Every website and magazine I've looked in says they are 75bhp standard, not 90bhp... prove me wrong!
List in order of cars I would like to own from this market area:
Fiesta ST (or the new Ibiza FR which looks stunning).
1.25 Zetec (sorry you come last :( ). The 1.25 is a decent little first car though, it will trounce most cars in first gear.
Well boys, the new Saxo VTR is actually 100 bhp, I had one for a couple of months and was reasonably impressed with it. My mate has a Quicksilver and it basically sucks, as with the sluggish heavy Zetec-S, another car that I have owned, which depressed the life out me. 106 gtis are quicker than any of these.
But, my Pulsar is actually quicker than that too.
Wakey wakey! This is for the person who somehow came to the conclusion that a 106 Quicksilver has the same bhp as a Saxo VTR!
A Saxo VTR phase one has 90bhp, and the phase two has around 98bhp. Now my maths isn't the best in the world, but if a 106 Quicksilver has 75bhp, that's the same as a Saxo 1.4 Westcoast isn't it, and not a VTR!
Another fact to consider, is if the Quicksilver is 'so fast' as some dreamers think it is, then why is it only insurance group 5!!
Some people really need to do a tiny bit of research before they post stuff on here.
I am 17 and just away to pass my test. I just bought a 106 Quicksilver today and I can't wait to start driving. After reading some comments on here, it is clear that this car is very nippy! Should be fun though.
To the poster of the previous comment regarding Quicksilvers being faster than VTRs etc, you are wrong! I don't even need to go looking for stats to tell you that! I'm sure about 109,765,998 people will be willing to support me on this!
Why do people with Quicksilvers think their cars are invincible?!
And anyway, quicksilvers have a 1.4 engine with 75bhp, not 90bhp!!! You need to look at some stats before you say stuff like that!
P.S. - I don't own any of the cars mentioned above, so am not biased in any way, I just had to say something!
A VTR would pull away from a 1.4 pug quite comfortably, 15 bhp extra plus the extra torque you get from a 1.6 is more than enough to overcome the tiny bit of extra weight in the VTR. And the VTS? that would easily beat it, they are very rapid for a 1.6 N/A and being as light as they are.
This is getting rather boring, My car is faster than your car, It can't be because my car is faster and shinier than your car, no my car is faster and has bigger tyres, no, but my car is the fastest off all. Boring. Why dont you guys go and play on the MAX Power web site so people that use this site can make an informed decision on the car there interested in, without adding this filter and this extra to make your car better than the norm, bah bah bah.
Boring? ark at the one, this website is for the use of everyone not just people like you, who quite frankly sounds like they drive with driving gloves and a packet of boiled sweets in the glove box. Comment on yours, other cars and experiences.
I brought a 106 Quiksilver about a year ago mainly because it looks great, but performance wise is nothing compared to GTI/VTS...
Can someone who has owned a 106 GTI and Quiksilver tell me the differences between a GTI and Quiksilver? Exept for performance, leather seats and electric mirrors is there any other differences?
I think the Quiky has drum rear breaks instead of the disks on the GTi.
Suspension on the GTi is also a bit firmer I believe.
Guys I have been reading some of your comments about the quiksilver, and Saxo blah blah, and I think the comment about the quiksilver, being the worst one is a load of rubbish!!
I mean with a few tweaks here and there, nothing too much, the quiksilver will keep up and if not beat these cars no problem.
Trust me I know, and anyone that is into modding will say. Also it depends on the conditions and the driver as to how the results turn out, so I don't see how you can say stuff like that. As for the VTR and quiksilver, the 106 is a whole better car hands down. Even if it is slower, who cares, you got the best deal with the quiksilver. Anyone who wants to check that can look in the Max Power modding manual for the 106, it says in there.
Please explain how an engines induction system can affect it's back pressure. If you can then I'll eat my hamster.
All of you that think that Quiksilvers are fast, are deluded. Just go on whatcar.com and see for yourself; they do 0-60 in 12.8 seconds. How on earth can you say that is fast?
Of all the cars mentioned here, the Saxo VTS is fastest. 0-60 in 7.2 seconds is fast; faster than a 2.0 turbo Astra, and faster than a BMW 325, but although they are faster, they don't have the same street cred as the BMW or the Astra.
But to sum up, Quiksilvers aren't fast, and I'm not biased; I own a 2.0 superchipped Ford Focus.
Oh, and by the way, I was made to look a clown the other night in front of my girlfriend, when a little chav in a VTS beat me at the lights.
Real world performance isn't in the 0-60 range unless you like destroying clutches at the traffic light drag. You have to look at through the gear performance. A Saxo VTS may have a similar 0-60 time as an Astra turbo, but if you looked at 20-80 the astra would cream the little vts.
I have a 106 quiksilver with a k and n and exhaust (and a boot full of subs) and I can do 0-60 in 11.2/11.3. its not that quick, but beats my mates VTR. Ralleyes are quicker no doubt, but the quiksilvers aren't that bad.
VTR's are quicker than the times you are saying, so I don't know how you beat one.
'Corsa 2.0? sorry, but they only made up to a 1.6'
Errrrrr yeah okay, so a 1.6 is a bigger engine than a 1.8 16V Sri.
I agree with the above comments.
I checked on the What Car website; the quicksilver is a slow car and that is why it is a low insurance group. The GTi and Saxo VTS are a high insurance group because they are fast - it's simple.
And as for the guy that says he has 300+ bhp. If you really have, why on earth would you spend so much on a Peugeot 106? You could of got something much better for the amount of money you've spent.