2002 Citroen Saxo VTR from UK and Ireland - Comments

It's laughable for you to say they put limited slip diffs in the Integra and Focus because they don't handle??? Do you even know what they do?? I very much doubt it. A focus (apart from the Rs) doesn't use an LSD because the chassis is good enough to handle it without spinning up its wheels on cornering. The RS was given one to cope with the increase in power and torque.

The JDM Integra Type R has 197bhp (77 more than your little Saxo) so an LSD is needed to help maintain stability and grip at high speed through sweeping fast corners and tighter bends in the road, whereas the little Saxo is left feeling twitchy and dangerous and understeery.

Actually it's to improve grip not handling.

Due to there being more grip overall with an lsd (except maybe in the rain where it can get a bit dicey in powerful rwd), with more grip it equals vastly improved handling.

6th Apr 2008, 16:57.

Can't say that I have experienced understeer when I had my VTR. Only if you floored round a roundabout in the wet. On fast bends it felt like it would oversteer rather than understeer, although it never did any of these. Looking back they are really easy cars to drive fast, amazing how many end up smashed up.

It s not that amazing really though is it just look at the people who drive them and how they are driven!And it s not really a fair comparison-integra and a saxo they are a long way apart in every aspect=price, performance, reliability, looks and the person sitting in the integra actually has taste!Saxo s are just not good cars I ve had one when I first passed my test and at the time the vtr felt brisk but the constant faults and crappy body work just proves you pay for what you get-not a lot!There are far better nippy hatches out there for the money even the mg/rovers with the dodgy head gasket problems are far better cars and for similar money you could now buy a fiesta zetec s or puma and they are far superior in every way!

Well if you've had a VTR when you first passed your test you should know they are a good first car, cheap to buy, cheap to insure, not because they have bad taste. Comming to that point they are not bad cars anyway, I think you should be diagnosed with teg syndrome, most people that own one think they are the best car in the world disapear up their own tailpipe in a cloud of delusion.

My vtr never actually went wrong. it had one problem and that was that the fan didn't work on the first two settings.

The vtr/vts in question aren't especially cheap to insure, and there are better alternatives, with on-par or better insurance premiums. (They are)cheap to buy I will give you, but there is a reason! They weren't reliable when new, so now they are 5 years old (or more). You may pay very little for the car, but could spend a great deal more keeping it running.

Oh by the way, I don't own an Integra; I had one in the past and loved every minute of it, but decided I needed something with a few more creature comforts for everyday use.

As I said; I don't think it is fair to compare these cars, as when new, the Integra cost twice as much as the saxo!

Focuses are rubbish, the RS or ST170 are awesome handlers or even the new ST. The rest of them seem to be really slow considering their engine sizes.

Saxo VTRs are cheap to insure, but VTSs are the exact opposite.

Saxo's are great fun to drive, and it's fun to thrash them, and in a VTS there's not many FWD non-turbo cars that will keep up with you.

An Integra is in a completely different league to any Saxo, as it's one of the fastest and best handling non turbo front wheel drive cars ever produced, making the price of one astonishing, and also the price of labour put into building one, as each engine is hand built, making it even more desirable.

Ford Fiesta 16 valves aren't as quick as VTRs, as they weigh twice as much as one, and they don't handle that well TBH. Everyone who says they are faster than VTRs race grannies in 1 litre Saxos at traffic lights, and have never driven a VTR.

Saxo VTR/VTS = rapid lightweight rev happy fun box's + due to chavs crashing there are lots of spares, making them cheap to maintain (lots of second hand parts)

Fiesta Zetec = heavy slow but last ages + overrated

Honda Integra Type-R = the king.

A Ford Focus will never handle as good as a Saxo; Ford Escorts seem to handle good tho.

Focus's handle better than Escorts according to my friend who has just upgraded... Escort to Focus.

Saxo are appalling cars by today's standards. They are fun and cheap. Not fast, and to the person who says that Escorts handle good, I point and laugh. The only good Escort was the Cosworth. END.

I've got a Saxo VTS. It's on a 01 plate with 108k on the clock. I took it to Shakespeare Raceway April time last year (mileage was about 100k). I managed to get 15.3 seconds consecutively (all proven with slips) over 1/4 mile. Only modifications are a forced air induction kit, a quick shift gear attachment and a strut brace. I also invested in some Eagle F1 tyres 195/45/15 to improve the grip and handling.

I've raced a few Zetec-S off the line and they are not as fast. I don't think the Zetec-S handles well at all as they seem to have a lot of body roll. I always manage to get round the country lanes and tight corners a lot quicker and tidier (even before strut brace was fitted)

I think the Zetec-S is a good option for a first "performance" car and think they look OK. But the VTS overall is far superior. But you do pay in insurance to be fair.

I've raced STs in mine and beat them purely down to weight to power distribution.

VTS is proven in magazines time and time again to be the better car. Yes the French build quality comes into play, but I've had mine nearly 2 years and have probably spent about £200 in repairs (front spring snapped and driveshaft was worn)

I'm now looking at a 205 GTi with a turbo conversion (205 ultimate hot hatch)

But back to the point, the VTS is the better car; most of my mates who have a Zetec-S agree, along with my mates who run a performance car garage.

A Zetec-S is just as quick as a VTR. Very very little in it. A VTS however, is a little different. Very quick for the under 2000cc class. Especially since it has no turbo or supercharger. For a performance hatch, not bad at all.

It gets silly when people start comparing them to other sports/performance cars, which are above the 2000cc mark. I used to have a VTR and I thought it was pretty quick. Thing is with the Saxo's you can push them to their limits quite easily on average roads, whereas with a bigger more powerful car, the limits are much higher than the road allows. Which is why I take my current car to track days instead.

Also why do so many people crash Saxo's? In my opinion they are great handling cars with very good driver feedback. You know exactly what the car was going to do even when doing 60mph round a bend. I can't say I get quite as much feedback from my BMW, although it more than makes up for that in other aspects.

Ford Escort - it handles brilliant and I'm talking about the 1.8 turbo diesel. But then again I am an excellent driver, so that probably why.

And yes a VTR is quicker than a Zetec S, and there's not really much between a VTR and VTS. I raced a Clio 172 or 180 other day from 10mph up to 70mph, and he only passed me around 60mph so the VTS wouldn't "run" from a VTR, NO WAY. I think people who own the VTS like to say they're "twice" as quick cause it makes them feel better, cause of all the money they're wasting on insurance.

The VTS is quicker than the VTR. 20bhp difference in cars which weigh under 1000kgs will make a difference. And the Clio 172's and 182's are quick. He would have took you in 1st gear if he started in 1st, however if he started in 2nd (from 10 so very possible) his lack of torque wouldn't allow him to match the diesels pull. My friend has a Clio 182 and it's only really quick after about 5000rpm.

Also, could someone give the definition of an excellent driver please?