2002 Citroen Saxo VTR from UK and Ireland - Comments

:I had a VTR try and race me the other night and he kept up until I dropped the hammer: = it must have been a badged up 1.1, Quote.

You assumed it was a badged up lower powered model without even knowing what car I was driving? = 280 bhp Scooby! And the VTR couldn't keep up in the slightest, where as a Clio 172/182 and even a VTS would have kept up at lower speeds for a little bit!

All these cars you mention that the Saxo has a higher top speed than eg Metro, Swift etc on actual roads the top speed will be fairly irrelevant as unless you've got a hell of a long straight you'll never get near them anyway, and 0-60 and 0-100 times are a more realistic comparison!

I don't think anyone was really that bothered about proving these cars to be quicker, just that the Saxo is only the same as all the other cars of power and weight - which it is!

Oh and also some years ago I owned 2 Fiesta Zetec S s, and neither was slower than a VTR, one was noticeably quicker as if I remember right. They usually produce more power than Ford claimed, usually around 110-115bhp completely standard!

Haha, give it up mate, I said the Clio Sports and the Civic Type-R are superior to the VTR, not the Enzo! Far from it, and I didn't say they were race cars either.

I think you're just jealous you bought a nasty 8v Saxo, when you could have had a nicer car for a little bit more. You just keep kidding yourself you're driving the fastest thing on the planet if you want, just don't be upset when cars with similar engine sizes will keep up, even beat you, and god forbid you try and race the aforementioned hot hatches, LOL! My mate's Clio dCi had no problems with a VTR the other night! More or less same the bhp, but with much more torque. VTR performance for less money, haha.

Your comments about the C2 are simply wrong, the C2 is Citroens new Saxo, that's why they brought it out in the first place, to keep up with more modern cars in terms of build quality, fuel economy and more importantly safety!,

Even if they had kept the old Saxo shell and updated it with more power (say 185bhp), it would be so weighed down with safety equipment, larger engine, bigger brakes, wheels etc. it would most definitely lose its weight advantage over the Civic and Clio, so again would definitely be down on the power to weight factor.

The Civic and Clio's would still be out in front, LOL.

Maybe you should look at why the new Clio Sport 197 is not as fast as the old 182, despite a fair bit more power, it's called weight! And it's the same story if they brought out a '2009 Saxo VTS' as you say.

So stop pretending and start enjoying your car for what it is, or alternatively sell it and get something better!

The Clio DCI (100bhp) 0-60 10.3, top speed 115 mph, Saxo VTR 0-60 9.1, top speed 120mph, how did you beat one with no problems? The VTR wasn't even trying mate.

The other night I left a Clio for dead and it was the 1.6 16v 110bhp.

Can't afford a Clio? I've got a Audi TT, and an R6, both cost more than a Clio 172. I wouldn't buy a Clio if it was the only car on earth.

Theirry Henry did those Clio ads, they gave him that Clio for free LOL, and soon as he finished the ad, he sold it! Who wants to be seen in a Clio?

The Honda Civic Type R is such a horrible car, ugly interior YUK! I would never buy a Honda car.

The Saxo VTR looks much better than a Civic Type R. I'm getting tired arguing with you all. Let's end this shall we?

A Civic Type R s interior is luxury compared to the Saxos!

To be honest mate, we're all sick of arguing with you! But you won't drop it, if you really do own an R6 then why would you be that bothered about .1 of a second here or there on a little shopping car? If you have ever ridden one and opened it up, nearly all road cars upto super cars seem pretty slow in comparison.

If the VTR wasn't trying, it was strange how it was screaming it's head off, the owner was really ragging it from a roundabout, as for having a slower 0-60 time, the race wasn't from 0-60, it was from about 30 upto around 70 where the Clio's torque won, no doubt about it.

And if you can afford a better car, why stick with the TT or Saxo? You get a nice used M3 for similar money and trounce the lot, LOL, but seriously, if you own all the vehicles you claim, then you would be more likely trying to justify the R6's performance claims rather than a nippy runabout.

As for the Saxo looking better than the Civic, it's all down to personal taste, as standard I would say yes the Saxo does look a bit better in terms of looking neat and well proportioned, god forbid anyone puts one of those crap kits on one as per the norm, they look awful then.

But your splitting hairs about it being the fastest 1.6 in the first place, it is far from the fastest! LOL.

As said a 106bhp 1.5 dCi Clio is faster from 30 upto around 110, then there's others that are faster still, Honda Civic VTi's, Suzuki Swift GTi, all better cars than the VTR, just stop arguing and start enjoying.

"All these cars you mention that the Saxo has a higher top speed than eg Metro, Swift etc on actual roads the top speed will be fairly irrelevant as unless you've got a hell of a long straight you'll never get near them anyway, and 0-60 and 0-100 times are a more realistic comparison!"

That Metro and Suzuki would be out of puff at 80mph though, and it doesn't take a Saxo VTR long to get to 120mph.

"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."

LOL you forgot to mention you drove a Bugatti Veyron LOL. You completed a advanced driving course LOL, have you been on a fast bike? Have you got a licence to drive a lorry?, LOL advance driving course LOL - it's not even a test but a day out. I've been on the Nurburgring on my bike, and driving a car is easy compared to riding a bike, so that makes be better than you. 12 years of experience means nothing, my mate's mum been driving for 40 yrs and I'm better driver than her. It all depends on THE ACTUAL PERSON and their natural abilities.

