2002 Citroen Saxo VTR from UK and Ireland - Comments

"The U tube video shows 130 on the speedo, which is gonna be less than 120 realistically! All this time with everybody arguing against the fact that a Saxo VTR will do 130 and this is just proof of that fact! Not only did it not do 130, but the speed in which it was accelerating top end was sluggish at best, and again proves what everybody has been saying - that a 90/100 bhp car ain't no rocket, and on that video it looked very poor!"

That video your talking about "me topping my saxo at 130" is not a Saxo 1.6 VTR. How do I know? It got grey dials, mk1 VTR's have blue dials, same as the VTS, and that Saxo is either a 1.1 or a 1.4. However whatever the engine size, it did a good job hitting 130mph.

I did test drive it. I thought it was fast, for a about a week. I bought it from a dealer, and I had it remapped and it was putting out 96lbs ft and 98bhp before the remap.

And for the record I know my stuff too, and what you're saying about weight, torque and power, it doesn't make sense. "Weight is the 1st thing that comes into play, then it's torque, then power". Can you explain that statement a little more for me please?

Torque does come first, you're right. Without torque you wouldn't get moving easily, or perhaps not at all. I don't understand why you say that torque doesn't help? If that's the case then why do HGV's have diesels with a mountain of torque and not much horse power by comparison? Yes I know they are heavy, but are you saying hp is more important?

Please explain, because I don't understand.

And, I did test drive it too. Don't think I mentioned that.

"Torque does come first, you're right. Without torque you wouldn't get moving easily, or perhaps not at all. I don't understand why you say that torque doesn't help? If that's the case then why do HGV's have diesels with a mountain of torque and not much horse power by comparison? Yes I know they are heavy, but are you saying hp is more important?

Please explain, because I don't understand."

No weight always comes first. For example bike vs car from a 30mph roll: my R6 vs a Porsche 911 997 turbo, the Porsche has got way more bhp and torque, but weighs a lot more; which veichle will accelerate quicker? Will it be the more powerful and more torquey vehicle, or will it be the very light vehicle?

The reason all diesels have "mountains of torque" is because there are a lot heavier than petrol cars, and diesels work differently to petrol engines, they usually only have about a 5,000 RPM limit so the torque will be low, and when they get high in the RPM they're disappointing. The VTR is unique in the way that it has power all through the rev range, and with it being so light, it shifts. The 1.5 diesel Clio is too slow, and you have to accept this and buy a new car.

The VTR is faster than the Elise because of the huge 5th gear ratio. Flat out in 5th you can hit 130mph, didn't you know if you put a VTR gearbox in a VTS it can achieve a faster top speed, that's the key to the VTR's top speed, it's the gearbox.

Yes, I see your point. To my thinking you could talk about torque to weight as opposed to power to weight for lower revs. The Clio weighs in at 1210kg and the Saxo 940kg, so a difference, but not as drastic as that between a bike and a car. I'm still not convinced, but I can see that you won't change your mind, so I'll leave it at that.

As far as I am aware diesels have more torque because they have a longer stroke (think that's the correct term). So they can produce lots of low down grunt, but can't spin as fast as petrol engines.

I don't own a 1.5 Clio, wouldn't want one. My other car has getting on for 200bhp, but I'm not going to mention what it is, don't want it getting dragged into it.

Also I didn't make the comments about the Elise, but yes I have heard from various places that a VTR gear box gives a VTS a better top speed.

I have uploaded a video of my VTR doing 35 - 95mph in 4th. I filmed it a while back. Takes about 8 - 8.5 seconds to do 35 - 60 as you will see in the vid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmp1chDkZck

"No weight always comes first. For example bike vs car from a 30mph roll: my R6 vs a Porsche 911 997 turbo, the Porsche has got way more bhp and torque, but weighs a lot more; which veichle will accelerate quicker? Will it be the more powerful and more torquey vehicle, or will it be the very light vehicle?"

--Quote--

Please just stop now. Weight does not come first as you like to put it. Weight affects a car's acceleration and top speed, but torque is what comes first as it is the power of the engine. The revs multiplied by the torque gives you your bhp, which is a useful indicator of how a car will perform.

The bike and car example is ridiculous, because you ignore drivetrain and a host of other effecting factors like grip.

Seriously, you would be better off just reiterating your claims like you did the last I don't know how many pages, than heading down this path as you will just end up proving the VTR to be what we all know it is.

Max torque comes at 3000rpm (torque not bhp, this means that the car is not at its optimum until peak bhp at about 5500rpm), this makes it reasonably impressive for a petrol engine, but nothing amazing when you start comparing it to diesel turbos etc, which tend to have peak torque earlier and far more of it.

Not that you need to compare the two, it is common knowledge that a diesel can outpull petrols at lower revs, and the Saxo is no different. You could compare a high powered car like a BMW M3, and in 4th gear at 40mph you would expect most turbo diesels to pull away better until the BMW came onto power properly. A petrol would just change down and then pull faster. To argue there is no need to in the VTR is wrong.

As I said before, put the VTR gearbox in a VTS and watch the acceleration times plummet. Hence why nobody bothers to do that modification because you end up with slightly higher top end and less impressive take off (which is what people buy the VTS for in the first place, because it is too underpowered to pull well at high speeds - just like the VTR!!!)

The gear ratio might allow it to hit 130, but it s measly power output won't. So now you think it's faster than a Lotus Elise?

Some years ago I had a ZR 160, and a 120 Elise gave me quite a hammering until around 80 where the 160s extra power then began to reel it in, but the VTR has less power so no chance of reeling it in at higher speeds either, especially when its top speed is only 117mph, no matter what you say!

