards to safety and general problems themselves. I've owned my 97 plate vts for five months and have had my engine cut out numerously on me, (TEMPERATURE CENSOR WAS THE CAUSE). now I have an ongoing leak on the passenger side around door or window. From a happyish VTS owner.

20th Mar 2004, 16:33

To the above comment.

I'm not being funny, but what do you expect from a car that's 7 years old? I have a 99 VTS, and it's had one or two problems, but it's nothing more than I expect from a car of its age, and add to that the type of car it is and the way it's driven. I'm sure you don't drive like you have Miss Daisy in the car; I don't.

It does not have superior build quality, but that's not why we buy VTS's; they are fast and fun.. end of story.

You can have all the safety in the world, but it won't save you if you bite off more than you can chew. Respect this car and it will love you, but expect problems... as you would with ANY car that age. It's a good 'un :-)

3rd Nov 2005, 10:36

Excellent performance. I think not.

8th Nov 2005, 07:32

What have you lot driven before, a 1.0 metro? these car are slow and frustrating.

1st Mar 2007, 11:05

Totally agree only 1 second faster than a 2.0 focus and I'm sure the focus will pull better in real driving conditions. I can comment from experience, but is after seeing a 2.0 focus and a vts racing the vts only stayed 100 yards in front, but the focus gradually pulled it in!

3rd Mar 2007, 01:11

Slow and frustrating? A Ford Focus better? You guys must be crazy! I own its brother the 106 GTi and only the sports model's of the Focus (ST/170) range are better than it and personally there is really no other car, with a N/A 1.6 that is not only just fast, but also have a fantastic suspension set-up!

6th Mar 2007, 04:17

"VERY FAST CAR". I think not!

Average review marks: 6.8 / 10, based on 77 reviews