2002 Citroen Saxo VTR from UK and Ireland - Comments

No you're right, I never sat in the car to drive it the whole time I owned the car! I'm not even gonna bother quoting facts and figures as you make them up as you go along, but half the cars in that list you came up with are either the same performance or even quicker, and none of them are performance vehicles, just little run abouts!

And you can't think of any 1.6s that are quicker? The standard Mini Cooper is quicker, let alone the Cooper S. Honda offer plenty of 1600 cars that will destroy the VTR, and even Rover offer 1400-1600 engines that are at least as fast!

If you want to save even more money on tax and insurance, why not go for the Furio model; only 15bhp less, so less between this and the VTR than the VTR and VTS, and it's only group 5 insurance!!

That Honda you keep talking about has 185bhp. Most of the cars I have listed have more bhp than the VTR, and here is some more:

Honda Civic 1.6 VTEC, 108bhp, 0-60 10.1, top speed 115mph.

MG ZR 1.4, 105bhp, 0-60 10.0, top speed 111mph.

106 Rallye 100bhp, 0-60 9.7, top speed 119mph.

Suzuki swift 100bhp GTi, 0-60 9.0, top speed 111mph.

How is 111mph faster than 120mph? The VTR is faster than all those cars you think are faster. The VTR is a quick, fast 1.6 8v car and that is the end of it. Goodbye.

I would just give up guys, I admitted he was right and it feels good to just stop pretending like the Saxo isn't a rocket ;)

You will end up going around in circles with him, even when you prove your point it won't matter so just let him get on with it.

From reading that I'm pretty sure you don't like the VTR.

The Furio is just as quick, & the Rover 1.4 is at least as fast? - LOL did you own the 90bhp VTR? Even that quicker than a Furio. You can't have owned a VTR, if you had you wouldn't be calling it as it's a great car.

All the cars I listed are performance cars; the Fiesta Zetec S at that time was the VTR's biggest rival, and it has more bhp and 16 valves, but is SLOWER.

You keep comparing the VTR to 185bhp cars, I would hope a 185bhp car to be faster, all the cars I said are very close in BHP and engine size.

The standard Mini is not quicker as I raced one a while back from 40mph to 90mph, and checked my mirror and it was still way back, and LOL as soon as I hit the brake he did the loser thing - the fly by.

Again a 16 valve car with more BHP couldn't pass the 8v. The Citroen Saxo VTR is a good car. You're just a hater and you just come on here for trouble. If your car is so fast, why don't we meet up and race? I've got a Yamaha R6, Audi TT and Saxo VTR; I guarantee all 3 are faster than your car. BRING IT!!

"That Honda you keep talking about has 185bhp. Most of the cars I have listed have more bhp than the VTR, and here is some more:

Honda Civic 1.6 VTEC, 108bhp, 0-60 10.1, top speed 115mph.

MG ZR 1.4, 105bhp, 0-60 10.0, top speed 111mph.

106 Rallye 100bhp, 0-60 9.7, top speed 119mph.

Suzuki swift 100bhp GTi, 0-60 9.0, top speed 111mph.

How is 111mph faster than 120mph? The VTR is faster than all those cars you think are faster. The VTR is a quick, fast 1.6 8v car and that is the end of it. Goodbye."

--Quote--

There is so many factual errors in that post it is hard to know where to begin.

- Yes the EK9 has 185bhp, that is why we said it is more impressive than the VTR, obviously.

- The Civic 1.6vtec you listed is the slowest, why not mention the Civic VTi that I put in my post with 160bhp, which is a faster car than a VTS, let alone a VTR.

- The 106 Rallye has a couple more BHP than the VTR mark two, and weighs at least as little, probably less given it is a 1.3 not a 1.6, so it is hardly going to be slower.

- The Swift has book 0-60 time of below 9 seconds, more like 8.7, which is half a second faster than the VTR - how is that slower.

- How is the VTR faster than ALL those cars I listed when both the Civics I listed have sub 8 second book times and do over 135mph? Different league and the EK9 would embarrass your TT (if you even own one).

