2002 Citroen Saxo VTR from UK and Ireland - Comments

1989 1.6 S (not Zetec S) 1.6 CVH engine, same as found in the old XR2. Owned one for 3 and half years, owned the Saxo VTR for 1 year...

The Fiesta is a much better car. About same performance as standard; both 90bhp, both light cars (think Fiesta is slightly lighter due to not having electric windows or power steering fitted), but the Fiesta engine responds much much better to tuning. Saxo VTR = SLOW!!! The VTS is about same as my Fiesta after few hundred quid of mods (exhaust, cam and tuned)

Love that you keep coming back with more claims. The ZR 1.8 is at minimum 120bhp, but does weigh 1030kg, so fair enough the actual difference between a mark2 VTR and 1.8 ZR is not massive (unless it's the VVC 160bhp version), although the 1.4 ZR is still closer in performance figures.

Why insult the Golf GTI as a hot hatch when you drive a VTR, it has pretty much 200bhp and 0-60 of 7 seconds dead? Also, what you don't realise is that the handling and ways of getting power to the road have significantly improved since back when the Saxo was made. A Golf GTI might be lardy and bland, but it would still run rings around a VTR without breaking a sweat. Whilst not falling apart.

Impreza's cost a lot more to insure and run than Golf GTI's. The idea behind a hot hatch is something that is a compromise so that it can be used all the time, but not cost a lot to run and maintain. An Impreza is as different to those hot hatches as a VTR is to them. If you would choose an old Corsa or Saxo over the cars I mentioned, then good on you - somebody needs to keep them out of the scrapyard.

If the forums would believe you, then go and write a thread asking how long a Saxo VTR could stay ahead of a Clio Sport with both cars in first gear...

I would love for the video to be put on youtube to the guy offering, if not just so I can read the other poster comment that it wouldn't have happened with him behind the wheel.

How is the 1.4 ZR closer in performance figures? It's 0-60 10.5 and tops out at 110mph, and the 1.8 ZR is 0-60 9 seconds and tops out at 118mph - SLOWER than the VTR.

No old rusty 1989 1.6 Fiesta stands a chance against my VTR, bring ya rust tin, I'll race ya!!.

The Golf GTI used to be a nice car until it went to Mcdonalds and ate every Big Mac there was, now it's more of a luxury and a poor mans sports car. And a Golf GTI would never run rings round a Saxo around a track, didn't you hear the Saxo is the 2nd best handling car about, I even embarrassed a Ferrari 355 in the twisties once!

I didn't say I had trouble with a Saxo 1.1, just that time I was lazy and let him have to much head start, but I still passed with ease, but with Clio 172 I raced we both floored it at the same time. I will race him again and upload it.

If you get a good gear, change to 2nd in a mk2 VTR, the needle jumps straight to 60 and this surprises a lot of bigger cars.

Oh just to let you people know the 97-04 Golf 1.8 GTI is slower than the 1.6 VTR; Golf GTI 0-60 9.6 with 125hp, Golf 2.0 GTI 115bhp 0-60 10.2 top speed 120mph - a 2.0 litre slower than my 1.6 8 valve 100bhp VTR, so please give the 1.6 VTR some respect as it's not nippy, it's fast. A 1.1 is nippy OK, not a monster VTR, that's quick. Only the new monster Golf and some 2.5 versions are quicker than the mighty Saxo - that's what it takes to beat a Saxo - a bigger engine and turbo.

You don't think a VTS can do 0-60 less than 7? You put a turbo on one of them and it do it in 3 seconds, cause I saw one in Max Power.

Fiesta Zetec S 0-60 10 seconds, mk2 VTR 0-60 9.1 (on paper) with me in the VTR, goodbye Zetec S. You people have obviously been racing kids who just passed their test and are too scared to unleash the VTR's power. A VTR with good driver will blow most cars on the road; Beamers, Audi's, old Porsches, old Ferraris and even some bikes, and I am not high right now, I can prove all this.

Would I be saying all this if I wasn't confident in my VTR's ability? I know what it can do.

I was the owner of the 1.6 S Fiesta, and like I said, having owned both, the Fiesta was definitely better than the Saxo.

