10th Sep 2002, 17:09
I think you rover drivers must have been racing the Citroen Saxo Westcoast or something, or the driver of the vts didn't have a clue how to use the car. I own a Citroen Saxo VTS and I have a friend who owns a 214si. We put both cars to the test and my VTS pulled away with ease in every gear. the rover didn't stand a chance. Even the 220 coupe (non-turbo) struggled 2 keep up with my old ax gt up to 60 anyway.
19th Nov 2002, 12:29
I also own a saxo. What you Rover boys are forgetting is that the saxo is by far- a sexier car! Mine is a vtr and is easily capable of showing up all other cars in the same insurance group (and higher) whilst also costing me less to run, insure and buy.
22nd Feb 2003, 15:50
What was done to overcome the steering knock cos I have the same problem and its driving me crazy.
25th Jan 2004, 15:10
As a closing comment to my original post, my VTS is no more, the lease expired after 3 years and I had other commitments so didn't buy the car.
I think there is a common misconseption that because the Furio has the VTR/VTS bodykit that it is as quick! I have beaten Integra Type-R's and Impreza's partly because of the great handling of the VTS, not through raw power.
The car was almost 100% reliable during my 3 year ownership, only a holed radiator stopped me using the car.
I've since driven a Rover 214 it was OK, sounded quicker than it actually was, engine is course above 3500rpm, VTS engine sings all the way to 7200RPM.
22nd Apr 2004, 14:49
Forget about rovers and saxos - I have just sold my Bravo HGT (2.0 20v) and it could murder both of these cars, all day, every day. I am now the proud owner of a 400bhp Pulsar, which eats Scoobies, Evos, Porsches and Cossies.
24th May 2004, 05:44
I think the person who put the specs of the Rover and VTR must be getting confused. This review was written about the VTS which has a 0-60 time of 7.9 seconds not the slower VTR. The VTS would beat the Rover hands down. I have driven one and believe me they are fast and handle like a dream. I think people get confused about the VTR and VTS because there are so many VTR's on the road and forget what a great machine the VTS really is.
26th Oct 2004, 10:21
Children please stop bickering..
I've owned neither a VTS or a Rover 214.. but isn't the rover a 1.4 8 valve? & the VTS is a 1.6 16v?? how are you people even arguing about which is the quicker?
There is more to owning a car than just the 0-60.. unless of course you're 17 & a bit stupid which most of you seem to be.
19th Nov 2004, 06:17
Hi folks, well I am buying a Saxo VTS 53 model on 22/11/04, previously owned a Nova SRI, so after reading your comments they really do sound fast and it took me 4 months to actually find one. People said that insurance was very high, but my quote was under £500 fully comp!.
After 4 months of waiting and about a million visits to the Citroen stock exchange I finally own one and really can't wait to get in the drivers seat.
2nd Dec 2004, 05:33
The saxo is a great car by all means selling the most cars in 2002 than any other. It is brilliant for the modifying scene and due to its light weight chassis will feel more powerful than it actually is. The VTS is fast, but comes with the high insurance group which doesn't really warranty the extra money as of its look being just like the VTR. For that money you should be looking at the Second hand Elise's, EVO's or Scooby's. Great student car though.
21st Dec 2004, 10:33
I'm a mechanic and I fix all sorts of cars, but I work on Rover head gaskets more than any other cars,they don't last very long. I like SAXO more than the Rover 'cos they're sexy and quick.
23rd Dec 2004, 07:45
What is the difference between a saxo VTR and VTS. How many BHP does a VTR have and how many does the VTS have???
Is the VTS capable of beating a Honda CRX which is a 1.6?
8th Mar 2005, 18:41
Saxo VTR stats:
90bhp (mk1) 98bhp (mk2)
0-60 9.4/10 seconds
0-100 30/32 seconds
116mph top end
Insurance group 7
Saxo VTS stats:
0-60 7.2/7.8 seconds
0-100 20/22 seconds
127mph top end
130bhp per tonne
Insurance group 14
These seem to be the most average figures I have found for the VTR/S.
A lot of the comments I have read in this review seem to be pretty negative in regards to the performance of the VTS, but all I can say to the doubters, is 'underestimate a VTS at your peril'.
4th Jan 2006, 11:45
I have owned both a rover 216 and a VTR, the rover was the biggest sack of manure I have ever bought!.
The gearbox went twice and the head gasket went three times!. I will give good comments on the interior trim, but what is a car for?. Looking good or getting from a to b?.
I found that citroen`s are far more reliable!.Yes indeed the trim quality is poor, but at the end of the day its the drive I go for!.
5th Jan 2006, 21:13
A VTS is stupidly fast for what you pay, end of story it's a performance bargain, nothing more, nothing less.
To all the people slating them unfairly:
- A Rover 25 even of the MG variety (best comparison I could draw) will have its hands full with a standard VTS. Even the 160bhp models will have trouble due to its weight and cornering capabilities.
- A 1.6 Rallye in real world circumstances is AS FAST as a VTS. No quicker. Less weight, but less valves. In a drag race a VTS will beat it, through twisties about the same.
- Civic VTI, costs more, has VTEC and 160BHP in a very small zone, and no torque to pull what is compared to the Saxo a heavy car. I've seen many of them beaten by Saxos on a straight and through corners.
No VTS' cannot beat everything, an Integra (the best chassis for a FWD car in the world and a more powerful hand built engine) - please a tuned VTS wouldn't even stand a chance.
Imprezas would be out of reach too unless you tuned the Saxo, but standard no chance.
The VTS is a performance bargain, bang for buck there really are few cars that are better (maybe a Clio 182 Cup, but still 15k compared to 4k).
Oops, bit long winded, but I think I got my point across!
And yes I do have a VTS and other cars some of which are very quick, and I have driven all the cars I've mentioned, so I do have valid opinions to make the comparison, not just guesses or looking at "book" figures.