Ford Fiesta Zetec S is slower than both mk1 and mk2 VTR's. It is in BLACK AND WHITE on Parkers and ukcar and other sites. LOL there's a video on youtube of a stock mk1 VTR beating a Fiesta Zetec S with ease. End OF DISCUSSION.

I think you people are now taking this too personally and saying false stuff about the Saxo VTR. For a 1.6 8v it is damn quick, 0-60 mid-high 8/low 9s is quick for a 8v 100bhp car and the 1.6 16v VTS is very quick for a 1.6. I might actually trade my VTR for a VTS maybe.. So lets end this row cause end of the day I am always right.

"If the VTR wasn't trying, it was strange how it was screaming it's head off, the owner was really ragging it from a roundabout, as for having a slower 0-60 time, the race wasn't from 0-60, it was from about 30 upto around 70 where the Clio's torque won, no doubt about it."

I had a Clio behind me joining the slip road and I left it for dead. It was from about 30mph and I was in 4th gear. The VTR has got good torque with very light weight, so there's no way a heavy sluggish diesel Clio will keep up, and like I said the VTR pulls very strong to top speed, which is 120+mph compared to what 110mph?? So that would means the Clio would run out of steam at 80mph? And you say you beat a VTR from 30-70? Where the VTR is like a rocket???. It's comments like this that make me reply.

So you're saying an 8 valve VTR has more torque than a Clio turbo diesel and that's why you can pull away from one on a slip road??? Are you having a laugh? Do you even know how much torque turbo diesels kick out? Even the older 80bhp model dCi kicks out 136 lb ft of torque compared to the 98bhp model VTR's puny 97 lb ft. The better 98bhp version of the Clio kicks out 148 lb ft of torque. 148 compared to 97... hmmm, which is better do you think?

It's laughable, we could have a hundred different people comment but you would still refuse to believe anything that was said.

Use your 9.1 Parkers time to 60 if it makes you feel better, but where does the extra 0.6 seconds drop from? As for top speed, you say 120mph+ but it's a bit misleading when you are thinking 132mph and everyone else is thinking 120mph dead, maybe 122mph or so.

So many cars have been shown to be better than the Saxo even from a purely performance stance, which ignores the superior safety and build quality of most the cars mentioned. There is a massive set of blinkers on you, and it's not helped by a stubborn attitude which refuses to be wrong even in the face of a massive amount of proof offered over the last few pages.

Um, how would a VTR match a diesel car from 30mph in 4th gear? The answer is it wouldn't, if the diesel car was trying. Yes I agree they have good pulling power for a petrol engine from lower rpms. But to match a diesel? Our VTR is remapped, and as a result does pull well from pretty much any revs, but I don't think it could match a diesel Clio, only after 4000rpm would it pull away, and yes probably pull away reasonably quickly too. But below that, not gonna happen.

"lets end this row cause end of the day I am always right."

Anybody who had actually driven quick cars and owned a fast bike would not bother to defend a VTR as a performance vehicle. This seems like a classic case of 'VTR syndrome' where the owner will clutch at anything in order to make their VTR sound better than it is.

With cars of any power, it is always horses for courses. The VTR may be the ideal car for one person, and complete rubbish to someone else. It does cost very little and is nippy with good mpg, but there are lots of cars with better affordability, and lots of cars that are faster or more reliable etc, it just depends on what you want from a car and how much you want to spend.

This has been a very entertaining argument, but you heard him guys, he's always right and he's a better driver than any of you, might as well give up.

"I think you people are now taking this too personally and saying false stuff about the Saxo VTR. For a 1.6 8v it is damn quick, 0-60 mid-high 8/low 9s is quick for a 8v 100bhp car and the 1.6 16v VTS is very quick for a 1.6. I might actually trade my VTR for a VTS maybe.. So lets end this row cause end of the day I am always right."

--Quote--

How are we taking it too personally when it is you that owns the car we are discussing. It is no comment on those who don't own the car if it is good or bad...

Whereas you own one, and so are defending it to the point where you are elevating it way beyond what it is capable of (0-60 in 8.5 seconds and top speed of 132mph??).

The Saxo is pretty quick for a 1.6 compared to bigger heavier cars, but isn't that kind of obvious because it's light? From a technical standpoint, 98bhp out of a 1.6 8v engine and 120bhp out of a 1.6 16v engine is very average. The Honda examples which you disliked so much clearly show that bhp per litre is not the Saxos strongpoint.

"That Metro and Suzuki would be out of puff at 80mph though, and it doesn't take a Saxo VTR long to get to 120mph."

Why would they? I am willing to bet you have driven neither, despite you mocking someone else for only being a passenger in a car they are discussing (VTS) you have probably never even sat in either. Why would they suddenly run out of power at 80mph, but the Saxo would storm ahead because it has... oh no wait it doesn't have more power, it has a couple less bhp than both.

The Metro and Swift aren't as aerodynamic, which means that they don't have good top speeds and the gearing limits them to 115mph ish each, but upto 100mph they would still be quicker than a VTR. Are you forgetting that a VTR runs out of puff at 80mph as well? Any car with less than 100bhp isn't going to be impressive over the ton, so why is the VTR any different?

Explain to me why a Lotus Elise 1 series with 118bhp has a top speed of 126mph, but the VTR has a higher top speed according to you, despite being less aerodynamic and heavier.

You keep going on about Parkers, but Parkers says 9.1 0-60 and 120mph top speed (not 120mph+). How is that close to 8.5 0-60 and 132mph?