2002 Citroen Saxo VTR from UK and Ireland - Comments

That quote was from me, not the guy who posted the links (more than one person disagrees with you).

I actually agree with the rough figures you gave as the difference between the VTR and VTS. Would say 1.5 seconds 0-60 is right, and it's not as big as some people make out, but it's more than enough to notice in a race, like a Civic Type R against a Fiesta ST or something.

Whether or not the insurance is worth it depends on how much your insurance costs for the two, but generally the difference is quite a lot.

Before you were saying the VTR/VTS was good up to 65mpg - when I said that I was comparing it to a Clio 172, but with the Swift GTI it's the opposite way round, the Saxo will have the edge on the top end to the Suzuki.

Why spend 15 grand on a Saxo? The reason people do this is to make it their own car and make it different. I wouldn't buy a Honda Civic, everyone who owns one of them wears a cap - they're more chavy than a Saxo but no one calls them. I hate to stereotype people, once someone says something, you all copy. This argument about which cars are more reliable is pointless, it all depends on the ACTUAL CAR and if you look after it. I had my Saxo for 6 years now and no problems, and I do a lot of mileage and racing, so it's a reliable car.

I posted and made both of those youtube videos, and in fact the VTR is modded to 110bhp by way of a remap, the 328 is standard. And there is no incline or decline here, and the speedo error isn't huge at those speeds. I like both cars, otherwise why would I have them? The Saxo is great fun, but not super fast. Neither is the 328 for that matter, but it's still quicker.

Yeah but a BMW 328 has a 2.8 litre engine in it and has got 193bhp, so can't you compare it to a VTR in terms of speed, but still its 0-60 isn't that good for a 2.8 litre. I'd be embarrassed owning that when a 2.6 litre Nissan Skyline GTR does 0-60 in 4.8, and that's my point, the Saxo VTR/VTS are very quick for a 1.6 engine, where a BMW is 328 is slow for a 2.8.

It is far from pointless to discuss a car's reliability. A lot of cars have common faults and are more prone to problems than others. There is no way that a Citroen Saxo is in the same league as a Honda Civic in terms of reliability. If both were maintained to the same level, the Honda would be way less likely to fail.

As has been said, modifying is a pointless discussion as any car can be tuned up or just used as a chassis etc. The Swift is a faster car than a Saxo VTR generally, with the VTS the gearing and aerodynamics may help to beat it in the top end, but the VTR is so outpowered in terms of carrying extra weight that it would not make up the difference. (I don't own a Swift GTi by the way, they are ugly little cars).

Any car can be owned by chavs, but to say the Civic is more common is very debatable. Only way I can see that being true is possibly because there are now fewer and fewer Saxos on the road because they are reasonably old and loads have been written off by young drivers. But proportionally I would still expect less Civic drivers to be from the Max Power crew than the Saxos. You tend to see a lot more standard type R's than you do Saxos (most seem to have Lexus lights or loud exhaust or something).

The Swift is a faster car than a Saxo VTR generally?? How is it faster when its top speed is 111mph and the mk2 VTR 120mph? The Suzuki GTi 0-60 is 8.8 and the VTR 9.1, that's not much of a gap is it, and after that VTR would start to pass it. And please stop bringing hp per tonne, it means nothing on the road. The Swift GTi is a good 0-60 car and that's it, if anyone with a Swift GTi wants to prove me wrong, I'll race you from any speed.

LOL, begging me to stop using power to weight? I'm not gonna stop using it just because it disproves everything you are saying. And actually as long as you have the same drivetrain (FWD/RWD or AWD) then it is a very good indicator.

The Swift I am talking about does not do 8.8 seconds, it has an official book figure of 8.3, so that is closer to the VTS than VTR. With a top speed of about 120mph, the same as the VTR. To be quite honest, I don't care how quick the Swift is, I was just using it as an example of how average the VTR is, comparing it to a 1.3 which is quicker (and it is generally quicker in the sense that up to 100mph or more it would be in front, and depending on gearing and shape of the car, then maybe the VTR could have a slightly higher top end, but they are probably almost identical).

