2002 Citroen Saxo VTR from UK and Ireland - Comments

Why are you getting a Clio 182 if you can keep up with them from 10-65mph in a VTR anyway? Doesn't sound like the car will be that much of a step-up to me...

No doubt we will soon be hearing how Clio 182's keep up with Subaru Impreza STI's and Porsche 911's very soon.

"How can anyone prefer a girly Clio to a Saxo, the Clio looks like it been smacked up the backside. Renault cars are the worst looking cars I have seen."

--Quote--

HAHA!!! Look at how you set yourself up for a fall everytime! It is hilarious to read.

Parkers are the most accurate site??? You must be joking. They are very often full of non-nonsensical stats such as a rover 200 1.4 16v doing 0-60 in 10.2 seconds. BUT the MG ZR with the same engine is said to be 10 seconds dead despite being fractionally heavier and having the same power and gearbox.

Plenty of other examples which show the site as not being overly reliable if you want more.

Good go get one please! Then perhaps you will stop believing your own VTR hype.

A Saxo VTR, having owned one, will do 60 in about 9 seconds. The MK2 version that is. They are a little bit quicker than what people expect I suppose, but nothing more than average by todays standards.

Good luck with your 182. You'll love it. My friend has one and I'm STILL waiting for my go in it! It's a brilliant little car; you'll like it 10 times more than the VTR. Just keep an eye on the maintenance as they are costly to keep in top condition.

"How can anyone prefer a girly Clio to a Saxo, the Clio looks like it been smacked up the backside. Renault cars are the worst looking cars I have seen."

--Quote--

HAHA!!! Look at how you set yourself up for a fall everytime! It is hilarious to read."

No I haven't set myself up, I wasn't keen on them before, but now I been looking at them more, the look have grown on me, and the one I will be buying is a 2005 black for a very good price, so I'm getting a bargain. My VTR is not completely going away, but just to a relative.

They are a little bit quicker than what people expect I suppose, but nothing more than average by today's standards.

Sorry I disagree there, I still out accelerate a lot of 2008-2009 1.6 cars, and still some 1.8 2.0 cars, so it's not average. Raced a sporty BMW convertible last night, and upto 100mph was still right behind him! This is not an average 1.6 car.

Why do you always have to be right? It is average. I've had cars before and after my VTR, and it is average compared to other cars on the road. I never even thought it was that quick when I had it either.

You blatantly set yourself up with your comments about Clio Sports earlier on. Just because you changed your mind does not make what you said go away, so either you were wrong then or you are wrong now, which is it? Either way you couldn't have been right if you contradict yourself like that. Now we have established you are fallible, perhaps we can all appreciate the Saxo for what it is, and not imagine it has a rocket sticking out the back of it.

If it was average, then why is it faster than my dad's 07 Mondeo 1.8??? That has 121bhp and 16 valves and is newer.

Why was I right behind a brand new BMW Z4 convertible up to 100mph???

The more you keep replying, the more you prove you're anti Saxo, LOL average car LOLOLOL, are you forgetting it's a 8 valve??? And it's running numbers around newer 16 valves cars like the BRAND NEW Fiesta Zetec S, and giving the mighty ST a run for its money.

You keep saying I think my car is the fastest in the world (you being anti Saxo). I never said I was the fastest, I will happily admit I cannot beat Clio 182s, Type Rs, new Golf GTIs etc... what I originally said was I surprised a 182 at 10-65mph, and even when he went by he gave me the thumbs up cause he expected to fly by straight away, but the 100bhp isn't a weak thing like you lot think, it is just everyone loves to call the VTR because of its image, and you lot on here have done it. If this argument was about a M3 hanging with Porsche 911 turbo say upto 80mph, you all say it's possible cause those M3s are quick! When on paper a 911 turbo is miles faster!! But it's OK because it's a BMW, and everyone is born to respect such a car maker. But it's a similar situation with the VTR and ST, which are closer on paper than an M3 and 911 turbo; you all automatically say the VTR stands no chance against a ST; how anti Saxo does that sound? Or should I say anti Citroen?