The VTR is an average nippy 1.6 8 valve and that is the end of it: general consensus, my experience, other people on heres experience, Saxo owners club experience, book times, power to weight figures --- all of these stacked up against your opinion and possibly a handful of boy racers on youtube who don't know any better, because they have yet to have a proper fast car.

Why would so many people get a VTS after a owning a VTR if it wasn't faster? Surely they would all sell up and buy another VTR, but THEY DON'T!

"- The Civic 1.6 vtec you listed is the slowest, why not mention the Civic VTi that I put in my post with 160bhp, which is a faster car than a VTS, let alone a VTR.

- The 106 Rallye has a couple more BHP than the VTR mark two, and weighs at least as little, probably less given it is a 1.3 not 1.6, so it is hardly going to be slower.

- The Swift has book 0-60 time of below 9 seconds, more like 8.7, which is half a second faster than the VTR - how is that slower."

The point is that Civic is a 1.6 vtec and has similar BHP, why are you comparing 160bhp, 185bhp, 197bhp 16v, 20v cars to a 8v 100bhp car?

106 Rallye is slower than the VTR, manufacturer times do not lie.

Suzuki swift GTi 0-60 8.8 and VTR 9.1, how is that half a second???

And like I said, the GTi only does 111mph compared to the 120mph VTR, so it is not faster. All those cars you listed are slower than the VTR, except for the stupid 185bhp car, but like I said if the VTR had 16 valves and 185bhp, those Honda's wouldn't be faster would they. Why don't you just add to your list and say a 501bhp BMW M5 is faster.

And to be frank, a 185bhp car only doing 135mph is not impressive when a 100bhp 8v can hit 120+, a VTS can hit 130mph with only 120bhp, so those Honda's are not very impressive are they? And I bet they cost 10 grand more than a Saxo.

When did I say a VTR was faster than a VTS? Of course a VTS is faster, especially above 80mph, and not everyone moves onto the VTS, depends on the person. I know someone who had 3 VTRs and still has one.

An EK9 would not embarrass my Audi TT, how can a Honda embarrass an Audi? The Audi is a different league, it's got status a Honda wishes it had, and when you drive an Audi you change as a person, you become a adult, you wear suits and posh items, with a Honda you wear white Eminem t-shirts and white caps, and sit forward on the wheel LOL. Honda bikes get a lot of respect, but Honda cars? NO.

"106 Rallye is slower than the VTR, manufacturer times do not lie.

Suzuki swift GTi 0-60 8.8 and VTR 9.1, how is that half a second???

And like I said, the GTi only does 111mph compared to the 120mph VTR, so it is not faster. All those cars you listed are slower than the VTR, except for the stupid 185bhp car, but like I said if the VTR had 16 valves and 185bhp, those Honda's wouldn't be faster would they. Why don't you just add to your list and say a 501bhp BMW M5 is faster.

And to be frank, a 185bhp car only doing 135mph is not impressive when a 100bhp 8v can hit 120+, a VTS can hit 130mph with only 120bhp, so those Honda's are not very impressive are they? And I bet they cost 10 grand more than a Saxo.

When did I say a VTR was faster than a VTS? Of course a VTS is faster, especially above 80mph, and not everyone moves onto the VTS, depends on the person. I know someone who had 3 VTRs and still has one.

An EK9 would not embarrass my Audi TT, how can a Honda embarrass an Audi? The Audi is a different league, it's got status a Honda wishes it had, and when you drive an Audi you change as a person, you become a adult, you wear suits and posh items, with a Honda you wear white Eminem t-shirts and white caps, and sit forward on the wheel LOL. Honda bikes get a lot of respect, but Honda cars? NO."

--Quote--

You say manufacturer times do not lie, GOOD. The VTR does the book figures by Citroen of 9.2 seconds 0-60 and a top speed of 117 or 120mph, depending on what they said. There, you ended the argument yourself.

You misquoted the Swift time and took off time from the VTR by 0.1 of a second each, otherwise even you would see the maths means half a second difference 0-60 (9.2-8.7=0.5).

