2002 Citroen Saxo VTR from UK and Ireland - Comments

Having owned a well looked after mk1 VTR with below 50000 miles on the clock, I can tell you that flat out I hit 117mph. The reason I'm so sure of that is because my friend was side by side with me in his 1.6s Seat Leon at the time, and his car was showing the exact same speed. Both cars were flat out and wouldn't go any faster. Stop making up this 130mph claim, no one believes you.

Whatever, we all know on REAL roads you wouldn't beat me.

I got A on my licence, which means I will beat any car on the road. I think it's funny when people spend all their wages on cars like Civic Type R's, Golf GTi's and Clio 172 when all I spend was 3 grand and I'm doing 0-60 2.9, top speed 165mph.

My VTR is my daily quick ride that I use to get from A to B, and now and again I show up these high priced cars by hanging with them to 65mph LOL - you should see that 15 grand look on the face. Damn, I should of saved my money, well I did and I bought a bike.

You can't compare bikes to cars, they are completely different, might as well bring rocket powered trucks into the equation...

Nobody is buying into your performance claims.

The Saxo VTR is badly built and only receives a two star safety rating. Saxo's generally have a lot of electrical troubles, the VTS engine is very prone to head gasket failure, but the VTR not so much.

Fuel economy is average, 35mpg combined 40 on a run. The car is very noisy at speed, and every one I have ever been in has had a lot of rattles with an ugly interior and poor materials. When you shut the door, it rattles rather than giving the 'thunk' noise of better quality cars.

The pedals are too close together, making it seem like it was built for tiny men or female drivers.

Performance is not quick enough for the attention these cars attract. Most modern diesels cover 0-60 just as quickly or faster. The brakes are pretty poor and fade quickly, ABS was not standard on the VTR either, making it worse. The car stopped production in 2003, meaning it looks dated.

Plenty of reasons to describe it as not being a good car I think. Most of those without even mentioning the very average performance.

You don't have to spend 15 grand to get one of those cars you laugh at as they drive past your Saxo. £3000 gets you a used Clio Sport. Out of that and the Saxo I know which I would prefer. You can get a VTS for the same money, and even that is better (although I still prefer the Clio).

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

Is your car modified? If no, I don't think so. A Mk1 Saxo VTR has 90bhp and the mk2 VTR has 100bhp, so if you only achieve 117mph, think what the mk2 will do with 10 extra bhp.

Oh the classic pedal to close saying, I can say the same with a big car, pedals are too far apart! I'm 6'2, 200 pounds with 11 feet, and I have no problems with the pedals - you're just nit picking now, maybe you're jealous cause when you were young (decades ago) you only had Cortina's and Mini's that did 0-60 in 17 seconds, LOL where nowadays you can jump into a 0-60 9 seconds 120+mph car.

Yes you can compare bikes with cars, they have an engine don't they?

If the Saxo is not a good looking car, why is it it draws more attention than your PROPER ADULT CAR? Cause it looks nice, and especially mine cause it's black.

Adult cars might have cruise control, leather seats and air con, but who cares, they're boring, no one looks at them and you just feel like a nobody in the world. Only good thing these adult cars are good for is carrying ya golf clubs, cause that's all you old foggies do in life init, play golf and then walk back to your car and see a YOUNG person in a Saxo.

I do not like the older generation, they are the worst. Not my fault technology has improved over the years, BUT you all think your first cars were great DON'T YOU. Much better than our first cars, even tho they're like 50mph slower all round = stereotype people will always live on.

It's only an extra 8bhp difference.. been annoying me for some time that you claim 100bhp, but actually it's 98bhp.

I'm 21 years old as I already said. My first car was a Nissan Micra 1.0. I realised it was slow then, and I realise it was slow now. It was miles better built and more reliable than Saxos are, but wasn't as quick.