People will always stereotype the VTR, not the VTS, but the VTR because of its image and that is the truth, nothing to do with how nippy it is, just all the hate that people have with them, and give wrong information out about them like it's an "average car"; a average car is a 1.2 run around, not a hot hatch, do average cars look nice like mk2 VTRs??

"I've had cars before and after my VTR, and it is average compared to other cars on the road. I never even thought it was that quick when I had it either"

If I can keep up with a sporty BMW and Audis, it is not average is it, when it's only a 1.6 8v, and it's not just about performance, but the look of the car, and my black mk2 VTR is gorgeous to look at, everywhere it goes people look at it. THAT IS NOT A AVERAGE CAR, cause people don't look at average cars, cause they're boring looking. You're just a Saxo hater and say negative things, and just come on here to cause trouble.

I don't always think I am right, but the fact is, I am always right because I own the 100bhp VTR and know what it can do. I'm not pretending to own one over the internet, I do own one, and I have video proof of my car on youtube.

No I'm not here to cause trouble. You're doing that for yourself. However, I feel that I am better placed to advise on the differences between a VTR and a Clio 182. Due to the fact that I still have access to a Saxo VTR and a friend has a 182 at this moment in time.

You mentioned earlier on that my BMW 328i is underpowered for its engine size, and you would be correct. It has 193bhp and is 2800cc. That's 69BHP per litre compared to your 63bhp per litre 1600cc. Even though my engine was designed in 1995 and yours in 1999 I believe.

Now your Saxo may well be quicker than certain other 1.6 cars. But how much faster is it than other 1.6 8v hot hatches? For example, a Nova GTE or whatever they are called. If you pick 20 cars at random from the street, your Saxo is going to sit somewhere in the middle of those in regards to how quick it is. I don't understand how you don't see what I'm saying as logical, and I'm sure many other people feel the same way about their own comments, which is why everyone is continuing with this thread.

"I don't always think I am right, but the fact is, I am always right"

--Quote--

This is a laugh a minute stuff, you should be put in the Big Brother house, at least then that sort of thing could be worth watching.

Nobody hates Citroen or Saxos so come down off of the soap box. What you rate as average may vary from person to person, but 9 seconds 0-60 in my eyes is average. Yes big fat cars with not much power for the engine size will not be any faster, but that is because they are average also.

As soon as the VTR comes up against something quick like the cars mentioned, it will show. It's so painfully obvious that I cannot believe this has not sunk in yet. I am willing to bet you would describe a Ford Focus 1.8 as an average car, or a BMW 320d as average and both of these are quicker than a VTR. Maybe they can be seen as nippy, but anything more is an exaggeration.

I think you miss understand what the other person was saying, I think he means it's average for what it is. Of course it's gonna keep up with a 1.8 Mondeo, they are not fast cars. Out of all the 1.6 8v hot hatches, the Saxo is not among the quickest. The Fiesta XR2i, 205 1.6 GTI, Nova GSI to name 3 are quicker than the VTR, and will also beat a 1.8 Mondeo.

I don t think anyone doubted that you own one, as who's really gonna lie about having a VTR - LOL!

Well done, you can beat a 1.8 Mondeo = another very average performing car, as it may have more power, but loads more weight.

Nobody has said they hate Saxos; if it was somebody with another car similar to yours like a Zetec S or Corsa SRI etc that you believed would keep up with the cars you mentioned, you would have got the same response! It's just your little VTR seems to break the laws of physics according to you.

I will agree that if we describe the VTR as a hot hatch then it would not be fair to call it 'average'. It would be massively misleading. For a 'hot hatch' it is slow, one of the slowest, in fact too slow to fall under that heading in my opinion.

Compared to most other cars on the road, from Bugatti Veyrons all the way down to 1.0 Corsas, it is average. Go into a car dealers and browse through the facts and figures sheets and the VTR would probably fall right in the middle of the range in terms of performance figures.

For example (I will use the mark 1 Ford Focus as it is from the same era as the VTR) the VTR is faster than the Focus with all the engines up to the 1.8, then slower than the 2.0, ST170, RS and possibly the diesel. Putting it right in the centre of the range = average. Same can be done for the Astra of the same era.