Not just the EK9, but the VTi is also faster than a VTR, as is the Swift GTi on acceleration.

If the VTR had 16 valves, it would be a VTS and only have 120bhp, not 185 like the Honda. Hence people pointing out that the engine is nothing exceptional. Citroen could not get a reliable 185bhp out of a nasp 1.6 now, let alone when they were making Saxos.

You said there was no point getting a VTS because the VTR was barely any slower, but as I pointed out, if that were true then nobody would get a VTS.

The TT is a generic sports car with no character and a hairdresser stigma, and is nothing special in terms of handling capabilities. The EK9 is an enthusiasts car, which anyone with any car knowledge would respect for its technical capabilities. It does not have a top speed of 135mph, that is roughly the top speed of the VTi with only 160bhp. The EK9 book top speed is over 140mph, and it has a LSD making it handle like a dream.

If owning an Audi makes you grow up, why are there replies in this thread like 'I'm right and your wrong', 'LOLOLOLOLOLOL', 'That was when I didn't own one', I can hit 132mph in my VTR' etc etc clearly that is a flawed observation. The average EK9 owner is a car enthusiast who takes extreme care of their car and flashes and waves at other white type R cars, compared to the average TT owner who works in a salon and drives a pretty car to pick up hot guys.

"The point is that Civic is a 1.6 vtec and has similar BHP, why are you comparing 160bhp, 185bhp, 197bhp 16v, 20v cars to a 8v 100bhp car?"

Says the guy who thinks he can keep up with a Clio Sport, which has even more horsepower than a VTi?

The VTR is similar to a Sport KA in power to weight ratio, or a Fiesta Zetec S, or a Rover 216. I can keep going, but all you will do is say your car is faster. A VTR is on a par with these cars, hell the mark 2 is hardly any quicker than the mark 1, yet you seem to think that just because you own a mark 2 VTR it should be moved up a couple of rungs in the performance department. Well sorry, but to quote someone I wouldn't normally listen to:

'manufacturer times do not lie'

Where in the VTR handbook does it say 0-60 8.5 seconds and top speed 132mph? Nowhere.

I d love to see you all grown up driving around in your Audi TT in your posh suit - LOL.

Honda cars get no respect? The Type R s are legendary cars! The DC2 Teg was voted the best handling front wheel drive car ever made, and in a recent Evo test with all the modern machinery still came out on top!

Oh and there's that Coupe they made, what was it called again --- Oh yeah the NSX. I forgot Citroen have made far superior cars to these? Again if you have a bike and a TT, why the Saxo??

I actually had a VTR try and race me last night; he kept up for the brief second it took me to drop the hammer!

"The Furio is just as quick, & the Rover 1.4 is at least as fast? - LOL did you own the 90bhp VTR? Even that quicker than a Furio. You can't have owned a VTR, if you had you wouldn't be calling it as it's a great car."

--Quote--

Well apparently it is easier to argue with someone if you just makeup what they said?

The guy said that a Furio is closer in terms of performance to a VTR than a VTR is to a VTS - where in that statement did you hear a Furio is faster than a VTR?

The Rover 1.4 engine develops more power than the Saxo 1.6 and is a lighter engine. Put both engines in a Saxo shell or both in a Rover shell and the Rover engine would be a lot faster. The 1.4 engine of the Rover is available in the Metro shell and has a book time 0-60 of about 8.5 seconds (although top end is only about 114 due to the brick shape).

The only reason the VTR is even slightly nippy is because it's made of plastic and is very flimsy. There is no logical reason why the VTR should be so much faster than cars with very similar power to weight figures. You have been arguing for god knows how many pages and have yet to give any reason why the Saxo is so much faster than any other car with similar power to weight.

As for 'come and meet me and we will have a race', how old are you? I thought the TT made you a grown up, so why the racing about in a VTR? There will always be somebody in a faster vehicle, just be happy with what you have and stop imagining that your cars are untouchable.

