2002 Citroen Saxo VTR from UK and Ireland - Comments

Yeah with 150 bhp you would think a CRX would leave them for dust, but it doesn't, the VTS is just as fast.

The Swift I was comparing was the 84-92 model, which had a lower kerb weight, and 0-60 times vary from 8.0-8.5 seconds depending on source. Yes, DEPENDING ON SOURCE = so stop arguing will ya.

The Honda 1.6 vtec has 158bhp and 16 valves, the VTR has 100bhp and 8 valves and still manages 132mph, and you still call it a average 1.6 8V car when the Honda vtec only tops it by 2mph???

VTS DOES 140mph = VTS is faster than the Honda vtec BYE BYE.

A VTR won't do 132 mph, more like 120, and a VTS won't do 140, more like 130. A CRX vtec is rated at 134mph, but I've been in one when it went off the clock past 145mph. Speedo's are not 100% accurate!!!

The one I went in showing over 145mph was in reality probably only going 130ish. And for your information go onto a Saxo owners club forum and even they will say the VTS is incapable of reaching 140mph on standard gearing, as given enough power the limiter will kick in before 140, and that's coming from Saxo owners.

The Clio Sport 0-100mph takes 17-18 seconds depending on model, and the VTS 23-24 seconds, and the VTR takes 30 give or take a second. But like you say they are all REALLY close?

If the guy found consistent figures of between 8-8.5 seconds 0-60 from proper websites, and not just owners making them up, then surely that is pretty accurate, especially compared to someone who looks at the consistent 9.0-9.5 seconds quoted for a mark 2 VTR, then completely ignores them in order to claim his car is much faster.

Oh dear, and just when I thought you had started to use more realistic figures, again we get the 130mph+ claims for a VTR and 140mph+ claims for a VTS. It's easy to argue for a car if you make up your own facts and figures and then pit them against book figures of other cars.

I give up now. It was foolish to think that I could convince a Saxo VTR driver that they are driving a 98bhp car that weighs 920kg.

The Mini Cooper S is supercharged, so not really a fair comparison. Try looking up a Civic Type R EK9 if you want a properly fast 1.6 nasp. Also the Clio 172 does not have 172 bhp, it actually has slightly less than that.

You say 1.5 seconds difference and 7mph according to book figures isn't a lot, then tell us to ignore book figures because they are not even close to what your figures are - make up your mind.

This is a pointless debate now because there is no common sense behind arguments for the VTR, just a fanboy (which as someone else said) is looking through rose tinted glasses. I also agree with the times somebody else posted:

VTR MK1 0-60 10.2 and 115mph.

VTR MK2 0-60 9.5 and 116mph.

VTS 0-60 7.7 and 127mph.

I think its fair to describe a VTR as borderline slow. Anybody who was into cars and actually wanted a quick car would not buy one, unless it was with the intention of completely modifying it because it's reasonably light, because as standard they are pants, and it makes no sense to get one if you are just after speed because of the VTS being the obvious choice.

"I think it's fair to describe a VTR as borderline slow"

See, obviously a VTR hater cause you listed the slowest book times just to make out the mk2 VTR is slow. Try Parkers" 0-60 9.1, and 120mph not 116mph. I got 132mph with proper equipment and I can prove it if you want?

Why don't you guys believe the VTR's potential? Loads of videos prove a VTR can do 130mph, and one looked after can manage an extra 2mph.

I've just been on the Saxo forum and all VTS owners all say they do 140mph easy, and it's true they will, so believe it Saxo haters. I challenge anyone with 1.6 (except VTS), and I guarantee I will beat you.

The Clio Sport does not do 0-100mph in 17-18 seconds. The Mini Cooper S is still a 1.6, even if it is supercharged, but you don't say the Honda vtec is a 16 valve do you? VTR IS AN 8 VALVE, so give it some credit for it's speed abilities.

Everyone stereotypes the Saxo and I'm SICK OF IT!!! No one calls Fiesta's, Corsa's, Punto's, and those stupid smart cars do they? Young people drive them too - the whole world is racist to the Saxo - it's not my fault Citroen made the mk2 Saxo so damn pretty with its bug eyes is it.

So the VTR feels fast after riding your bike?

Are you sure it's not a 50cc?

By the way I have a Civic Type R, the book figures are 0-60 in 6.6 and 146 top end, but I too am awesome behind the wheel, so it's probably more like 4.5 to 60, and I've seen the speedo over 160 so it eats your Saxo - LOL.

VTR's are slow, anyone who thinks otherwise obviously never driven a properly quick car.

"VTR's are slow, anyone who thinks otherwise obviously never driven a properly quick car"

Hmmmm, well I ride a Yamaha R6 so that's faster than any car you've driven.

"So it's probably more like 4.5 to 60, and I've seen the speedo over 160 so it eats your Saxo - LOL."

My Yamaha R6 more like 2.9 to 60, and I've seen the speedo over 175 so it eats your Civic Type R - LOL.

"So the VTR feels fast after riding your bike?

Are you sure it's not a 50cc?"

How can I put it, my bike is a rocket, my VTR is quick. You can't call any 1.6 slow, something that can get below 10 second to 60 is not slow, it's not super quick, but it's not slow, and that's what I hate the most when people just say they're slow and crap, when if you get one that's been looked after, you have a good car.

Or so you say, but going on the strength of your previous claims I'm far from convinced.

I have also been on the Saxo forums. They all admit the VTS and VTR run out of puff in the top end.

EK9 civic 185bhp 1.6 16valve, compare it against the VTS if you like, it still gets completely destroyed.

The VTR is impressing nobody; the Corsa, Punto and Fiesta etc are all cheap little first cars as well, but nobody is on here making false claims about them. If they were then they would get the same response.

Can't believe you actually used the term 'racist' to describe peoples views on the Saxo. You can't complain about people using slower book figures, and then not use any book figures but completely make them up.

We say 116/117mph top speed, 0-60 9.5 seconds as they are real figures, but rather than arguing that the quickest book figures of 9.1 0-60 and 120mph top speed are accurate, you claim figures of 8.5 0-60 and 132mph???

I posted the UKCAR figures for the Saxo. I'm not a Saxo hater because I have one. A VTR. Thank you.

Bikes and cars are completely different, you can't really compare both, as a fast bike will always be quicker than a fast car.

"I challenge anyone with 1.6 (except VTS), and I guarantee I will beat you."

Would you challenge my 1.6 ek9 Civic Type R (185bhp standard)? It's just as quick as a Golf R32 (246bhp)