1998 Citroen Saxo VTS from UK and Ireland - Comments

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.

I own a saxo Vtr and I can honestly say the handling is very good, for the sure footed. As it can be very light on the back end. As for performance 0-50 extremely fast, 0-85 fast, 85-120 rubbish. I am looking to buy a Vts, but is this any better above 85? As I spend all of my time on country lanes this is where I need the power. And honestly why are you comparing a rover 214 there not isnt the same league as even the vtr. Chris.

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.

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.

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?

Saxo VTR stats:

1.6 8v

90bhp (mk1) 98bhp (mk2)

100lb/ft

0-60 9.4/10 seconds

0-100 30/32 seconds

116mph top end

920kg's

Ins grp 7

Saxo VTS stats:

1.6 16v

120bhp

107lb/ft

0-60 7.2/7.8 seconds

0-100 20/22 seconds

127mph top end

935kg's

130bhp per tonne

Ins grp 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'

As a person with experience of both a Rover 214Si and a Saxo, I will step to the defence of the Rover.

I have sat in both and was physically appalled with the fit, finish and quality of the Saxo's interior. Absolutely dreadful for any price. The Rover's is on par with some German rivals in comparrison.

As for looking sexy? Yeah, if you are a spotty 21 year old female medical student. A 3 door Rover 25 or MG ZR looks a hell of a lot better.

From what I have seen 90% of all those driving a Saxo VTR or VTS have either been going way too fast over the speed limit or have been wearing a baseball cap with R'n'B blaring out of his Halford's subs.

As for performance; the Saxo will win, mainly because the French have been so stingy with the materials used that it weights next to nothing. The Rover is built like a tank in comparison, plus the fact you don't have to carry a poly bag with you everywhere to collect bits of trim falling off all the time.

As for head gaskets; mine is 60,000 miles gone and still strong. The engine in it is a 1.4 16v developing 101bhp as per factory standard - that is 11bhp more than the 1600cc VTR 8V unit - made from lightweight aluminium. I'm not surprised the head gasket has gone with some of you Saxo boys, considering the way your kind drive cars in general, usually 30cm from someone else's tailgate...

Yes the saxo's interior is not the best on the market, but you get what your pay for, and as for a rovers interior being on par with some german rivals, I imagine your referring to german cars from the 80's? I once got in a 52 plate rover 216 with 1,500 miles on the clock and the interior door handle fell off!

The reason for a lot of head gasket problems with the VTS' is that the mk1's used paper gaskets (why citroen?) but solved this by replacing them with mls gaskets.

The lesser model saxo's do seem to attract a lot of 'boy racers', but the VTS is out of their reach due to being in insurance grp 14. The 200's seem to attract illegal immigrants, as they can pick the older ones up for around £200. Also, those mg zr models (you know the ones with halfords bolt on mods and the horrible smoothed tailgate!) also attrack 'boy racers' apart from the '160', speaking of which, was in an autocar test of 25 cars for under £16.000, and come about 22nd. The VTS came 4th, and was 3rd quickest on track, only being beaten by a clio 172 cup (1/2 sec quicker), and a civic type r (1 sec quicker).

You just cannot compare a 214 with a VTR, let alone a VTS. They both just walk all over the 214 in every department, there's just no contest!

Anyway, citroen must doing something right, as they are still producing motor cars. Pity I can't say the same for rover.

I've owned a saxo vts an it would do about 8.2sec to 60mph, and from 60mph onwards it felt weak, also it wouldn't go more than 122mph. This was done by proper timing gear, no mods either. I sold it and got a clio 172 sport, and that will MURDER the vts in performance!

You must have had a bad VTS then mate because a healthy VTS would give a 172 a run for its money, maybe a couple or so car lengths behind to 100 mph, then the 172 would gradually ease away due to its 400 extra cc's! Handling wise, there's not much in it i'd say.

My VTS ran a 15.8@88mph 1/4 mile when totally standard, then ran a 15.1@91mph with breathing mods & stripped interior. I've yet to see 172's run considerally faster 1/4 miles than VTS', although 172 cups seem to pull high 14's all day long. Would love a cup at some point, awesome cars!

Stop chatting crap. Power to weight ratio the clio 172 kills the saxo vts, and it WILL leave the vts standing. Like I said I've owned both and no I didn't own "a bad vts".

I knew a few people who owned vts as well and mine compared pretty well, but compared to the clio 172 the vts eats dust.

BIG TIME!!

The thing with the vts is, it feels quicker than it "ACTUALLY IS", being so tinny, and all. Don't get me wrong it's a quick little motor, but cannot compare against clio 172, (totally different league)

Yes, the 172 does have a better bhp/ton, but even so, you cannot say it will "kill" a VTS. That just wouldn't be the case, as it has been proven many a time. The 172 would overall be the quicker, but not 'miles' quicker. I've been against 172's down santa pod, & have sometimes been beaten, and sometimes I've beaten them, but there's always only been a few tenths in it. Also, I've attended quite a few track days in my VTS and have had a few scalps with 172's and I've kept up without even breaking into a sweat. Magazines and television programs have also covered the '172' vs 'VTS' debate inc. autocar - VTS 4th overall, 172 'cup' 3rd overall, and the 'cup' being 1/2 sec quicker round bedford autodrome than the VTS. EVO - Done a 'Hot Hatch Test' and the VTS was quickest round anglesey (I think) circuit, with the mk1 172 about 4th quickest. Fifth Gear - had a 'Head 2 Head' with the mk2 172 against a VTS and the 172 pulled on the straights, only for the VTS to make it up in the corners. Need I go on?

My car can't speak for all VTS', but from my experience, they are pretty much equal in terms of on road (and track) performance (although I've noticed the 172 has a lot more low down grunt compared to the VTS, which is like a 1.0 micra until it comes on cam).

I do agree, the 172 is in a different league due to the spec of the thing (being 170 bhp & 2000cc's and a lot better interior), compared to a tinny VTS, but for the money, you can't go wrong performance wise for a puny 1.6.

Anyway, mine is no longer standard suspension and engine wise, so would have no trouble in dispatching of std 172's.

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!.

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.

Sure it is mate.

All it has is 129bhp per ton and its lacking torque, I used to own one and they are not that quick, (feels faster than it really is due to being so flimsy), a bog standared clio 172 would leave the vts for dead.