1998 Citroen Xsara VTS from UK and Ireland - Comments

25th Feb 2007, 10:22

They are cheap for a reason, no one wants them. They're the blandest most boring hatchback on the market, proven many a times in surveys etc.

8th Mar 2007, 05:56

This car is slow, it can't do 0-60mph in 7.1, its more like 8.7sec. Pathetic build quality also.

17th Mar 2007, 06:46

I too went from a 300zx Twin Turbo to a Xsara VTS and agree with everything the reviewer said.

30th Jul 2007, 01:19

Sorry mates, but talking numbers in the 6 to 7 sec region 0-60mph for the VTS is pure fantasy. It's in the 8.1 to 8.3 sec region depending on source. And manufacturers do not understate 0-60 figures, it's rather the opposite. 0-60 stated by manufacturers are ideal figures that most won't be able to replicate. Even by modding these cars you can't go in the lower sevens. That's because Citroen already has squeezed this engine quite far. KN filters, Borla exhausts and remapping brings this engine to about 183 to 185 hp max.

Even with 167 hp this car torque steers badly and with an even hotter engine it's even worse. It's also difficult to get all those hp into the ground since it's fwd and light (like any other similar car, you can't defy the laws of physics even in a VTS).

But I would still recommend the VTS as an entry hot hatch if you can find one that's not abused too badly. You can seat 4 and still keep up with most Audis and lower end beamers all for under 2000 quids. It's just a laugh to blast past a beamer knowing he just paid 25.000 for that thing.

But beware of electrics and electronics issues on these Citroens, this can be a nightmare. There's no free lunches you know. There's a reason why these cars are so cheap.

25th Oct 2007, 06:22

Some of these people are talking a load of tosh!!! my rover 214i 16v did 0-60 in 8.3 seconds so I believe a xsara could crack 8 sec easily, as for being quicker than a 300zx that sounds a bit far fetched.

5th Feb 2008, 10:35

I would just like to go back a few comments to someone who seems to think that Peugeot are claiming 6.9 for the 306 GTi. On every site I've looked on they claim 8.4.

30th Dec 2008, 18:44

Evo magazine timed the 306 Rallye at 6.9 and the GTI-6 at 7.4. Official figure is 8.4 (with luggage and four passengers) to keep insurance at groups 16 and 15 respectively. The Xsara is slightly quicker to 60 than the GTI-6 due to its 5 speed gearbox rather the the 6 in the GTI-6 so 7.2 is a realistic time with just the driver on board, this is because the ratios are closer together. The three cars mentioned above are way off a S2000 obviously.

11th Sep 2009, 16:44

Finally some one talking sense.

8th Nov 2009, 20:17

How in the hell would the 5-speed have closer ratios than the 6-speed?!?!?! The whole point of having 6 gears is so you can place them closer together.. if you made the 5 speed with closer ratios than the 6, it would be revving like whipper snipper on the freeway!!

25th Jun 2010, 03:29

I think the point here is that the VTS is the second hand bargain of the decade. I have, and still do, own a track Impreza and I've owned many hot hatches. This VTS is a very well rounded car with loads of toys for peanuts. They look bland, but that's part of the fun as it's so Q car. I find myself chasing TT's and 123D's, and giggling out loud as I close in on them. They must be looking in their mirrors with horror at some shopping car up their bumpers. Te he. The handling is very direct, with the lively back end for lift off oversteer fun. I get 36MPGs, so it's all good in my books! I paid a piddling £800 for mine and I class the car as 'mint'. Pick a good car and have fun. Nuff said.

Add another comment

Note: A Comments RSS Feed is available. New comments appear in the Members Area before the main site