1st Feb 2007, 15:42
I'm about to buy a 106 quicksilver, and I've owned a Saxo VTR, and the VTR will eat the quicksilver easy. It's common mechanical knowledge and anyone who disagrees has issues. Even if they have raced one, that probably had 200,000 miles on it and was leakin fuel. Please be serious. A 1.6 against a 1.4 of the same weight with the Saxo VTR being built for performance. It's obvious. Black and white. Simple. Also I work for Peugeot engine development, so don't try it.
6th Feb 2007, 14:01
Its not uncommon for people with big power cars like the skyline to have smaller more fuel efficient cars to take the wear and tear of everyday driving. And you can like both cars, in different ways. The 106 quicksilver would be a good choice for a daily car, good on fuel, but quick enough to keep with the traffic.
10th Feb 2007, 12:25
Listen to all of yous slagging me just because you don't have the money to spend on a 106 like I do. Just to let the guy know that says I'm 11. I am acutely 36 so before all of you know it all's start an argument think about what you are going to say before you open your big mouths. Oh and BTW its not a supra engine in ma quicksilver its the original 106 1.4 quicksliver one.
12th Feb 2007, 11:16
Probably not, the saxo has a faster 0-60 and after that the saxo 1.6 would be better at higher speed because of the engine size.
15th Feb 2007, 04:14
Yes, but its the capabilities of the cars that matter on here. Assume the drivers are equall then talk cars.
8th Mar 2007, 06:01
'Got a 106 gti turbo putting out 300bhp'
LOL, 300bhp is a very exact figure!!! Most people who have increased their cars power by chipping, remapping, adding turbo etc then put it on a rolling road so they know the exact output. So saying your 106gti puts out 300bhp seems slightly fictional.
8th Mar 2007, 11:16
The VTS has roughly 120-130 BHP, and the 0-60 is much faster than the 1.6 VTEC Civic.
The VTR is the same spec more or less as the 106 Rallye.
The Westcoast and the Quiksilver use the SAME engine. Both push out roughly 75 BHP. For the posters that keep saying they keep up with VTR's in their Quiksilvers, they're lying. They might as well be saying they're beating a VTR in a Westcoast.
The 0-60 speed of the Quiksilver is 4 seconds slower than the VTR. So now you know there's no chance a Quiksilver could beat a VTR.
11th Mar 2007, 01:12
This is a Peugeot site! Why don't Mr Civic and friends just go to their respected car page's and swap story's with fellow drivers there!
To the lady Fiat Punto 1.2 driver I respectfully must inform you, that you car would never beat a 106 GTi as its practically the same weight, but about 50 bhp difference!
You do the maths!
11th Mar 2007, 10:58
Never heard of sarcasm! (You should have realised she was taking the proverbial biscuit, when she said she beat a 330ci)
18th Mar 2007, 17:26
Right see whoever said all that crap about oh 300 bhp is a very exact figure. I will put you out of your misery and tell you the exact figure; it is 326 bhp. Also for they guy that said that his Civic would beat me if he stuck on a turbo, well of course you would for one simple fact that his car had a higher rev limit.
19th Mar 2007, 06:57
You're too late now, I doubt anybody believes you have the car. Why would you put a lesser figure than you actually claim to have?
24th Mar 2007, 16:37
Do you think that 15 grand is a lot of money because I don't. If you all want proof that it does have 326 bhp, then come up to Glasgow on a Friday night and cruise about town, you are bound to see me you can't really miss me, and I will race you for any amount of money, I couldn't care less. So there's the offer, so if you all want to be keyboard bandits and talk a lot of crap, then that's fine with me, but its you that is missing out.
25th Mar 2007, 09:56
'I will race you for eny amount of money a couldn't care less.'
I'd take you up on that offer if I believed a word you were saying. Your face would be a right picture when I arrive in my VX220 Turbo.
1st Apr 2007, 12:18
Well thanx everyone, I've never found a thread so funny.
