2002 Citroen Saxo VTR from UK and Ireland - Comments

No, I stated JDM Integra Type R, the JDM spec Integra Type R has 197bhp. I should know, I've owned 2 of them for a total of 4 years ownership. The Audi S3 and TT both use the same engine and the same 4wd system, and the vehicles both weigh almost the same. Just checked Parkers and it states that both cars have IDENTICAL 0-60 time of 6.4 seconds and same top speed. JDM (Japanese domestic market) Integra Type R has 0-60 of 6.2 seconds by the way, so even with 4wd the Audi's can't beat a Type R to 60, let alone to 100. Like I've already stated, I've owned an S3 and it was a huge disappointment, the TT is no better.

A Clio Sport is on par with an Audi TT, 137mph vs 151mph on par?? LOL - even the Civic only does 145mph - Audi TT - different class, different league. Nothing I say is false, I got to prove my VTR does 0-60 8.5 and 132mph, I can send the video if you want?

That Saxo site is 50-50 of opinions and proves nothing. A VTS owner will always downplay the VTR cause he wasting more money on insurance for not a lot extra. I have driven a VTS so I should know the difference, have you??

I have been a passenger in one and it was a hell of a lot faster than a VTR. What Saxo site were you looking at? Because the one I was on completely disagreed with you, and people said the only way those speeds were gonna happen was speedo indicated, not actual speeds. As for the Clio Sports, even VTS owners were saying that their cars weren't quick enough to keep up with them, and that they would need to be 'fettled' to match one.

You accused us all of simply looking at book speeds, and now you are using top speed to justify the TT as faster. The TT has a higher top speed, but that is to do with aerodynamics and gearing as much as it is to power. Looking purely at acceleration, the Clio and Type R are easily on a par with the TT, both get from 0-100 quicker and both are faster around a track (the 3.2 TT only lapped 0.1 seconds faster around the Top Gear track than the Type R)

More of your claims are false than true, and no I don't want you to send it to me because that would involve giving you my email, and frankly I don't want you contacting me. Feel free to join the Saxo site and post a link, but I doubt it will be convincing.

You can go on believing your cars are capable of more than they are, but there is not even the slightest chance you will convince me. Judging by all the comments, you won't convince anyone else either.

You've been a passenger in one? What a VTS? That's not the same as driving one, why am I arguing with someone who has not even driven one? LOL passenger in one LOLOLOL.

The saxexperience I went on; a lot of VTR owners said 120mph+ for top speed, I think you've been on one page and that's it! You should check youtube out, a lot of VTR owners on the comment section saying 130mph top speed and there's videos too.

The speedo is very accurate in the Saxo, people with more powerful cars say they're not cause they don't like the fact that for a 1.6 it is quick.

The reason I'm using book times on my Audi TT is cause I haven't done a top speed run yet. Best thing for you would be not to reply, cause you have not driven a Saxo or an Audi.

The speedo's on Saxo's are not very accurate. Mine was reading 126mph and the sat nav said 118mph.

I used to have a Leon Cupra R (exactly the same engine as the TT) and it was remapped and it was barely any quicker than Civic Type Rs etc, more top speed due to more power, but unless you've a wish to lose your licence, nothing in it on public roads!

And some years ago I had a VTR, and it's not quick for a 1.6 or even quick full stop! Hows 90-100 bhp a lot when there are 1.4s producing the same or more power, and 1.6s producing anything up to 185bhp!

A VTS is quite a bit faster. You keep saying it's just hyped up so VTS owners feel better for paying higher insurance, but from where I'm standing it looks more like you trying to feel better about yourself for not paying a little bit extra insurance for 25% more power!

Your claims are all hard to believe, and if you are out of your teens, the insurance between the two cars isn't that bad anyway, as anyone in their 20s with a few no claims can insure a VTS for around £300!

Okay you have obviously proved me wrong. All this time, all those facts and figures I used mean nothing. I give up, your Saxo is a flying machine and so is your Audi. Enjoy your cars and I will enjoy mine.

I'm glad you now understand that manufacturer times are not always 100% correct, this varies from car to car.

"And some years ago I had a VTR, and it's not quick for a 1.6 or even quick full stop??"

You're proving me right every time you type. You can't have been in a VTR cause a VTR is one of the fastest 1.6 cars there is, faster than the Fiesta 1.6 Zetec S, Ford Ka 1.6 Sport, Golf GTi 1.6, Clio 1.6 16v, Focus 1.6, Escort 1.6, Punto 1.6 etc... they're all 16 valve cars, there's only the VTS and Cooper S I can can think of that are quicker in the 1.6 range, and the VTS is 16 valve, and the Cooper S is supercharged, so for an 8v doesn't do bad does it.

There might be 1.4 cars producing similar power to the VTR, but they might weigh a lot more and the VTR would have more torque cause it's a 1.6. I've had no 1.4 beat me. Of course new 1.6 cars will have more power, Fashion has changed and new cars look fat, they need a lot of bhp to move their big asses. The Saxo is about power to weight ratio, it don't need loads of bhp to shift, just imagine a 2009 Saxo with 185bhp - blow the socks of any Civic Type R that's for sure.

I have no problem getting insured for a VTS, the point is 33mpg vs 42mpg and the £60 more in tax, the VTS is a expensive car for what it is, for what 7mph extra?? 1.5 of the 0-60 time, oh please give me a break will ya.

"The speedo's on Saxo's are not very accurate. Mine was reading 126mph and the sat nav said 118mph."

Was it a 96-02 model? Before they changed the speedo's to read 140mph, they were not very accurate and they fixed this with the new clocks.

"there's only the VTS and Cooper S I can can think of that are quicker in the 1.6 range"

Are you completely ignoring peoples posts intentionally, the cars other people have mentioned include:

- 106 Rallye 100bhp 1.3

- Honda Civic EK9 185bhp 1.6

- MG ZR 105bhp 1.4

- Suzuki Swift 100bhp 1.3

- Civic VTi 160bhp 1.6.

To name but a few, all are more impressive than a VTR.

"The Saxo is about power to weight ratio"

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!

Read back about 3 pages through this, and find you saying power to weight means nothing when some guy kept proving just how unexceptional the VTR is.

110bhp per ton. Anything with the same or higher bhp per ton will be comparable or faster, your Saxo doesn't break the rules of science.

"I'm glad you now understand that manufacturer times are not always 100% correct, this varies from car to car."

Apparently they can be out by 10/20%, even when someone claims to have a dyno result which confirms the power of the car, and the people who test cars are actually professionals who are more experienced in achieving the best possible 0-60 time than some guy who thinks he is god's gift to driving.

I like how you missed out all the 1.6 cars that have more power than the VTR. Listing cars which have less power and are 1.6's. Nice trick.. glad I didn't miss it...