1998 Citroen Saxo VTS from UK and Ireland - Comments

You could put a dump valve on it although I don't think they have anything to do with power. Thing is with it being a small engine, you get less bhp for your money when you uprage stuff. I looked it up on ukcar and it says its 90bhp so its probably near its peak anyway.

LOL. Actually mine is only 75 brake horse power, but on the plus side I could take it up to the 90? I only want the dump valve for the noise it makes. Sounds pretty cool, although it won't have the same effect when they see my diesel coming as opposed to a Skyline LOL.

I've got a Furio, which is a 1.4 75 bhp Saxo for £2200 with 24,000 miles; not very fast, but looks like a VTS, and has better interior, but no ABS.

It's blue trimmed through out, with blue seat belts, seats, carpet, and black and blue dash. I'm pretty sure the previous owner took it to a body shop, cos it doesn't look like the standard interior.

I've spent about £300 on a rally body kit; if you're into modding cars, it's a very cheap car for it.

Last car I had was a pug 1.4 Quicksilver, which is pretty much the same car performance wise, but my Saxo was about £900 less, and the body kit was half the price.

I've driven a lot of hot hatches, ended up deciding on a Saxo VTS. OK first the bad parts- build quality is crap, I accept that, and interior looks very dated. But we don't get a Saxo VTS for interiors or bullet-proof quality. Could have got a BMW 318i if I was after that. I got the VTS cause it can hit 60 in 7.7s, and for a 1.6 16v, come on, that is darn impressive. Insurance is silly at gp 14, but shop around and you can actually find some reasonable quotes. I'm only 19 btw, and I'm paying under 1.8k fully comp with 0 NCB. Standard car, it keeps with my mate's Fiesta ST until about 80mph, and he only pulls away slowly after that. He spent 12k buying his car, I spent about 3.5k on mine. Enough said.

What insurance company are you with?

Bell insurance mate; they seem to be good for young drivers with quick rides. And for those of you who want to slate the VTS, look on Youtube and see a VTS racing a Civic VTi, and how they both cross the finish line at exactly the same time, despite the 40bhp disadvantage of the Saxo. CRX is very quick yes, but to be honest its no quicker than a VTS. The weakness of the VTS is the floppy gearbox, plus its not the most stable thing on 4 wheels at high speed, but granted what you get for your money, the VTS is surely one of the best bangs-for-your-buck cars around. I mean, come on, about 2.5k can bag you a hot hatch that can master most mid-range executives at the lights!

There's something wrong with your VTS if you can only 'just' keep up with a Fiesta ST!

The Saxo VTS is a slow car; only produces 120bhp, I used to own one, it only feels quick because it is so flimsy. 0-60mph takes about 8.7sec and 0-100 takes 27sec. And an ST Fiesta would leave a VTS standing.

Lol- why should there be something wrong with my VTS? The Fiesta ST has 150bhp, it's a quick car, and even then my standard VTS beats it off the lights to about 40, then he gets back, and by about the 80 mark we're neck and neck and he starts to pull off (ever so slowly). On B-roads the VTS is certainly a match, both are neck and neck. I'd say the Saxo is more nimble, although the Fiesta somehow keeps it all together in the bends without drama (grippier tyres, maybe?) But to be honest both cars are pretty well matched on the road, with a few breathing mods I'd imagine the VTS to leave the Fiesta standing...

To 26th Aug 2007, 12:44.

Have you really owned one? The figures you gave are more in line with a VTR. A VTS is 7.5 ish to 60. Don't know about 0-100. also 120bhp in a small light car is a lot. you don't know what your talking about.

Why do people seem to knock the Saxo VTS? I've just sold mine to buy a Clio 172 Cup. The Saxo is a very quick car for a 1.6. Anybody who says they are not has never been in one. They're great value for money and great fun, but please boys who own the VTS, don't compare it to a 172. The 172 is a lot quicker. I don't care what the stats say, blah blab, I drove both cars in the same week and everytime I got in the 172 Cup, it felt so much quicker.

I have a Saxo vts 1.6 16v; have driven it for 6 years and its far from quick; it only feels quick. Granted mine is bog standard, but has been serviced frequently. It has completed the 1/4 mile in 16.4 sec, which is OK, I guess. 0-60mph can be done in about 8.7sec, with 0-100mph taking 26-28sec. All this was done with proper timing gear and over a few runs with different drivers and taking the average. This car will NOT keep up with a clio 172; that car is in a different league in terms of performance. Please dont post pathetic claims on this site (from stop watches) etc... as its of no use to anyone.

My mate owns a VTS and you cannot knock it for performance. A 1.6 engine that can hit 60 in second gear? Most German barges can't do that; that's why they're so quick, only one gear change is needed before the next set of traffic lights.

Personally I don't like the car; they're common and a bit on the cheap side, and I prefer my Skoda vRS but it's scary that the Saxo can keep up over short distances. We're both decent drivers too.

Citreon geared it that way so you could hit 60 in second gear where as in the 106 gti you can't.just so they couls say it was faster to 60 than the 106.problem is in doing so they made 2nd gear too long and there is a flat spot when you first change into 2nd.marketing nonsense. my integra type R will hit about 58mph in 2nd gear before bouncing off the rev limiter at 8900rpm...doesn't mean its slower than the vts.

Teg typeR owner - The gearng on a 106gti is identical to the VTS (they are practically the SAME CAR!). The only reason the 0-60 times for the gti are slower than the VTS is due to Peugeot testing their cars with 4 passengers and a full tank of fuel, hence the slower 0-60 and grp.13 insurance compared to grp.14 for the VTS.

And as for there being a flat spot when changing into 2nd... Errrr no, there isn't one!

VTS owner of 6 yrs - You've either got a friday afternoon car, some unidentified problem hampering performance, you're confused and actually own a VTR, or you don't own a VTS at all!

Do you ever read car mags like EVO, Autocar etc etc? They have tested VTS'/106 GTI's plenty of times with proper timing gear attached to them, and on average they record around 7.6 to 60mph, 0-100 in 22 secs and 1/4 mile sprints around 15.8 seconds at around 88mph. And as for VTS' not being able to keep up with 172's, I suggest you do a bit more research (cliosport.net would be a good start).

I have an old EVO + Autocar mag infront of me, and the hot hatch test in EVO has the VTS lapping Anglesey a fraction quicker than a 172. The Autocar mag is at Rockingham Raceway and the VTS is 0.5 sec a lap slower than a 172 cup! There has been loads more tests like this, I could go on all day. There really isn't that much difference in 'real world' performance between the two. Yes, the 172 is a bit quicker in a straight line and would start pulling away when into triple figures, but straight lining aren't what these cars are about. Get two drivers of equal talent behind the wheel of a VTS and 172 down some nice twisty B-roads or on a track, and there'll be nothing in it between the two!