Saxo Vtr Or Vts?

[Matt Cole]

Chaps,

Im looking to downgrade my daily laguna to something cheaper to run, tax and insure. I came across one of these saxo vtr things for sale near where i live. It also looks like it may be a bit handy on a track too.I've asked a few people and all say get the vts as it's a much better car?

Anyone had both and can offer advise? Are they much different? I do like the idea of group 7 insurance too!

[philg]

vts is the 16v version matt as you probably know.

I used to love having a bit play with them when i was a young whipper snapper in my 172, the vtr was easy pickings but a vts with only 120bhp would hang on the back of my 172.

Could you not get a 172, you can buy a phase 1 for about £1000 and a nice straight low millage phase 2 for just over £2000.

Good luck marra

[Matt Cole]

vts is the 16v version matt as you probably know.

I used to love having a bit play with them when i was a young whipper snapper in my 172, the vtr was easy pickings but a vts with only 120bhp would hang on the back of my 172.

Could you not get a 172, you can buy a phase 1 for about £1000 and a nice straight low millage phase 2 for just over £2000.

Good luck marra

Phil, for sure i would love a 172, but never seen one for a grand? Big tax, insurance and heavy on fuel. You can pick a vtr up for £300 to £600 and a vts for not much more.

[The new Bill J]

Phil, for sure i would love a 172, but never seen one for a grand? Big tax, insurance and heavy on fuel.

172/182's are very good on fuel, going on what I was hearing at the weekend from some owners (Tom 6ft6, and Sam M). They're getting up to high 30's mpg

[Brigsy]

Vts all the way mate, the vtr's are dog turd slow Id go for a 106 gti myself just prefer the look.

[philg]

Agree with the pussy, they are surprisingly good on fuel. When i worked at Nissan i used to travel from wallsend and the fuel used to really go quite far.

I dont know how good the vtr vts's are now they have aged a bit, but someone i know had a saxo 1.2 and it never missed a beat, no major headaches from it in 2 years which is surprising for a Citroen.

phil

[TrixNFlix]

I had both, they get a really bad rep due to the young uns, but they are amazing cars for the money I went from a vtr to a vts, and can say that although I prefered the sound of the vtr with 8v, the 16v engine in the vts was exceptional. Mine was decatted, with a stainless manifold, fully stripped with just 2 bucket seats and went really well on track. Never ever let me down used to bounce of the limiter at 7750 revs on mine
Used to get around 36mpg on a decent run

[philg]

Vts all the way mate, the vtr's are dog turd slow Id go for a 106 gti myself just prefer the look.

Or even a quick silver, better fuel, insurance and tax again.

[philg]

I had both, they get a really bad rep due to the young uns, but they are amazing cars for the money I went from a vtr to a vts, and can say that although I prefered the sound of the vtr with 8v, the 16v engine in the vts was exceptional. Mine was decatted, with a stainless manifold, fully stripped with just 2 bucket seats and went really well on track. Never ever let me down used to bounce of the limiter at 7750 revs on mine
Used to get around 36mpg on a decent run

Waxer

[TrixNFlix]

Waxer

[J8TRO]

I drive my 172 as intended, and do a 60 mile commute each day mostly motorway. My MPG (on the on board computer) is 34.7mpg, average speed is not much higher.

[Matt@CodeRedMotorsports]

I have a vtr as a daily runner, and for the money nothing really touches it.
It's bloody brilliant through the twisty bits, much better than my old R5, very good on fuel and insurance.
Also they have reinstated a standard class for sprinting, just so happens to be up to 1600cc.

Buy mine if you want fun on a budget!

[Matt Cole]

I have a vtr as a daily runner, and for the money nothing really touches it.
It's bloody brilliant through the twisty bits, much better than my old R5, very good on fuel and insurance.
Also they have reinstated a standard class for sprinting, just so happens to be up to 1600cc.

Buy mine if you want fun on a budget!

Matt, have you driven the VTS?

[Matt@CodeRedMotorsports]

I've played with a 106 gti (basically the same) through codered, they are a bit mental.
The vtr comes in 3 different power levels ranging from 89 bhp to 105 bhp, the 105 bhp has a cat converter and 02 sensor in the manifold, with the 3 plug inj computer plug, the lower powered ones have the cats underneath and a single plug ecu.
If you get the black top early 8v car, it has the non roller or 'finger' type rockers and are more tuneable than the roller type.
The vts is 120 bhp.
In an ideal world I would specify a 106 rallye and vts engine..... Lovely.

[D4WNO]

Or even a quick silver, better fuel, insurance and tax again.

Yeah 106 GTi here too (because I have one lol). It's actually pretty good on fuel too, but then again, I very rarely rag it as it's mint at the moment.

If you still went the Saxo route, I'd get a VTS for sure. I've had both a Saxo and a 106 and the Pug is by far a nicer car to live with day to day.

[Ashy]

You driven either Matt?

As youknow Mich used to have a 106 Gti and it was a tad small inside, especially if your larger than average! I'd spunk a grand on an older 172 marrow if it were me... Plenty of spares in the loft

[D4WNO]

Lol this is true - you'll be knocking your elbows on the door all the time actually as the seats in the GTi do sit very close as it is - you've seen the size of me so it's not an issue

[stuTHC]

172

Saxo's are... well, they're saxo's- You've been to FCS before Matt... nuff said!

[Brigsy]

Lol this is true - you'll be knocking your elbows on the door all the time actually as the seats in the GTi do sit very close as it is - you've seen the size of me so it's not an issue

The pedals are really close together too, first time i drove one i pressed brake and accellerator a canny few times

Cheapo 172's are out there matt, a 172 cup on a '52' reg sold near me for £1200 recently, was tidy enough aswell....

[Jimmy5]

vtr's arnt too bad for the money you can pick them up for, Ive had a couple (over a nine year period) and are much more reliable than the VTS's. Also off the mark a vtr is quicker. Plus fuel economy is great, I used to get over 300 miles out of full tank that cost about £32. One thing they have in comon with an r5 is they share same rear break calipers, which was handy when I was working on me R5.

[c7borg]

After reluctantly parting with my R5 I'm on my second VTR now, I use it on and off to work but mainly for sprinting/hillclimb it's a great little tool.

As you say it's cheap.. cheap insurance, cheap running, cheap to fix now on the other hand a 172 is not!

I've not owned a 172 car but have had 3 engines in my R5 all fail on me, the cheapest ph1 I've seen was £1300 which was a little tatty but you've still got the insurance and running costs..

I have to be honest I will be dropping the 16v VTS engine in over christmas but this is only to be more competitive whilst sprinting - The VTR has got enough power to get you into trouble on the public highway.

VTR engine £50 ebay
172 engine £500 ebay

[fishead]

106 xsi, early one is 1400 an pre cat, cheap cheap cheap. close gear box, no cat jus as quick as vtr vts which tbh i didnt really notice any significant difference between

[c7borg]

106 xsi, early one is 1400 an pre cat, cheap cheap cheap. close gear box, no cat jus as quick as vtr vts which tbh i didnt really notice any significant difference between

I agree with you about the xsi although there aren't that many about..

but you didn't notice the difference between an VTR and an VTS?

there's at least 30hp.. that's 25% more power..in a biscuit tin.. maybe yours just had the badges

[Matt Cole]

Well, i guess i'm leaning towards the 172 or VTS, but im losing sight of why i'm changing the car! Think i'll have a drive of all 3 and see which one ticks the boxes!