1998 Citroen Saxo VTS from UK and Ireland - Comments

I own a saxo vts and its good for 0-60 in no quicker than 8sec. In gear acceleration is crap though. With a passenger or two its bloody slow!

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't 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 then 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… can have a dramatic affect on acceleration.

1 pioneer 12” 2000w comp sub in box with amp and wiring affected my 1/4mile stats by 1 second. Also good quality tires, if you're spending anything less than £50 / tyre then you can expect to loose around.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 like http://www.zcars.org.uk/saxo/specifications.htm. See how the 172 stands up to that £8,000, £10,000 and £15,000 on average to build 1 of those 3.

I'm sorry 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, have driven 3 vts's 2 of which were moded being chipped induction kitted and uprated exhausts and suspension. the integra type are 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) rated as the best handling front wheel drive car money can buy!! and trust me I've had all the boys with thier 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 aint 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 dif 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 your 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. o and as for comparing with clio 172 just for your information my friend has one and can't keep up on straights or round the twisty stuff... its fast and handles very well I admit... just not quite good enough.

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.

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.

To the mechanic telling us saxo boys to get a 106 GTI. They are virtually the SAME car, same engine, same chassis, same suspension (apart from gti use 24mm rear ARB iirc) only a few body panels, wheels and interior are the main differences. Build/reliability issues will be pretty much identical.

Yes, the gti has the better image of the two (the prices reflect this), but the vts is the thinking mans car, being able to pick up one with the same sort of condition/age/mileage as a gti, but for 1 - 1.5k less!

Why don't you compare the rover 200 vi power tlo weight ratio the the vts?? the vi has 2 more bhp. so shouldn't both cars in a stright line pull the same? obviously depending on driver??

I think there are alo of people in here just trying to show off instead of actually discussing things. I own a vi, but never race it so don't know how it compares to the saxos, but feels quick and safe enough for me...

I'm 19 and I have VTR. A lot of my friends drive saxo's. 1.1's Furios and VTR's. Non of us are idiots when we drive around in them, except one guy who rags his 1.1 around and as a result it goes wrong a lot. The other lads drive pretty "normally", including myself, and our Saxo's have been fine. Mine has not gon wrong since I have had it, nearly a year and I use it all the time. I really do think it is down to how you drive these cars, as with any really. They are so small and nippy and with the point and go steering, and decent grip (excluding the 1.1), they make you want to go quicker and chuck it around a bit. Used to drive a cav and that was totally different, did'nt ever feel the urge to put my foot down in it.

My standard crx kills saxo vtss, they are nippy cars not fast.

No, your std crx does not 'kill' VTS' as they are very similar in the way they perform. The VTS handles better imo.

Well I've raced many, none have beaten me, they keep up in 1st and 2nd and then after that I start pulling away.

Crx vtecs have 150 bhp, how can a saxo keep up? saxo's are crap only reason they became so popular was the 1 years free insurance they introduced them with so all you mummys boys sell your plastic box and buy a decent car. my diesel beats saxos and its funny to laught in the faces of all you muppets out there that have no idea what your talking about next time your "racing" something have a look at your speedo. it won't say more than 30mph hahahaha.

Cool.

It doesn't matter what stereotypical view you pin on a saxo, ie: "boy racer" "tin box" the fact is the VTS is a very quick car. It's a match for the 150 bhp VTI or CRX. seen it dozens of times. Its 120 bhp works very well in its lightweight body. And both being a 1.6 the torque will not be much different. But all that's beside the point, which is the VTS is a little belter!

Of course yes the crx is much faster than a VTS because it's got 30bhp more as that's all that matters right? The fact that the VTS weighs around 100kgs less, has spot on gearing and handles/grips superbly, doesn't make any difference to the way it performs?...yeah OK!

I'll remember in future when choosing a car, i'll go for the one with the highest power output regardless of it's weight, gearing, chassis setup etc.

Oh, and just out of curiosity, what diesel engined car do you drive? Maybe this is the cause of your narrow-mindedness?

And the last time I looked, the saxo was made out of metal not plastic.