I've moved on to bigger and better cars since then. Honda Civic 1.8 VTi (169bhp), Honda Integra Type R (197bhp), then turbo'd to 320 bhp, 0-60 in about 5 seconds if I could get grip, and on up to the rev limiter at just over 150mph very very quickly.

But do you know what, I bet your super duper Saxo VTR could pass that easily.

But my mate has a milk float that can do 175mph, would that give your Saxo a good run?

Starting to think this is an actual wind up now, but I'll take the bait as it's too fun not to. The Golf's you mention are slow with only 115bhp etc and everybody knows this, it is why people say it doesn't deserve the GTI badge.

Describing a 1.1 Saxo as nippy is ridiculous, it is slow-plain and simple. You can't just make up performance figures for the Saxo, I have shown that with its power to weight ratio it is on a par with Corsa GSi's and Fiesta Zetec S' (3bhp per ton difference and you complain, but the massive 55bhp per ton difference between a VTR and Clio Sport and you say it isn't noticeable).

The ZR120 does 0-60 in just over 8 and a half seconds according to book figures, and the VTR mark 2 does it in 9.2 - that is half a second in it at least, so about the same difference as a mark1 VTR vs a mark2 (which you claim is massive).

I was waiting for the old 'Saxo is second best handling car ever' line. It was made so that the program was interesting and meant to be a shock going with the top gear cliche 'on that bombshell'- The handling characteristics of the Saxo are not bad, but put them up against an Elise, Integra, even just a new hot hatch like the Clio 197 and it is leagues behind. The VTR was not even the car that was praised, it was the VTS (which you seem to think you own by the claims you make, and then have confused a VTS with something else - a Porsche perhaps?). I don't doubt the Saxo was fun around a track (VTS anyway, a VTR would be too slow) with a light weight shell, meaning you can throw it about.

Don't start on the 1.6 argument, as all that needs mentioning is the Honda vtec engines producing 100bhp+ per litre. The VTR is nippy because it weighs less than a ton and has nearly 100bhp. But there are plenty of cars like this, the Sport KA for one (there is a nice comparison for you).

If all your Max Power friends say it, then it must be true, and with you being such a great driver, I had better hope I don't ever come up against you at the traffic lights, or else the normally massive distance I leave a VTR wouldn't happen.

Nobody underrates these cars, everyone knows they are a nippy little go kart that falls apart. The opposite is all to common, claims of the mighty VTR vanquishing all other cars on the road and being practically as quick as a VTS (starting to sound familiar?). They can happily beat 1.2 Corsas and little Nissan Micras, but compared against fast cars they do not stack up.

All other arguments aside, explain 110bhp per ton compared to the 160+bhp per ton cars you claim you can stick with, and then explain why other cars with the same power and weight figures are so much slower than a VTR.

The VTR is nothing special, hell a Swift GTi is a 1.3 and is on a par with the VTS because it weighs so much less, it has slightly better power to weight, and so would destroy a VTR - so if you want a poor built car with a small engine worth bragging about, get one of them.

Nobody will show the Saxo respect for being faster than slow Golf's, because nobody respects the Golf in the first place. If you could put the Saxo against the 150bhp model or above and be faster, then fair enough, but you can't (don't claim you can, there are enough false claims already).

If you are happy with the VTR, good for you, but this is not going to convince anyone. I have used power to weight ratios as an indicator of the cars performance and proven it is not capable of what you claim. You have made up performance figures (0-60 8.5 seconds? With a stopwatch? VTS 0-60 6 seconds as possible?) and claimed that the VTR and VTS are underrated, despite the fact that the Citroen's performance statistics are if anything optimistic, as most cars with that power and weight are half a second slower to 60, i.e. the VTS should be about 8 dead or just under, and the VTR mark two 9 and a half seconds.

As for you saying it so therefore it must be true, what kind of a logic is that?

If the needle jumps to 60, it is probably broken, that or Citroen have developed some sort of magic overdrive surge, which they have have not bothered since or before to add to their cars.

This is getting silly now, you are obviously taking the michael VTR man LOL.

I think you're being sarcastic now about your VTR. But if you're not, (and I like how you've ignored my previous comments) the VTR is not fast. It is barely even quick. It is good for what it is, yes. I know this because I have owned one, and it is still in the family, and I still use it on occasion.

