2002 Citroen Saxo VTR from UK and Ireland - Comments

Could someone give the definition of an excellent driver please? = ME, now the Clio 182 was in 1st gear when I raced him in my mk2 VTR, I had a very good change to 2nd and he tried to overtake, but couldn't, not till about 65mph, which I bounced off the limiter in 2nd.

So I don't think a VTS is much quicker than a VTR, when a Clio 172 or 182 had trouble, and they're quicker than a VTS ON PAPER, but like I said I'm a very good driver, and that matters a lot, even if your car is slower ON PAPER.

All good drivers bounce off the limiter...

Granny shiftin’, not double clutchin’ like you should. Ask any racer, any real racer. It don’t matter if you win by an inch or a mile, winning’s winning.

LOL. Take your car to Santa Pod and race someone who is definitely racing and you know exactly what is under the hood, and then tell everyone how fast the car is, and how good of a driver you are.

I judge a driver on how many accidents they have caused, and how many years experience they have behind the wheel, not how fast they THINK they can go.

I only bounced of the limiter cause I had such a good gear change it reached the limiter in 2nd quicker than usual, and that's what I'm saying, the Clio 172 has 72hp more, but had trouble passing and only passed cause I hit limiter, and the VTS would have trouble too. Well it would with me behind the VTR.

And what you said about a good driver, it doesn't matter how many years you've got behind you or how many accidents you've had, it's how many miles you have covered in your driving career. I've only had a full licence for 5 years, but I done over 100 thousand miles easy, and I've been in all types of weather, and I've been on the Nurburgring, which is a very dangerous track and takes skill, so I'm a expert driver, and I also ride a bike too.

A good driver doesn't need to boast about it.

Well I don't usually brag, but you said I couldn't drive so now I'm bragging, it's other people who tell me how good of a driver I am, and I agree with them.

I can handle a car at slow speeds and at fast speeds, and I'm also very alert to other road users, that's why people feel safe with me driving.

I ride a bike too, and you need eyes up your backside on a bike, so don't judge me cause I drive a Saxo VTR and that is what you are doing. I'm 25 with a mature brain, I don't do silly things like donuts, I have the odd race now and again, but only when it's safe, and I don't care if I lose or win.

I have not even said how many years or miles I have been driving, but after five years and 100,000 miles you assume you are more experienced? For all I know you could be Michael Schumacher, but you could also be some 15 year old kid who's big brother drives a Saxo VTR... point is boasting about how good of a driver you are on the Internet is impressing nobody.

Bouncing off the limiter is not good driving, no matter how you dress it up, in fact it's bad driving if you are after maximum acceleration.

As for the Clio 172, it has a ridiculous power to weight advantage over the Saxo VTR of about 60bhp per ton, which is more than half what the Saxo VTR has as standard (only 110bhp per ton), so we are not talking about a small difference, we are talking 1.5 times faster.

Did you ever consider the other driver wasn't even racing you? It sounds the most plausible situation to me.

Years behind the wheel means just that, not how many years you have had a license, but how much time you have spent behind the wheel. I think how many accidents you have caused is a pretty good indication of how competent a driver you are - why would insurance companies care if it wasn't?

Hate to nitpick, but nobody knows who you are or said that you were a bad driver. One person described themselves as an excellent driver, another poster thought this was vain and asked for a definition of such a driver (it wasn't me, but I thought the same), then you took it upon yourself to tell the world how good of a driver you were.

You were asking to get taken down a peg or two, so don't be surprised when you make egocentric claims that people are more amused than impressed.

I made the comment asking to define an excellent driver. Little bit of info. I have a BMW 328, my friend owns a Clio 182. Now, I can just about beat him in my 328 from a standing, or rolling start.