You are the one who came looking for an argument. Have you still not noticed that you are the only one claiming the Saxo is underrated? You come across as having a real chip on your shoulder with something to prove, if the car was so fast why would you care what myself and a couple of other people on here thought?

The problem here with this guy, he's like the thousands of Saxo drivers on the road, the car itself is good for what it is, but because of the driver's opinions and views of the car, people lose all respect for it and then start to call it rubbish, not because it necessarily is as a car, but people who own it ruin its reputation.

They are fun little cars, even the basic 1.1, but they're not race cars, super cars or sports cars etc. etc. So saying otherwise like it can keep up with motors that are far superior machines such as the Clio Sports, Civic Type R and other similar stuff is ridiculous.

And also saying things like 'imagine if it had 16 valves and 185bhp' well then it would be modified in this spec, so you would expect it to beat cars with similar power like the Clio Sport and Civic due to being much much lighter. However they do make a new 2009 Saxo, it's called the C2. And it's heavier than the old one, so there is no point in saying any of that.

Nuff said.

"Honda cars get no respect? The Type R s are legendary cars!"

With who? Do you see real men drive them? NO!

"You misquoted the Swift time and took off time from the VTR by 0.1 of a second each, otherwise you would see the maths means half a second difference 0-60 (9.2-8.7=0.5)."

A VTR does 0-60 9.1 and the Suzuki does 8.8, where do you get 8.7 from? See you're making the Suzuki faster and slowing the VTR down = try Parkers: VTR 0-60 9.1, IT'S IN BLACK AND WHITE. That's not 0.5 seconds is it? And a 03 mk2 will hit 0-60 8.5, so it's quicker.

The 106 Rallye you keep continuing on arguing about is slower than the VTR, why don't you look it up on Parkers and see for yourself.

Again you're still comparing cars like the Honda VTI, which has 157bhp compared to a 100bhp car.

"You said there was no point getting a VTS because the VTR was barely any slower, but as I pointed out, if that were true then nobody would get a VTS."

And I said not everyone buys a VTS, like I said I know someone who has had 3 VTRs, and still owns a VTR not VTS.

"Where in the VTR handbook does it say 0-60 8.5 seconds and top speed 132mph? Nowhere."

I said early manufacturer times can vary from car to car and the driver. A lot of people have achieved 0-60 in the 8's in a mk2 VTR (02-03), the ones with 100bhp, and it does 120+ easy. Plus there are a lot of videos of even the mk1 VTR hitting 130mph, and that only has 90bhp.

"A VTR is on a par with these cars, hell the mark 2 is hardly any quicker than the mark 1, yet you seem to think that just because you own a mark 2 VTR it should be moved up a couple of rungs in the performance department. Well sorry, but to quote someone I wouldn't normally listen to:"

Right let's put you straight. The mk2 started in 2000 on a V plate. Upto early 2002, the mk2 VTR's still had the 90bhp engine that the mk1, had so they're the same speed. The 02-03 VTR's have a different ECU and 10bhp more, and also have new clocks that read 140mph instead of the old 120mph. There is a difference between the 02-03 mk2 VTR than the early ones, the old ones simply cannot keep up. 10bhp will make a difference when both cars weigh the same.

"I actually had a VTR try and race me last night; he kept up for the brief second it took me to drop the hammer!"

More than likely you raced a badged up 1.1 with the VTR kit or a 1.4 Westcoast with VTR rims.

The guy said that a Furio is closer in terms of performance to a VTR than a VTR is to a VTS - where in that statement did you hear a Furio is faster than a VTR?

How is that true when a mk2 (02-03) VTR has got 25bhp more than Furio, and the VTS only got 20bhp more than the VTR. Saxo Furio 0-60 11.2, top speed 109mph, MK2 VTR 0-60 9.1, top speed 120mph, VTS 0-60 7.7, top speed 127mph. Looks like the VTR is closer to the VTS than the Furio is to the VTR. Why don't you people just give up cause I know more about Saxo than you.