My previous car was a 318ti (140bhp), and weighing 1275kg was able to keep with the VTR, or the VTR keep with the ti, whichever way you want to look at it.

The Saxo is also brilliant for handling below 60mph, but above that and it's dodgy. I could go out in it right now if I wanted and be frustrated by how much slower it is than my 328i.

But do you know what, I bet your super duper Saxo VTR could pass that easily - no but my Yamaha R6 would. The Saxo VTR is much better than a Fiesta 1.6 S, and much more reliable as the Fiesta's I owned have all stopped.

You people are so anti Saxo, you say that 115bhp doesn't deserve the gti badge, but END OF THE DAY it's still a GTI, and same time of the Saxo (90's) and is slower than the Saxo. A car that can do 120mph+ is not slow.

A Saxo 1.1, compared to other 1.1 and some 1.2, a 1.4 is very nippy. I did 0-60 10.8 in a stock 1.1 Saxo. The Saxo VTS and VTR both handle the same around a track, maybe the VTR slightly better with 15kg less.

You people say cause a car is faster, it's a better car, that's not true at all. I had two Saxo's and no problems with them, you people obviously had write offs put back on the road.

Honda Civics are crap, Fiesta Zetec is boring, Saxos are nice. All I have to do to my VTR is put a pipe on, induction kit, chip and I'm doing 0-60 in 6.7, still below 3 grand @ group 7 insurance.

A Honda Civic Type R costs 15 grand, imagine if I put 15 grand into my VTR, the VTR would be out of sight.

Your 0-60 time for the 1.1 is probably done with a stopwatch and speedo. Myself and the other people commenting obviously just hate the Saxo, and are being overly harsh by saying it is as fast as all the other cars it has the same power and weight as. We had stupidly forgotten about the secret Saxo clause, which means that despite facts and figures, it is faster than most cars on the road with secret Saxo man behind the wheel.

The Golf is slow, no point arguing it. But when you claim you can keep up with fast cars like Clio Sports that nobody says are slow, you are mistaken.

Spend 15 grand on a Saxo and you get...

A Saxo. It won't add any value to the car when you come to sell it on. You might as well just buy a faster car. Or buy a used Civic Type R and put a supercharger on it (still well within the 15k budget) and it would be 1000x more reliable, as well as faster, better built etc etc.

You add bits to a Saxo and the insurance may stay in group 7, but unless you declare it you aren't insured, and should you crash they won't pay out. If you do declare it, then it's going to add a hefty premium, almost certainly more than a stock car that is the same speed - as well as being even less reliable because the engine and chassis wasn't built for big power. Upgrade everything and you don't have a Saxo anymore, you have a pile of parts on a Saxo shell.

Dream on. A chip and induction kit isn't even going to put you on a par with a VTS... what bhp have other owners achieved with these upgrades? Because you would need about 150bhp in a car weighing 920kg to get a 0-60 of 6.7 seconds.

Upgrade everything and you don't have a Saxo anymore, you have a pile of parts on a Saxo shell. - I can say the same, upgrade everything and you don't have a Civic Type R anymore, you have a pile of parts on a Civic shell.

The Saxo is a very reliable car. It just that most people who own them redline them everywhere and drive like prats - giving the Saxo a bad rep, but same thing with any other car; you redline any car all the time, it's not gonna stay healthy is it??

A Swift 1.3 GTI is no match for my VTR, I'd race any fool in one of them, they're only good up to 60mph, then they die out.

Achieving 150bhp for a VTR is easy, my cousin had a turbo and few other mods on his VTR and it had 162bhp, and it did 0-60 in 6.2 and beat the VTS at any speed, but he's sold it, and now owns a Cooper S.

The VTR is nothing special, hell a Swift GTi is a 1.3 and is on a par with the VTS because it weighs so much less???

Suzuki Swift 1.3 GTi 100bhp, 0-60 8.4, top speed 111mph.

Saxo VTS 120bhp, 0-60 7.5, top speed 127mph (on par you say???).

Saxo VTR 100bhp, 0-60 9.1 (on paper), top speed 120mph.

The Suzuki would get caned by both, it only has a chance with VTR from a dig, from a roll on no chance whatsoever.