2002 Citroen Saxo VTR from UK and Ireland - Comments

This thread has got way too silly now.

You were the one who introduced adding parts. I wouldn't need to add parts to a Type R to make it go faster, it's already quick, but if you say spend x amount and the VTR is this fast, it is just as easy to say well spend the same on a Type R and it will go this amount faster.

I have already stated the VTS only has 130bhp per ton and the VTR 110bhp per ton.

The Swift Gti has...

Wait for it.

132bhp per ton :D 100bhp may only be 2 more than a VTR mark 2, but a 765kg kerb weight means it is a lot lot lighter and definitely in league with a VTS.

To say the Swift GTi is rubbish because it runs out of steam after 60 is a joke when you own a car with the same power, but a hefty weight difference.

You can't prove anything with facts, only hearsay, and you lost this argument 2 pages ago, LOL.

As for turbo'ing a VTR; great, but you said induction kit+a chip and exhaust get a VTR to 60 in 6.7 seconds... it doesn't so there's another false claim. You would be lucky if those mods put it up to the VTS' 120bhp, and so the same 0-60 time as that (which I have already said is if anything slower than Citroen claim when you look at other similar cars).

You can redline a Type R all day, in testing Honda actually do this running the engine at high rpm non-stop for 100,000 miles and guess what... no failures, let's see a Saxo cope with 10,000 miles of non-stop high revs.

It's drivers giving false claims that gives the Saxo a bad name. Ridiculous remarks about Clio Sports and VTS' doing flat 6 second runs to 60 as standard, as well as VTR's being way faster than cars with the same power to weight, and even cars with far more (such as the Swift GTi).

If anyone is interested in a VTR, here are the plus points:

- Nippy 0-60 in 9 to 9 and a half seconds (add half a second or so for the mark one)

- Handles pretty well and feel like a go-kart

- Cheap to buy and insure

- Plenty of second hand parts in scrap yards.

Bad points:

- Stigma of boy racer drivers who think they are the fastest car ever

- Better build quality on a cereal box

- Very poor safety ratings

- Unreliable electrics.

P.s Why would someone who owned a rocket fast motorbike argue or care that a Saxo VTR is so quick (surely the VTR would just be a run around and the bike would be the quick motor)...

Well I'm not having anti Saxo people tell me Saxo's are rubbish and not reliable, when I owned them for over 6 years, and had no problems with them. I don't care if a Clio or a Civic did 200mph, I still wouldn't buy one, my Saxo is my pride and joy, and better looking than any smacked up the backside Clio. END OFF!.

In all of this long (and now tedious) debate the complaint has not been that Saxo's are unreliable and rubbish. The issue has been overblown performance claims making out the car is something it isn't.

Let's be honest, the Saxo VTR/VTR is a little motor driven by teenagers who think they are in a Ferrari. If you are gonna make comments on here about the performance that is wildly exaggerated, then you will be up for some criticism. Too many of us have had to listen to these boys rant about their little shopping trolley of a car being really fast when we all know they really ain't.

As soon as you drive a proper grown ups car you will see how slow they actually are. I've owned 1 and driven 4 or 5, and been a passenger in a few more, and the lasting memory I have of all of them is the stupid radiator fan being on most of the time (poor cooling), seats that gave me back ache, and underpowered engines (yes VTS as well) and very very poor brakes. These are cheap cars for a reason... they ain't very good!!

132bhp per ton :D 100bhp may only be 2 more than a VTR mark 2, but a 765kg kerb weight means it is a lot lot lighter and definitely in league with a VTS.

Sounds like you own a Suzuki Swift cause you are making it sound faster than it is. Right FACTS on UKCAR: Swift 1.3 GTI, kerb weight 835kg, 100bhp, BHP per tonne 121, 0-60 8.8, top speed 111mph.

Like I said, it's got nothing on a VTS, and is only slightly quicker than a VTR to 60, but after that it wouldn't hang with a VTR cause of aerodynamic drag. Power to weight ratio is only good for 1 thing, ACCELERATION, not mid range or top speed. The VTR has same bhp as the Swift, but not so much drag as the tiny Suzuki, so the VTR after 60 accelerates through the wind better making it a lot quicker. Same with my R6; on paper it's a rocket, but from a 70mph roll with a 400bhp+ car I will have trouble cause of the aerodynamics. Power to weight is not gonna help me out at higher speeds is it?