Looks like my next car will be a Quicksilver, I don't know why people bother with cars with more power.
A tip that someone told me when buying one, look for one with neon washer jets! They are special edition, have more power as standard and have a better gearbox, all you need then is rage exhaust on it.. you're then in Ferrari territory!
I'm worried that I won't have the skill to drive one though, I crashed my mate's Nova Trip because it had an induction kit on it and I couldn't handle the wheel spin.
Long live Max Power!
2nd Apr 2007, 05:23
My god your funny!! Why are you waisting time on internet forums? You should be doing stand up!
2nd Apr 2007, 05:50
An induction kit wasn't the reason you crashed it. That would be your incompetence behind the wheel! An induction kit rarely gives more than an extra 2-3bhp and certainly wouldn't contribute to getting more wheelspin.
2nd Apr 2007, 13:20
For all you QS dreamers, buy an 106 1.6XS 90bhp. As standard it weighs about 890kg. 0 to 60 in about 8 seconds. No doubts, I've had 3 of em, they say the 0 t 60 time is 11 seconds. NO way, biggest pile of crap I've ever heard. p.s. only group 6 insurance.
3rd Apr 2007, 03:18
I agree 11 seconds sounds a bit slow for the power to weight, but 8 seconds is to optimistic. A nova GSI is lighter, has 100 BHP, but 0-60 takes 9 seconds.
4th Apr 2007, 01:15
Mate, no offense, but I've had 3 of them, and guess what, my 2 mates up in Scotland have a GTi and a VTS, and it might surprise you, but it's only a car in front til 60 to 70. That can't make it nine seconds. Come on then, the magic happens in the 16 valves. I end up 10 cars behind about at 120mph, no joke. Plus a dude I know has a 150bhp Astra GSi, and guess what; he can't catch me till I'm at the top end, but amazing performance for a group 6. So all you QS fans, get an 1.6 XS. Pretty rare, and the cheap insurance makes perfect sense.
4th Apr 2007, 01:25
Oh plus the VTR and XS have the same engine; the old VTR 90 bhp, but it's not even a race it's a joke, even the 98bhp VTR. It's always in my rear view mirror. Cos it's got a load more torque than the VTR. different gearbox it has to be. But I think they made the XS as an underdog model, just like the old XSi. You agree.
12th May 2007, 12:45
This thread has made me laugh, for several reasons.
I hate to burst peoples bubbles, but a 106 or Saxo whatever. They are not race cars. Sorry, but that's it.
Also. what is all this crap about BHP? You can turbo the hell out of lots of things and get phenomenal bhps yes. And if you can drive and keep the revs in the power band, then that's fine. Cheerio clutch
I have driven a 106.. Quicksilver jobby... it got me from A to B, didn't seem that fast, but who cares? That's the purpose of the car...
I have witnessed my mate in his old low mileage Micra 1.3 fly past people... and I bet its because they think crappy little Micra and don't expect him to give it stick.
Quoting about beating cars is pointless. I bet you guys that 95% of the time the people you are 'racing' aren't even trying. Look at any of the larger more executive cars.. they will destroy any 106 off the lights and probably round bends.. guys in the end it's a FWD car and it's not going to be able to deliver power that well. If you really want to spend so much money, get something tasteful like a MKI Escort :)
Any car can be made fast in a straight line. The only limit is the imagination, time and money of the builder.
Look up specs on a 5.1l Jago Geep. Hits 60 in under 4 seconds and runs a 10.8s 1/4 mile...
And before you go mental at me. I drive a 1l VW Polo R reg does 0-60 in... eventually maxes out at 103mph LOL, and I also own a Jago Geep with a 1.6Xflow (for you guys who only drive modern cars, this is an OLD engine) its got twin webbers 40's if I remember correctly, has a 4-2-1 manifold and a free flowing side exit exhaust. And I reckon 75bhp would be a generous number.