Nothing to do with age. I have been in fast cars, and the VTR is nowhere near on a par. Not bad for a first car, if it had been in my sixth form car park it would have been the quickest car in there, but they are not fast when you compare them to 'adult' cars as you put it.

I agree with the list of drawbacks of a Saxo given. The pedals are too close together, the car is flimsy in a crash and unstable at high speeds.

The Civic 1.6 EK9 is very fast. Look it up before you start assuming that its bhp is not that high, so it's not that quick. 0-60 is easily as fast as an Astra VXR, which is widely regarded as one of the quickest straight line modern hot hatches. I would love to see any standard Saxo try and keep up with the EK9 on a track or a straight line, especially a VTR mark one or two (only 8bhp difference so it won't make a vast amount of difference, maybe half a second 0-60 and 4/5mph extra top end).

"You don't have to spend 15 grand to get one of those cars you laugh at as they drive past your Saxo. £3000 gets you a used Clio Sport. Out of that and the Saxo I know which I would prefer. You can get a VTS for the same money, and even that is better (although I still prefer the Clio)."

You cannot get a 2003 used Clio Sport for 3 grand.

A Saxo VTS is not better than the VTR.

1) They have head gasket problems all the time, the VTR doesn't.

2) They're are unreliable.

3) Group 14 insurance isn't worth it for 7 extra mph.

4) How is 33MPG better than 42MPG???

5) They don't have a glove box to put anything in.

How can anyone prefer a girly Clio to a Saxo, the Clio looks like it been smacked up the backside. Renualt cars are the worst looking cars I have seen.

I wouldn't describe a VTR as a particularly masculine vehicle. As has been said the foot pedals suggest otherwise, and I see loads of young girls driving them. The Clio is no worse than the Saxo in terms of type of driver.

There are so many other cars that are faster, or better built etc etc. the Corsa C 1.8 125bhp is only slightly slower than the VTS 0-60, and should be a tad quicker top end. That is cheap to insure for what it is, and is a lot better built than any Saxo, and would be a far better car than a VTR in pretty much every way.

If you think it's a good looking car and it suits your needs, then be happy with it. The rest of the world isn't going to go out and buy one just because in your opinion they are so great. Looks of a car is subjective, some people think that old Volvo's look good, but when you look at the car from a technical standpoint, there is really nothing special about the VTR.

Performance is what you would expect, reliability is questionable, build quality is poor, safety rating is well below average, the list goes on.

There are plus points for the car as there are with any, but cheap insurance compared to other similar powered cars and cheap to buy used does not make the car exceptional, or even above average.

Saxos are fun, nippy, and the VTS is pretty quick. They are very grippy and get good mpg. They look half decent for the money too.

Saxos are not fast, they aren't well made, and they look cheap, which is OK because they are.

Basically they are cheap fun. And can be fast if you want to pour money into them, same as most other cars.

I like them, just not these over the top claims being made about them.

It's only an extra 8bhp difference - Have a look on Parkers will ya, mk2 VTR 100bhp, and even had my VTR on dyno and it said 100bhp.

Nissan Micra better built LOL, yeah right. Saxo is unstable at high speed?? Yes, a 1.1 Saxo at 80mph, the steering started to shake, but with the VTR you do not feel the speed at all. I did just 110mph and didn't even know it, felt like 50mph, very stable car, you obviously had a write off Saxo put back on the road.

Stop bringing Honda Civics up and other 200bhp cars, I never said I could beat a 200bhp car with 100bhp, but I could beat a 200bhp with 120bhp my R6 hahahaha.

Let's drop this argument about Civics being a amazing 1.6 car (in your opinion). I don't like Civics END OFF.

Saxo's, most of the time blokes drive them, but with the Clio it's always a blonde girl.

I like my Saxo VTR so much I turned down a Audi TT 1.8 cause they are unreliable, and don't have front fogs, and my VTR has, and my opinion they're the best front fogs - Mini Coopers, Corsa's have little dots.

