2002 Citroen Saxo VTR from UK and Ireland - Comments

You're wrong again. A Fiesta ST is very underpowered with 150bhp with too much weight, it is not on par with a VTS in terms of acceleration. Top speed yes, an ST is about the same as VTS, but acceleration it is not.

I did keep up with the ST up to 80. It did start to leave after 80, but I gave up at the point.

At my age an Evo would make me bankrupt, drinks too much fuel and very expensive to insure and for what? A slower vehicle?

I didn't have a bike just for performance, but for the thrill of a bike, it's so cool riding than driving, and it's good to have both.

If I had an Evo I wouldn't have a bike and that would suck. Every guy should ride a bike and see what I mean.

Doesn't common sense tell us that if a Saxo VTR weighs 920kg with 100bhp and a Fiesta ST has 150bhp (1 and a half times as much) it is going to need to weigh 1.5 X as much to be equal, meaning 1380kg roughly, not the 1137kg given as book figures. Ooops, I forgot common sense was thrown out ages ago in this debate.

Maybe you did keep up with the ST, but that doesn't mean the car was slow. Most probably the driver. Imagine yourself driving an ST against a VTR and which car would win? It would be the ST. You know it's true really.

Maybe you did keep up with the ST, but that doesn't mean the car was slow. Most probably the driver. Imagine yourself driving a VTR against a ST and which car would win? It would be the ST. You know it's true really.

No the driver in the ST was very good, my mate got a ST and I have drove it and acceleration upto 80 it's no different than my VTR, that 150bhp is mainly for speeds over 100 mph, you don't really notice it at low speeds cause of the Fiesta's weight.

Also to prove that what manufacturers say that their cars can do on paper does not mean it will do that in real life, check out the Buggati Veyron vs McLaren F1 race on youtube. The Veyron does 0-60 2.5 0-100 5.5 on PAPER, but the McLaren F1 off the line left it by 2 car lengths, and that does 0-60 3.2 0-100 6.3, and they both were RACING! And the Bugatti didn't pass till 150mph, which doesn't make sencse either, since on paper the Bugatti should have been in front from the start.

It's the same with a 100bhp VTR and Fiesta ST. On paper the ST is quicker, but in real life there is no difference from 0-80mph, and not really much difference between a VTR and VTS at those speeds, and same with a Clio 182 10mph-65mph, which I raced; there not a lot of difference. On paper a Clio 182 is a lot faster than a VTR, BUT in real life at low speeds 10-65mph there is not a lot of difference.

LOL, seriously mate, VTR Paxo against Fiesta ST and then, even the Clio 182??!!! My god, we all might as well sell up and pay less insurance for this superhuman Saxo!

Hmm I find it extremely strange how a 100bhp car can keep up with something like a Clio 182 in acceleration, despite the Clio only weighing a little bit more, but having vastly superior gear ratios, aerodynamics, power and torque! And a more free revving lighter engine?

Please explain how physics do not apply to your car?

Cars of those capabilities will vary a lot depending on launches, drivers, tyres etc etc because they are proper performance machines. I don't think you can compare them racing with a Fiesta ST and VTR racing...

End of the day your VTR is a VTR and nothing more, if you don't like the way people view these cars, then hard luck because you won't change opinions on a car that many people have driven themselves, and know what it is and isn't capable of.

In the Topgear magazine it says why the F1 was ahead to start with.

"Hmm I find it extremely strange how a 100bhp car can keep up with something like a Clio 182 in acceleration, despite the Clio only weighing a little bit more, but having vastly superior gear ratios, aerodynamics, power and torque! And a more free revving lighter engine?"

Don't you find it strange how a 627bhp left a 1000bhp car of the line by 4 car lengths??? WEIGHT Clio 182 power and torque don't mean anything at 10-65mph and gear ratio?? A VTR does 65mph in 2nd. How the hell can a 2.0 litre engine be lighter than a 1.6??? The VTR is not the fastest thing I own, I own a bike that is on par with a Ferrari F40 on acceleration, and I still don't say the VTR is a slow car. A Micra 1.0 is a slow car, not a VTR.

