15th Jan 2006, 16:20
I own a VTS, and I’m a mechanic. Now firstly if you spent the same sort of money on a VTS as it would cost you to buy a 172, then you would have a very quick machine.
If you have a VTS, then I strongly advise that you seek advise from a re-mapping service. It will cost around £150, and will open up the true potential of the VTS. Performance will rise from the standard 120bhp to around 150bhp, with a 20% increase in torque.
The thing is:
When a manufacturer designs a car, it needs to take into account all factors that will affect the running and reliability of their vehicle. As most cars are sold all over the world, they have to contend with these varying factors: -
Temperature and humidity variations from equatorial to arctic regions.
Varying fuel qualities.
Varying Government emission regulation controls. Cars are designed to cater for all target users, from the young to the elderly.
As a result of this, manufacturers detune their vehicles to enable them to sell a standardised vehicle that is suitable for all of their target markets. Here in the United Kingdom, we don’t suffer from extremes of weather conditions and we have good quality fuels and operating conditions, this enables us to raise the output parameters of the engine safely and allow the engine to show its true potential.
This is the reason for the ‘poor’ performance at 85mph+ is the standard ECU software. The result of the re-map now means that no standard 172 can get close to my VTS on a track, and 172 owners always have to find an excuse when they are beaten at a drag race with me.
Yes, the standard parts aren’t the best, however that comes down to the cost issue. The VTS weighs in at 935kgs as standard with 120bhp. With all the variables taken into consideration, if 0-60 takes longer than 7.4 seconds, then there is something wrong and it's advisable to check your tire pressure, gear linkage, clutch, engine, gear box, and no additional weight, passengers or subwoofer/s etc… which can have a dramatic affect on acceleration.
1 Pioneer 12” 2000w comp sub in box with amp and wiring affected my 1/4 mile stats by 1 second. Also good quality tires, if you're spending anything less than £50 / tyre then you can expect to lose around 0.7-1.3 seconds 0-60, and I also find a tiny difference after Christmas (too many sweets). Dry track, as cold as possible (air is more dense the colder it is), are the best conditions for any engine.
For the same sort of money that you’d pay for a 172, you could do something radical to a Saxo.
5th Feb 2006, 15:00
I'm sorry, is someone here trying to tell me a VTS would keep up or even beat my Japanese import Integra Type R.. I don't think so.
I have driven 3 VTS's, 2 of which were modded, being chipped, induction kitted, and uprated exhausts and suspension. The Integra Type R weighs in at 1060kgs with a 197bhp 1.8 16v hand finished engine. The standard 0-60 is rated at 6.2 seconds with a top speed of 147 (which I have done at 8000 rpm, limiter kicks in at 8900). It's rated as the best handling front wheel drive car money can buy!!
And trust me, I've had all the boys with their Saxo's and 106 GTi's, and all the other GTi's you care to mention, try and race me round the twisty stuff, and just fail.
Yes, I will admit for a 1.6, the little Saxo ain't bad, but be serious, the Integra is a proper track car, faster than the Civic Type R round a track thanks to a limited slip diff and better suspension. I have beaten Scooby's, Cossies's, Supra's, GT4's and all manner of other cars.
My advice; read reviews on Integras on this site, then look at what you're facing. One guy on here used to have a Scooby STi Ra, which has in excess of 275bhp and uprated suspension, which he traded in for Integra because it handled better!!
Saxo's handle well; I used to own a VTR, but not in Type R territory.
Oh, and as for comparing with a Clio 172; just for your information, my friend has one, and can't keep up on straights or round the twisty stuff... it's fast and handles very well I admit... just not quite good enough.
24th Apr 2006, 16:30
You all talk about driving fast in your VTS's, well one word of advise guys and girls, DON'T CRASH! They have a appalling 2 stars crash rating. They feel faster than they are because there light weight and flimsy and sure do show it in a accident!
Be careful out there!
P.S the interior in the VTS is very poor and feel very cheap.
28th Apr 2006, 06:18
Why don't all you Saxo boys just get a 106 GTi. They're a more raw setup, more fun, and just as quick as a VTS, and better looking and more desirable, but with a fraction of the build or reliblity issues.
Believe me, I'm a mechanic and that's why 106 GTIs fetch such a premium over Saxos, and are rarely up for sale, bag one now.
11th Jun 2007, 17:55
No, your std crx does not 'kill' VTS' as they are very similar in the way they perform. The VTS handles better imo.
12th Jun 2007, 08:37
Well I've raced many, none have beaten me, they keep up in 1st and 2nd and then after that I start pulling away.
14th Jun 2007, 16:33
People just think they are crap because they are citroens, and have "boy racer" appeal. If you have never owned one then how can you post a reliable comment. Sure you pay for what you get with them, but what you get is good.
15th Jun 2007, 05:23
Just to clarify things, the b16a engine in VTi form kicks out 160bhp, and if you have an imported version from Japan, they actually produce 169bhp. Only the older CRXs with the early b16a engine produces closer to 150bhp.
Not 100% sure of the weight of the Saxo, but I know the Civic weighs in at 1050kg. I've not driven the CRX, but I have driven the Civic VTS and the Saxo VTS many times, and for straight line grunt I go with the Civic/CRX every time.
As for handling, it's hard for me to judge as the Civic had different suspension, but it was better than the Saxo.
23rd Jun 2007, 10:57
I own a Punto HGT and I think I can beat a VTS; not easily, but I can do it.
If anyone has any other opinion, demonstrate it by mechanical matters, and experiences.
23rd Jun 2007, 23:19
I'm not a boy racer, but I have a Saxo VTS. The reason I bought it was because I had about £3500 to buy a car, the criteria I had was.
1) Small : as I drive mostly to work on my own, and my last car was a Vectra and far too big.
2) No more thank 4 years old.
3) No more than 30,000 on the clock.
4) At least a 1.6 litre.
I managed to find an 03 VTS with 22000 on the clock for £3600. I have had no problems with it at all, and have had it for 10 months, but I do drive it fairly sensibly.
It was exactly what I wanted for the money, but I definitely wouldn't buy one thinking it was a fast car cos it's not, it's pretty poor; in fact I reckon my old xr3i was quicker, and it's pretty crappy to drive, I know it's hard to criticise a car you own, but all you VTS owners out there need to face facts.