Let's get one thing clear, the Saxo VTR is not a first car for someone, you think a 17 year old kid could get insured or afford the insurance of a group 7 car? I know when I was 17 I couldn't. At 21 VTR/VTS insurance would be sky high.

My R6 would leave these "FAST CARS" you call on 1 wheel and shifting at 2 rpm, LOLOLOLOL END OF ARGUMENT!!!. DO NOT REPLY.

LOL R6 fastest bike LOL. My Suzuki GSXR1000 with after market turbo kit running 265bhp would wipe the floor with your little Saxo and puny R6.

And the people on here are saying the Civic is a better, faster car than the Saxo are right, just because you don't like them doesn't mean they are wrong... you are thinking the Saxo is a speed machine when it's a slow shopping car.

SLOW SLOW SLOW SLOW!!! End of.

"Saxos are not fast, they aren't well made, and they look cheap, which is OK because they are."

A VTR doing 120+ and a VTS doing 130 is not fast, but if a Golf GTI can do that it is fast? You are just being anti Saxo again.

You say they look cheap because they are? When the VTS came out it was 12 grand, more than the current Fiesta ST, but you don't call them cheap do you?

SAXO'S STOPPED production in 2003, so that's 6 years and they still cost around £3400 for a good one, so it's not really cheap is it, but everyone on car survey is a millionaire and owns "PROPER FAST CARS" don't they, even at 21!!! LOL.

Whoops accidentally replied. Why should I back down on the argument? You asked about 1.6 litre cars that were better than the Saxos, and there is one right there, EK9 - you asked for one and when I gave one, you throw a tantrum and want to call it a day.

Women driving Clio Sports is completely based on opinion, like I said it is no more of a girls car than a Saxo. Group 7 insurance is low, a lot of first drivers have them (one of my friends did and I know of plenty of other people who have as well - the VTR was aimed at that sector of the market - hence the free insurance when it first came out (and not all first drivers pass at 17, so it won't be the same for everyone, plus the area you live in makes a big difference).

You said you could keep up with Clio Sports to 65mph, well they are just as fast as Civic Type R's which are 200bhp, so in a round about way you did make that claim.

It's not Saxos people are angry at, but the false claims you are making about them. One of the guys on here owns one and said it is a fun nippy car, which nobody disputes, but that is where it ends. 132mph???!?!?!? Maybe on a dyno with no resistance, but never on the road.

It is definitely rated at 98bhp, look in your owners manual. And dyno results are only usually truly accurate at the flywheel, at the wheel figures have to be estimated.

The fast bike does not make the Saxo VTR any quicker or the hot hatches mentioned any slower. It's not really helping your argument.

1st May 2009, 14:56-Spot on.

(what is the relevance of front fog lights.. comments like that make me seriously wonder if it is a wind up)

"A VTR doing 120+ and a VTS doing 130 is not fast, but if a Golf GTI can do that it is fast? You are just being anti Saxo again.

You say they look cheap because they are? When the VTS came out it was 12 grand, more than the current Fiesta ST, but you don't call them cheap do you?

SAXO'S STOPPED production in 2003, so that's 6 years and they still cost around £3400 for a good one, so it's not really cheap is it, but everyone on car survey is a millionaire and owns "PROPER FAST CARS" don't they, even at 21!!! LOL."

------------

I never said a Golf GTI is fast did I? I don't think they're fast (the older ones anyway). I never even mentioned a Golf.

I know Saxo's stopped production in 2003, and back then (do your research) new cars in general cost more money. 12K was cheap for a top of the range model. And when did I mention a Fiesta ST, and how do you know what my opinion is of it?

I'm not a millionaire, but I am 21, and I got insured on a VTR aged 19 with no trouble. Had no issues with my Saxo, enjoyed owning it, got bored with it and bought something else.

If you want to reply back to my comment then feel free to do so, but remember not to make assumptions. I'm already aware that your R6 is faster than my car, and I'm not bothered either. Thanks.