No not at all, the McLaren is lighter and therefore easier to launch, the Veyron has electronics holding back the massive power, the Mclaren doesn't, power and torque don't mean anything??? LOL, that's funny, last time I checked at York Dragway it meant a hell of a lot! So what your saying is your 880kg nippy shopping car can beat any car of higher spec between 10-65mph? Just because its lighter? LOL. Funny that because a few pages back it was to 80-mph, and the Clio does more than 60mph in second, what's your point?

I think you'll find the 2.0 f4r engine in all Clio Sports is lighter than the 8v ancient unit in the Saxo; just because it has a 400cc larger capacity does not mean it will be heavier.

Your bike is on par with an F40? Wow, which bike is it? Bet it's that 600 you keep spouting off, maybe to 60 you might just keep up, but trust me on this on a track or any long straight or corner you won't. :D.

Depends on your definition of slow, however, if you do own a bike like you claim, it can't be that fast if you regard the Saxo as fast, still a Micra 1.0 is slow I agree, but then so is a Saxo VTR, it's a lukewarm hatchback at best (and it even struggles to justify itself as that nowadays). Any family car nowadays will keep up, hell my mates old DT125 Yamaha could outrun one to 60! LOL.

So all your 'bold' claims, which no one else will back up, are just your opinion, and nearly everybody who has ever driven or owned one I think would agree with me there.

Your making people hate the car when really you should just appreciate it for what it is. It's comments like yours that attach these stigma's to cars like the VTR in the first place with absurd claims.

It used to happen all the time with the Fiesta XR2i and Nova SR's LOL, those were the days, the Saxo is the new Nova in my opinion, and you definitely making that comment stick.

I have a Clio 172 I can make use of, and I will race your VTR anytime you like. If you win, I will admit I'm totally wrong and will never say anything again, if you lose, you must come on here and admit you were wrong.

I could almost put the V5 of the car on the line, I am that confident you are spouting bs. about your car.

Something that might completely blow up Mr VTR's argument.. the F1 actually has better power to weight ratio than the Veyron... that is why it is so quick. The VTR DOESN'T have a better power to weight ratio (or even particularly close) to any of the cars you claim to be faster than i.e. Fiesta ST, Clio sports..

My bike does 0-60 3 seconds, 0-100mph 7 seconds and 1/4mile 11.3 @ 120mph, which is quicker than the Ferrari F40, and nearly every 600cc and upwards will beat a F40 in acceleration. Only a Hayabusa and others will beat it on top speed.

Now back to the main argument:

You missed the fact that the Bugatti Veyron has traction control and the McLaren F1 does not, and the outcome of the race is that the Bugatti isn't as quick as it says it is on paper. The McLaren F1 is one fast car, and held its 10 year reign because it was fast in real life and not just on paper.

The Saxo VTR is not a slow car. My first bike was a DT50, and then I had a DT125, and to say that is quicker to 60 than a VTR is ludicrous. The DT125 barely touches 60mph, and it takes about 2 years to get there, where my a 100bhp VTR does it in 8.6.

My VTR out accelerates most cars on the motorway including Mondeos 1.8, 2.0, Passats, Golf GTIs, Corsas, Astra SXIs, Clios, Fiesta STs, Zetec S XRi2 etc... if you have a Clio 172, name a time and place and let me put you straight.

That Mc F1 race was invalid, the Veyron wasn't launched at 100%. So your Saxo/172 argument can't hang on that.

"That Mc F1 race was invalid, the Veyron wasn't launched at 100%. So your Saxo/172 argument can't hang on that."

So you're saying Hammond can't drive that car. The Bugatti is suppose to do 0-60 2.5 and F1 0-60 3.2, and the Bugatti has traction control and every aid to help it off the line, but McLaren kicked its ass of the line, so Bugatti were wrong about 0-60 2.5 and probably the 0-100 time too.

"Something that might completely blow up Mr VTR's argument.. the F1 actually has better power to weight ratio than the Veyron... that is why it is so quick. The VTR DOESN'T have a better power to weight ratio (or even particularly close) to any of the cars you claim to be faster than i.e. Fiesta ST, Clio sports.."

Power to weight ratio figures on paper don't mean anything in real life if they're false. 0-80mph no difference whatssoever, ST will be quicker above 90mph when the power really kicks in. Like I said, I'll meet up and race any stock Clio 172, and prove from 10-65mph I will still be in front.

Does it matter?