I'm here to cause trouble? So when you say Saxo's are crap and not reliable blah blah blah I'm suppose to sit back and listen? I had Saxo 1.1, 1.4 and now a VTR, and I driven a VTS and know how they perform in the long run. And I know the difference between them all; the VTR is a lot quicker than the 1.4 Furio at any speed.

"The Rover 1.4 engine develops more power than the saxo 1.6 and is a lighter engine. Put both engines in a saxo shell or both in a rover shell and the rover engine would be a lot faster. The 1.4 engine of the rover is available in the metro shell and has a book time 0-60 of about 8.5 seconds (although top end is only about 114 due to the brick shape)."

The Rover 1.4 16v has 1 bhp more. BIG DEAL, look at it's 0-60 11.2, VERY SLOW compared to 100bhp 8v VTR, and that's all that matters. Rover Metro 1.4 GTi 16V has 103bhp 0-60 8.6 and tops out at 114mph, it's the same situation as the Suzuki Swift GTi, midrange and top end (111mph) would lose to a VTR, the VTR pulls very strong up to 120mph, LOL VTR 4th gear does 111mph (the GTi top speed LOL).

The reason I asked to meet up and race cause I know my claims are correct, I do have a VTR, Audi TT and R6.

"The only reason the VTR is even slightly nippy is because its made of plastic and is very flimsy. There is no logical reason why the VTR should be so much faster than cars with very similar power to weight figures. You have been arguing for god knows how many pages and have yet to give any reason why the Saxo is so much faster than any other car with similar power to weight."

Rover Metro 1.4 GTi 16V has 124bhp per tonne and is slower, Suzuki Swift 1.3 GTi has 121bhp per tonne and is slower, Ford Ka 1.6 Sport is similar in bhp per tonne and is slower. Should I go on?

If you people don't like the Saxo, get off this page. There is no point in continuing your false claims as I keep proving you all wrong.

"They are fun little cars, even the basic 1.1, but they're not race cars, super cars or sports cars etc. etc. So saying otherwise like it can keep up with motors that are far superior machines such as the Clio Sports, Civic Type R and other similar stuff is ridiculous."

A Clio Sport, Honda Civic Type R are not race cars either. Since when did Civic Type R keep up with Enzos?

What I meant by the 2009 comment was if the Saxo was still in production, I doubt a 2009 VTR would still have 100bhp would it. It would be as fast as Clio 172 and the 09 Saxo VTS would destroy the Civic Type R. Don't compare the C2 to the Saxo, the C2 is a fat car.

So a 2009 Saxo VTR that doesn't exist would keep up with a Clio 172, but destroy a Civic Type R (lowest hp Type R is 185hp compared to Clio's 172). That sentence doesn't make any sense at all, seeing that the Type R is a bit quicker than the Clio.

The sooner you admit that the VTR is a mere warm hatch that isn't very fast, the sooner we can finish this pointless argument.

I've owned 1 VTR (mk1), test drove 2 mk2's and a further 2 mk1's. My ex girlfriend owned a tuned VTS, which I drove lots, and I test drove another VTS and a Pug GTi. Now here is a statement from someone with lots of experience with these cars...

THEY ARE SLOW!! (ESPECIALLY VTR), POORLY BUILT, AND WAY OVERRATED BY BOY RACERS WHO THINK THEY ARE SPEED MACHINES!!

I have 12 years driving experience driving everything from 1 litre cars to a variety of highly tuned turbo cars over 400bhp (Skylines, Supra's, and a very nice Integrale). I have completed an advanced driving course and have competed in some hill climb events, as well as a few track events, and taken my own cars to countless track days, and have even driven abroad to tackle the Nurburgring. Needless to say, I am in all likelihood a better driver than you, and have undoubtedly more experience than you.

Oh, and further to the argument, 1 little gem of a car people have missed out on, which is faster the VTR, is a Daihatsu Charade GTTi... 99hp from a 1 litre 3 cylinder engine... awesome fun car that I owned after the VTR, and it would wipe the floor with the VTR, and was more fun and can easily be tweaked to embarrass the VTS as well.