Have you not noticed not one person has backed up your claims, and even fellow Saxo owners disagree with you, and as I said, I owned one many years ago, and it was one of the slowest and worst cars I've owned, not to mention least reliable.

"The Clio weighs in at 1210kg and the Saxo 940kg."

The VTR weighs 920kg, that's a big difference with similar bhp.

That video you gave is a joke. You started at 35 and didn't apply the throttle till 50mph.

"Not that you need to compare the two, it is common knowledge that a diesel can outpull petrols at lower revs, and the Saxo is no different."

Everyone I told this to laugh at you people. People laugh cause you all say a 1.5 diesel Clio would out run my VTR. Diesels have got great pull down low, YES THEY HAVE OK, I drove a few diesels but low rpm's don't last long and they get disappointed quick where a petrol sports hatch like the VTR is sporty and the power gets stronger. I'm not saying all diesels are slow, there is a lot of "fast diesels" out there with bigger engines, way more bhp and torque, but the Clio has a smaller engine, tiny bit extra bhp, a lot more weight & a bit more torque. Not enough folks. END OF TOPIC.

"Not that you need to compare the two, it is common knowledge that a diesel can outpull petrols at lower revs, and the Saxo is no different. You could compare a high powered car like a BMW M3, and in 4th gear at 40mph you would expect most turbo diesels to pull away better until the BMW came onto power properly. A petrol would just change down and then pull faster. To argue there is no need to in the VTR is wrong."

So what you're saying is a Clio 1.5 diesel at 40mph will pull better than a BMW M3? A performance saloon? LOL!

The only time a diesel will pull on a petrol car is if they have similar weight and BHP, and the petrol car is a basic car in its range. Performance cars and sports cars and sport hatches mean that! They are designed to perform. I had a big diesel car in front of me the other night going up a hill, and I did notice the torque from the diesel, but he wasn't "pulling away" from me, I was right behind him, LOL he tried to show of diesel torque but it didn't work cause he probably thought it was a basic car, but it was a VTR.

Clio 1.5 DCI 100bhp has only 76bhp per tonne compared to the VTR 110bhp per tonne, it is outclassed mate.

I own a Saxo 1.6 16v VTS, and I pulled out 6.8sec. from 0-60 and it hasn't been modified.

You won't of course hear me say it's the best and fastest car, but it definitely is one hell of nice car for its price!

"Have you not noticed not one person has backed up your claims, and even fellow Saxo owners disagree with you, and as I said, I owned one many years ago, and it was one of the slowest and worst cars I've owned, not to mention least reliable."

That's because all you people just stereotype the Saxo, and fellow owners I talk to don't disagree with me. On Saxeperience, a lot of them don't have the cars they're talking about, anyone can put mk2 VTR/VTS in their box.

The more you talk, the less I believe you have owned one. To say they're slowest and worst cars, I owned my VTR since new (2003) and not one problem with it. I've owned a lot of cars like Fords, Vauxhalls, Pugs, VW, Nissan, and the Saxo is the more reliable car.

To say it is slow depends what you compare it to; cars of it's class it is not slow, but compare it to a Evo 8 and it is.

"The only time a diesel will pull on a petrol car is if they have similar weight and BHP, and the petrol car is a basic car in its range"

--Quote--

Stop being blinded by your love of VTRs for just one second and look at the 50-70 times for diesel cars. As I pointed out it is a bit of a silly observation to make, but in order to match a diesel car at low revs, a petrol will have to change down, and that is the only point being made and the VTR is not alone in this respect. I would put money on a 330d pulling faster from 50mph upto 70mph than the the M3 doing the same with both in 4th gear, and that is despite a gap of over 100bhp.

You cannot prove a VTR will do 132mph because it won't, there is not enough power no matter how long the gearing is. And as has been said before the VTS has a better gearbox for acceleration than the VTR, or do you really think Citreon would be that stupid as to give the warm model a better gearbox than the hot one?

Believe it or not, I owned one and it was definitely not the car you're making out to be!

In all fairness the cars I've owned since have all been quite a bit higher in performance and build quality - Integra Type R, Civic Type R, Leon Cupra R, ZR 160, Impreza etc etc, so in all fairness it's wrong to compare them to the Saxo, but then again if I remember right this whole thing started with you boasting how you kept up with a Clio Sport, which sits bang in the middle of the list of cars!

For the record, I don't hate the Saxo, just the overblown claims and baseball cap reputation that comes with them!

I've had no input in the diesel Clio vs VTR debate, as in all honesty I'd say the Saxo is quicker and the Clio would only win if you were in the same gear at the same speed etc with its higher torque - but then why would you ever be in the same gear as they make power in completely different ways, and the Saxo would just drop a cog onto its power band!

I don't know whether you were serious or out to wind people up, but boasting how your car keeps up with much faster cars, and that you're the best driver around was always going to provoke a response!

"That's because all you people just stereotype the Saxo, and fellow owners I talk to don't disagree with me. On Saxeperience, a lot of them don't have the cars they're talking about, anyone can put mk2 VTR/VTS in their box."

--Quote--

Yup it's all a big conspiracy to downplay the Saxo VTR. Why would people on a Saxo forum with post counts which are pretty high and accounts that are months or even years old bother to lie about the car they own, just to downplay a mark 2 VTR in a thread which they knew would pop up at some point? You sound desperate and are clearly clutching at straws. The reason people on that site and on a couple of people on here also (who either still own one or have in the past) all say you are over the top in your assessment of a VTR is because you are.

You have admitted yourself you view the TT as being better just because you own one now, and clearly you are being very biased in your opinions of the VTR, far more than any of the 'VTR haters' on this thread. Many of whom like the car, but take issue with some of the drivers such who give it a bad name.