A couple of vids for those interested.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5unPQsaVk0g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw06x8QBo9I&feature=channel_page

Not great quality in the first place, and youtube made them even worse.

"You can redline a Type R all day, in testing Honda actually do this running the engine at high rpm non-stop for 100,000 miles"

Funny, I just passed a Honda Civic Type R on the motorway on the hard shoulder broke down. You redline one of those and it will blow quicker than your right hand.

Like I said, if I spent 15 grand on a VTR or VTS it wouldn't be on par with a Honda Civic Type R, it would surpass it.

The quickest Saxo I believe is a 0-60 @ 2.2 and does 200mph, it was on TV a fews years back, the lad modded it to the max, there's no Civic in the world that fast.

I'm getting very bored now arguing with Ford, Renault, Honda and Golf fans, you are clearly all in your 40's and do not like the Saxo cause it's a 17- 25 year old's car. Shame really, you're getting old and have to drive those boring cars that you call better cars.

Do a google for Swift GTi kerb weight and guess what the first link says; 750kg for a 1986 Swift gti with 100bhp (from globalcar.com and carfolio.com). Guess we are back with a better power to weight than the VTS again huh?

You make me laugh how you change your argument all the time. Before you were saying the VTR/VTS were good up to 65mpg, then faster cars would overtake because the Saxo is pap top end. Now you are claiming Saxo's have good top end? They don't by the way, and neither does the Swift GTi because all three cars don't have enough bhp for high top end speeds.

I'm 21 and would not be caught dead in a VTR, not because it wouldn't be fun to drive or because it would be super slow, but because of the stigma they attract, and the fact that I place build quality and safety above things like lowest cost motoring.

The modding option is fine. I'm not going to argue about modding a VTS or VTR in terms of what you will finally end up with, as the chassis is pretty light, so you could well end up with something rocket fast if you change to RWD, BUT all I am saying is why spend 15k or more on a Saxo? Surely it would be more sensible to buy a fast car in the first place that was setup to brake, handle, put down and run reliably that sort of power. Plus the fact that you can sell a standard car on, but modding a car always means a massive loss to your own pocket.

One Civic Type R broken down on the motorway means nothing, it could have had a blow out, or it could have ran out of coolant due too bad maintenance or anything, reliability surveys speak for themselves. It was voted the second most reliable car in a recent MSN article based on actual breakdowns, just after the Honda Jazz - if you are going to try and argue the Saxo is anywhere near in terms of build or reliability, then you are only adding to a long list of things you have already said that nobody believes. It does not alter the fact that Honda test their cars this way and have had 0 failures.

Heres a question, if you admit bhp per ton is a pretty accurate way of exploring a cars acceleration, then how come the Swift GTi with your figures does 0-60 in 8.8 seconds and the VTS is so much faster, and the VTR so close to it (even quicker you said)?

VTR 110bhp per ton, 0-60 according to you 8.5 seconds

Swift GTi 121bhp per ton, 0-60 according to you 8.8 seconds

Saxo VTS 130bhp per ton, 0-60 according to you 7.0 (6 possible)

Something else to think about, even with the actual 132bhp per ton, the Swift only covers 0-60 in about 8 seconds dead... where does the extra half a second for the VTS come from even for book figures? Gear ratio's and drag coefficients...? I doubt they would make that much difference purely on acceleration to 60 TBH.

Videos on youtube prove nothing if you cannot prove whether or not the cars are standard, or whether or not they are being done on an incline or decline or what road surface. Plus the fact that speedo's are not accurate and you cannot judge times with a stopwatch, but only proper timing equipment = That's coming from you.

One last thing, I'm sick of VTS owners saying the VTS is way quicker than the VTR. I test drove a VTS and it is not way quicker than the VTR, it's not like the huge jump from a 1.1 Saxo to the mk2 VTR, it's more like jumping from the 1.4 Westcoast to the VTR, it's only 1.5 second quicker to 60, not 3 seconds, and only has 7mph more on top speed, so in a race it would "WALK" from the VTR not run. VTS owners just say that to make out they're getting their insurance worth by saying it's super quick, when it's not much quicker than the VTR.

I don't believe for one second there is a Saxo that can do 0-60 in 2.2 seconds. And if there was, it would have to have a 4WD conversion and a different engine totally, but then it ain't really a Saxo any more is it? You could do that with any car.