We have a Saxo VTR mk2 in the family, I used to own it. I can say without any doubt that the quicker car out of the Clio 182 and Saxo VTR is certainly the 182. When the VVT kicks in (if that's the best way to describe it) it's a similar effect to that of a turbo charged car. The VTR is still pretty quick though, I drive it on occasion. Not looking for an argument here, just writing up my experiences of the cars. I guess it's good that you're a good driver too, we need more of them on the roads. I've been told that I'm a good driver, although I keep my opinion of my driving to myself, especially if I am unable to back it up.

The Clio 172 was racing me and how do I know? Cause the noise coming from it. It wouldn't sound like that if it was cruising.

You make the Clio sound like it's a supercar. It's not fast, my R6 would beat it on 1 wheel. Yeah it's quicker than my VTR, but not by much, the VTR is quicker than what Citroen claim, same with the VTS.

The VTR does more than 120mph, I've done 132mph indicated on the sat nav, and I've seen the VTS do 140mph+. I seen the VTS do 0-60 in 6 seconds, and my VTR does it in 8.5 seconds, and these are stock times, Citroen slowed the figures down for the 2 fast versions so youngsters could get insured, so the Clio with 72hp more is not impressive, if my VTR had 172hp it would be quicker.

Oh by the way, my R6 does 0-60 3 seconds and does 160mph, so that's fast.

I must be wrong judging by those figures then.

I wonder why none of the other car manufacturers copy what Citroen did and under play their cars performance by about 2 seconds 0-60 and 10mph top speed?

A stock VTR will put out the 98bhp or 90bhp (depending on model) that Citroen claim on a rolling road, give or take a couple of bhp, and it will weigh 920kg kerb weight, give or take a couple of kg.

I'm not making out a Clio Sport is any more or less than it is. It has about 170bhp and weighs about 1060kg. I'm not pulling these figures out of the air, they are proven by owners who go to weigh bridges/rolling roads and the manufacturers and car magazines confirm this.

So in simple terms we have 163 (ish) bhp per ton Vs the VTR's 110 (ish) bhp per ton (assuming it is even the 98bhp model and not 90bhp). I could make the same argument about an Sport KA racing against a Honda Civic Type R EP3, it is just common sense.

Congratulations on owning a fast bike... that almost proves that a Saxo VTR is faster than logic, science or common consensus would have me believe.

Well it was Citroen who eventually admitted about the VTR/VTS being quicker than what they claim. They did that cause the Saxo is young person's car and they had to get the insurance down, but the 1.1, 1.4 are correct times, just the 2 sports versions. Just go on youtube and watch the VTR 0-60; most are in the 8's and most of them are stock.

Now with the Clio, yes I know it's a lot quicker above 70mph, but in my case I raced one from 10mph up to 65mph where I hit the limiter and then he passed, but I kept in front up to 65mph and he was racing, if I was in a VTS I don't think he would have passed me, cause on youtube there's a Clio V6 0-160 km/h and a Saxo VTS 0-160 km/h, and the VTS gets there quicker, so I say don't listen to what's on paper.

The guy who says the Clio is a lot faster is right. The Saxo seems to be one of those cars where owners live in a dream land. As for a VTS doing 140mph plus? 120bhp is not nearly enough power to achieve that, even MGZR 160's only manage 135mph and they have 40bhp+ on the VTS, look at the low powered Lotus Elises and you will notice they run out of steam at the top end as well. Same for a VTR cracking 130mph, the book figure is only about 116/117mph.

A Saxo VTR is slow - end of!

A Clio Sport/Type R and the like would have pulled a cars length before they even got to second gear, stop making such claims. I used to have a VTR many years ago and have had various other performance type cars since, and the VTR is not even close!

A VTS is quite a bit quicker and will keep up with the more powerful hot hatches until 70ish, when they will be left way behind by the 200bhp hotter hatches, and a VTS in standard form will get no where near 140mph, it would be lucky to see 130 as even though it's light, it's still only got 120 bhp!

That's right, the VTS top speed is 127 mph and the VTR 117. I don't think the 0-60 times are wrong either, the VTR can barely keep up with a Nova GSI, and that has a 0-60 of 9.1.