1.6 Honda VTEC is quicker than a VTS at any speed, only a 1.6 nasp; there is your fast car per litre. The Saxo is only worth bragging about from a fun factor stance with a chuckable chassis, the engines are nothing special; 98bhp from a 1.6 8 valve and 120 from a 1.6 16 valve. Even Rover do better than that; a 1.4 16 valve with 105bhp.

At least you are starting to use book figures now, and have given up on making up 0-60 times and are sticking to 120mph as the top speed capable, rather than 130mph or whatever you were claiming before.

The Swift GTI is faster than the VTR, but slower than the VTS!

A VTS is quite a bit quicker than the VTR, as it will keep up with the faster hatches to 60-70, whereas the VTR is in the mirror from the go!

Been reading this argument for a while now and it is very amusing. It looks like everyone sees the Saxos the same way except for the guy who owns a VTR. It is fair enough to defend your car, but try and keep it realistic mate. Who is gonna believe you can match Clio Sports upto 65mph or that the VTR is way faster than all those other warm hatches?

The guy with the power to weight ratio's (you must spend a bit of time on google or something to keep finding them) has got a convincing argument, and even book figures suggest you are making overblown claims.

Personally don't think it's worth all this time arguing though, the guy with the VTR isn't going to convince anyone, and the rest of you don't seem to have gotten very far in making him see the Saxo differently - rose tinted glasses take some prying off.

Yes it is slow for a 2.8, I agree. But that's only because it has the smaller M52 manifold on it. If I put the M50 manifold on it then it would be around 220bhp. Check any BMW forum for confirmation of that. Still, it does have 207lbs of torque, which means it does shift in the lower rpm's, but after 5500rpm's it feels gutless. 0-60 official is 6.6 and 150mph top speed.

Isn't the Skyline Turbo charged? Twin turbo I believe. Where as the BMW is NA. A better comparison of the lack of power would be to compare it to the 3 litre M3, which has an extra 93bhp for an extra 200cc's. (286 bhp)

The Swift GTi, Saxo VTR and VTS are piles of crap, a 1990 CRX vtec has 150bhp and would leave them all for dust. So for a 1.6 the Saxo VTR ain't exactly powerful.

Just had a look on UKCAR for the Swift figures. The 1.3GTI which went out of production in 1997 does 0 - 60 in 8.8 and 111mph. It has 100bhp. There is a newer Swift Sport which started production in 2005 which does 0 - 60 in 8.7 and 125mph. That one is 123bhp and is a 1.6 litre.

Figures for the Saxo's are

VTR MK1 0 - 60 10.2 and 115mph

VTR MK2 0 - 60 9.5 and 116mph

VTS 0 - 60 7.7 and 127mph.

The Swift I was comparing was the 84-92 model, which had a lower kerb weight, and 0-60 times vary from 8.0-8.5 seconds depending on source, but even the newer one that stopped being made in 1998 is more impressive than the VTR from a technical standpoint if you are looking at bhp per litre.

As I said, the Swift was only a point of reference to show that the VTR is very average, another example is the 106 Rallye with 100bhp from a 1.3 litre engine. Or the Honda vtec engines people are mentioning are much more impressive.

The Swift GTI is faster than the VTR, but slower than the VTS. How is 111mph faster than 120mph??

Most VTR owners will tell you the VTR will do 130mph, and I got 132mph with proper equipment, if you don't believe me I can film me doing 132mph?

I don't BS. The VTS is not a lot quicker than a VTR AS I have drove BOTH A VTR & VTS, HAVE ANY OF YOU???

You people are just going on UKCar & Parkers, and judging by their times when 1.5 sec is not much difference in reality, and WOW 7mph Faster = WAY WAY WAY FASTER!!!

I never said the Saxo 1.6 was the fastest 1.6, the Mini Cooper S is the fastest, but the Saxo is the fastest/cheapest. End of the day I did stay in front of the Clio 172 up to 65mph, and I'll prove it again if any of you own a Clio 172.

A stock VTS can hold off a Clio 172 up to 100mph, so a VTR with good gear changes, 65mph is not hard. Yes the clio has 172hp, but also more weight and I'm not sure what RPM the power kicks in, but on my VTR the power kicks in as low as 2 RPM, and at 10mph = instant punch.