4th Feb 2006, 19:13

<--- Agrees with that last comments.. a VTS will not beat a RS Turbo.

15th Jul 2006, 06:01

I've got a Starlet Turbo 145bhp and it leaves the VTS for dust. And whoever made the ridiculous comment about their VTS beating an RS TURBO, haha, stop dreaming cause if that's true, your mate can't drive.

15th Jul 2006, 17:53

I can believe your Starlet will beat the VTS. With 145bhp, the Starlet is a very small light car too. But I can also believe the VTS will beat the RS turbo, RS turbos ain't that quick, and they're probably heavier than the VTS.

31st Jul 2006, 10:33

I have a VTS 135hp and I have to say that is quicker than the standard Starlet GT and those with 140-150hp...may be a Starlet is a light car, but it's a turbo... VTS is faster in 5000-7500rpm...

31st Jul 2006, 16:43

A turbo will make more power than a non turbo car all the way through the rev range, 5000-7000 RPM is when the turbos at full wack. The only time a non turbo car has an advantage is the calm before the storm (turbo lag).

15th Oct 2006, 16:41

I beat a Volvo C70 Coupe today. We where at the lights and I drove away normal in 1st and put my foot down in second. The guy in the volvo noticed and I saw the front of his car rise and his engine roar, but he started getting left behind, not by much, but still... I thought he was going to come flying past, very surprised.

16th Oct 2006, 07:52

Not surprising at all, the fastest C70 Coupe is only a smidge quicker than a VTS and by the sound of it you got the drop on him.

14th Jun 2007, 05:54

I have an Escort RS Turbo s2, and I've raced my friend's Saxo VTS, and they are similar, but the Saxo is slightly worse.

Where as mine has more power, his is lighter, but no Saxos are crap at handling, too much power for the brakes. Saxo brakes fade all the time if you drive hard, and they understeer a lot too.

The geometry of the RS Turbo is perfect for handling. RS Turbo's are faster too, we raced from traffic lights up-to the high revs of 3rd gear, then shortly after, mine starts to pull away a bit. Remember the RS Turbo is 17 years old now. The s1 RS Turbo is a lot faster as well, as it doesn't have all the heavy luxuries of the s2.

Saxo VTS's and RS Turbos are definitely both faster than most 1.6 ltr cars today though, except for those bloody VTECs.

6th May 2008, 12:46

I had a mk2 VTR and I now have an e36 318ti. The differences between the two cars are vast, but the main things are the handling.. the Saxo has better low speed handling, whereas the beemer has a lot more stability at speed. The Saxo would make you confident while corning, but the BMW doesn't do this. It makes you think you may lose control any minute, but luckily that has not happened.

I can't make my mind up which car is quicker to 60. The Saxo felt quicker, but my timed 0-60 runs tell a different story. 8.8 for the VTR (with an extra 8bhp because of a remap) and 8.2 for the beemer as standard. I can't fault the Saxo though, it never went wrong, was cheap to run, and was very predictable and forgiving of mistakes. The BMW on the other hand, has also been perfect as far as reliability, fuel consumption is acceptable. The handling is good, but the car is not predictable and certainly not forgiving of mistakes. Also in case anyone was wondering, no I haven't crashed a car before, and the engine in a 318ti is not the standard 115bhp unit, it is 140bhp.

22nd Aug 2011, 15:25

I bet you a grand my 300 bhp turbo'ed and throttle bodied VTS will wipe the floor with your 145bhp Starlet.

3rd Nov 2011, 11:38

Speed is nice to have, sure. But if your car looks like a dog's breakfast, then what's the point.

Cars should be a thing of beauty, if they're fast all to the good.. Sorry.