2001 Citroen Saxo VTR from UK and Ireland - Comments

22nd Jan 2002, 07:47

There is a huge fault with all small French cars (aside from being French) and that's the skewed driving position. I have seen it described as everything from "uncomfortable" to "plain dangerous", and for me it's definitely the latter category. Emergency braking -- jumping from the right to the centre pedal -- is made difficult by their cramped positioning and, given the silly paper thin metal and poor safety kit available on the Saxo, it becomes a fault you simply can't ignore. In truth, I am somewhat in awe of anyone capable of praising the car: one imagines they either have extremely small feet, a curve in their spine (the driver's side wheel intrudes, offsetting the pedals and meaning you have to drive slouched), or have simply yet to drive any other car. AVOID.

26th Jan 2002, 04:31

I've got a VTS and don't consider the seating position to be that bad, the worst thing is getting used to the pedals being to close together. PS I can do 0-60 in 6.9 seconds in my VTS.

28th Jan 2002, 04:09

I own a VTR too and I can tell you for sure that it does do 0-60 in 8.5 seconds cos I've got the equipment to test it! Top speed is 120 MPH.

10th Feb 2002, 18:36

The Saxo's seating position "isn't too bad" if you have never sat in anything else. Then again, some of the current Peugeot range offers equally cramped accommodation, and I've clocked a couple of press reviews describing the cars as "dangerous" because of it. Certainly if you have large feet, or wear capped or protective boots while driving (ok, ok, you shouldn't), you'll find there is simply NO ROOM to move your plates about. Braking becomes tricky, and that's just plain idiotic design from supposedly safety-conscious manufacturers.

When all is said and done, Citroen and Peugeot love tends to be a strictly teenage phase. The motors are cheap to buy, relatively easy to insure, and you can just toss them straight into the crusher when you prang them. Once you've progressed to your first German car, which you will do at some point, you'll begin to wonder why you made such a fuss about silly little French ones...

17th Dec 2002, 05:58

Time to wake up I think, I made the sad mistake of buying a VTR to replace my 106 GTi as it's cheap and I do so many miles. The VTR is so slow and gutless that a modern diesel van will have you screaming those last revs to avoid the shame of being overtaken! Thankfully I have learnt that I need to enjoy the miles I do and either a Clio 172 or Civic Type R will soon be replacing this slow heap!

20th Jun 2004, 15:06

I have owned a VTR since march 2004 and I love it, the driving position and pedal spacing has much to be desired, but not bad none the less, to end the argument my Un-modded VTR will do 0-60 in 8.6 seconds and handles very nicely indeed, buy a VTS if you've got cash on the hip cause the insurers will hit you big style! is it worth it?

17th Nov 2006, 10:37

The only times I've seen for the VTS and VTR is: 7.8 to 60 for the VTS and 9.2 for the 98 BHP VTR. Which makes sense, most 1.6 8v hatches around this weight are between 8.5 and 9.5. why would the VTR be any different, it only weighs 990 odd kilo's.

24th Nov 2006, 08:10

People think they are rubbish because they are Citroens and because "chavs" go for them. Aside from the badge and chav appeal, they are great fun to drive. Especially on a B road. They have more than sufficient acceleration and 8.5 would be achievable on a track no doubt. They are also easy to drive once you get used to them, and easy to park and have a good amount of room inside considering the size of the car.

Yeah they tend to go wrong a lot, but take it down a B road in Wales and you'll forgive it straight away.

24th Nov 2006, 10:35

Yes, I can believe that. But some comments that I've seen in the past are people saying that the VTR is not capable of 0-60 in under 10 seconds, which makes no sense at all.

24th Nov 2006, 17:33

They will do 60 in about 9.5 on public roads. Tracks are different. My furio would do 60 in 10.5 which was timed digitally and the VTR is 23bhp more powerful. I have a VTR now, but they are only quick once above 3000rpm. If you floor it at 1500rpm you have to wait a few seconds before it puts you back in the seat. But once they are in the power band they are quick.

27th Nov 2006, 03:33

Oh look another this car can do 0-60 half a second quicker than this other one discussion *yawn*. Who gives a monkeys? Look muppets, take a VTR and VTS, give the VTS a crap driver, naff clutch, unserviced, crap tyres and the VTR the opposite of the above - the VTR would at the least be in contention. There's too many variables for any comparison to have any value.

If you really want pub BS ammo then the following is the facts, everything else being equal - VTS\106 GTi is quicker that VTR, which is quicker than both the Furio and Quiksilver, all of which will stuff all the 1.1 boys.

The S3 and Civic will smoke anything else listed here in a straight line but handle like buses unless sorted out.

And none of this 'my Rallye is quicker than a VTS\GTi cos it's so light and handles really well' - maybe on your imaginary personal race circuit, but not on real roads it don't.

Now lets all calm down and let the original poster's comment stand - if true then he's got a very, very good VTR, or it's bollox so why take the bait?

27th Nov 2006, 06:05

That may be what people want to talk about, there are plenty of sites that cater for nonsense power and performance claims. This site is for reviews and comments on that review, not turning every Saxo review into a 1/4 miles conparison thread. It's pointless.

I think the site owner is allowing these posts to go up to increase the size of the site and visits and nothing more, I cannot see how any sort of moderation is applied to comments.

Having to filter through 20 posts to find the one that relates to the original review is tiring at best.

27th Nov 2006, 15:36

I have recently had my VTR remapped. It is putting out 112bhp now. Today I did some tests with a phone stop watch.. not very accurate I know. Here are the results. 60-70 in 4th = 4 seconds. 40-60 in 2nd = 3.4 seconds. 0-60 = 7.5 seconds. I let the engine hit the rev limiter in 2nd for 0-60 as I know the speedo's aren't accurate. It was reading just over 60mph. Please don't go slagging me off. I have said my results won't be completely accurate. Just a bit of fun.

28th Nov 2006, 11:04

Reply to the 27th Nov 2006, 06:05:

I'm the site owner, and just wanted to quickly reply in this thread of comments. Choosing the right level of moderation is difficult, and I try to interfere as little as possible. Within reason, the conversation goes where the visitors want it to go.

I'm happy to discuss this further, but it's best done via email (see below), rather than on this page.

Steven Jackson, steven@carsurvey.org