View Full Version : saxo vtr mgzr
sexylittleass
12th January 2008, 20:27
saxo vtr 90/98bhp mg zr 1.4 105bhp how dose that work. You would think the saxo has more bhp:shocked: :ouch: :omg:
Anushka101
12th January 2008, 20:30
lol french ponies are lazy and having sex while being worked hard :p
Saxo-Slag
12th January 2008, 20:32
MG zr's are in the garage nearly every week being fixed. My mates ones spend more time off the road than mine.
DevilDamo
12th January 2008, 20:32
Why would you think the Saxo had more?
The VTR's a 1.6 8v and the MG ZR is a 1.4 16v so they equate to approx. the same.
Similar to how a 1.2 16v Clio/Corsa equates to approx. the same power as a 1.4 8v Westcoast/Furio.
gartrell
12th January 2008, 20:33
MG zr's are in the garage nearly every week being fixed. My mates ones spend more time off the road than mine.
hear varied stories about them,
my mate had one, floored it everywhere, cold or hot.
never had one problem apart from he went through a set of tyres in no time!
Saxo-Slag
12th January 2008, 20:34
I have heard nothing but problems with them. End of the day they are a rover
sexylittleass
12th January 2008, 20:34
MG zr's are in the garage nearly every week being fixed. My mates ones spend more time off the road than mine.
i know there in the garage alot, but to get 105bhp out of the 1.4 you think citroen could do some more:clapping:
Dasher_VTR
12th January 2008, 20:37
yeah but vtr is still quite a bit faster.
Mieran
12th January 2008, 20:38
The VTR is faster so it dosent matter if the ZR got more BHP
saxojoe17
12th January 2008, 20:38
someone a mate of mine knows ZR's engine blew up:n:
sexylittleass
12th January 2008, 20:39
yeah but vtr is still quite a bit faster.
surely you must agree citroen could of done abit more. (i love my saxo)
Anushka101
12th January 2008, 20:40
surely you must agree citroen could of done abit more. (i love my saxo)
they have.... VTS.
Scott
12th January 2008, 20:40
weight is the answer
DevilDamo
12th January 2008, 20:41
Citroen could have done more but the Saxo production line stopped in 2003.
Anyway, the MG ZR is heavier than the VTR and the VTR would be more fun to drive.
sexylittleass
12th January 2008, 20:41
The VTR is faster so it dosent matter if the ZR got more BHP
my point was just that you would of thought citroen would of squeezed more bhp as standard;)
laura_g
12th January 2008, 20:44
id go for the vtr, alothough the zr does look shit hot its unreliable as hell my mates 04 reg died the other day
gartrell
12th January 2008, 20:44
my point was just that you would of thought citroen would of squeezed more bhp as standard;)
mpg and insurance groups?
good all rounder as it is i spose, insurance is cheap and there okay on petrol....
lose that, lose some of their young market?
djmartin
12th January 2008, 20:45
vtr has more torque so can put more power to the wheels faster.
plus a vtr is as light as a spec of dust where as the ZR is in comparison to a brick lol.plus its a rover.
sexylittleass
12th January 2008, 20:51
i wunt swap my saxo for a mg, my mate bought one just wondered why the bhp was different. (saxo's rule)
DevilDamo
12th January 2008, 20:53
(saxo's rule)
No they don't :homme: :p
sexylittleass
12th January 2008, 20:57
No they don't :homme: :p
oh but they do:y:
laura_g
12th January 2008, 20:57
No they don't :homme: :p
i love me clio :afro:
AdamH
12th January 2008, 20:58
i know there in the garage alot, but to get 105bhp out of the 1.4 you think citroen could do some more:clapping:
its like saying why does the RX8 have 231bhp from a 1.3 Wankel? and for all of you immature people out their thats the name of the engine
=)
laura_g
12th January 2008, 20:59
its like saying why does the RX8 have 231bhp from a 1.3 Wankel? and for all of you immature people out their thats the name of the engine
=)
a wankel is an engine i love it
AdamH
12th January 2008, 21:01
a wankel is an engine i love it
yes.. yes it is... "pats you on the head"
:P
laura_g
12th January 2008, 21:01
yes.. yes it is... "pats you on the head"
:P
check me out im super clever
AdamH
12th January 2008, 21:05
like totally :p
love you really
laura_g
12th January 2008, 21:07
like totally :p
love you really
mother loops says im special lol... i love you too :homme:
Ry_B
12th January 2008, 21:07
Again, people are slagging off zrs without owning one
Ive had mine for 10 months and done well over 10k in it and its taken a hammering, not ever let me down (excluding wear n tear items, tyres etc) and also from personal experience, they are even with a vtr upto 90 ;0
laura_g
12th January 2008, 21:08
Again, people are slagging off zrs without owning one
Ive had mine for 10 months and done well over 10k in it and its taken a hammering, not ever let me down (excluding wear n tear items, tyres etc) and also from personal experience, they are even with a vtr upto 90 ;0
my mates is an 04 reg though and its as dead as a dodo
sexylittleass
12th January 2008, 21:09
its like saying why does the RX8 have 231bhp from a 1.3 Wankel? and for all of you immature people out their thats the name of the engine
=)
rx8's are not 1.3
laura_g
12th January 2008, 21:10
rx8's are not 1.3
they are actually but something about a rototary engine it makes them fiesty lil nippas
sexylittleass
12th January 2008, 21:11
you mean rx7, lol
laura_g
12th January 2008, 21:11
you mean rx7, lol
nopes :A:
sexylittleass
12th January 2008, 21:14
nopes :A:
yep:clapping:
AdamH
12th January 2008, 21:14
nope the RX8 is a 1.3
the wankel engine uses triangle shaped pistons.. VERY clever.. ive had the chance to see one of these in pieces and it boggles the mind..
laura_g
12th January 2008, 21:15
nope the RX8 is a 1.3
the wankel engine uses triangle shaped pistons.. VERY clever.. ive had the chance to see one of these in pieces and it boggles the mind..
see told ya soo :panic:
sexylittleass
12th January 2008, 21:16
soz there is a 1.3, it was just that my dads got the 2.6, lol
Anushka101
12th January 2008, 21:16
yeah both rx8 and rx7 are 1.3 wankel engines so im told.
laura_g
12th January 2008, 21:17
soz there is a 1.3, it was just that my dads got the 2.6, lol
its ok we not all perfect :homme:, it makes it alot faster but its a thirsty lil car aswell
djmartin
12th January 2008, 21:18
who cares about rx8's 7's lol
there engines fail anyway good for a bit then need rebuilding so please move on to another car or get back on topic lol
laura_g
12th January 2008, 21:20
who cares about rx8's 7's lol
there engines fail anyway good for a bit then need rebuilding so please move on to another car or get back on topic lol
clios lol.... oj i do love my mgzr
Anushka101
12th January 2008, 21:20
why couldnt Citroen stick a Turbo on the VTRs :p was driving behind a 1.3 glanza last week, he smoked me on motorway :(
AdamH
12th January 2008, 21:20
the topic was squeezing bhp out of a saxo engine so all engines are valid :)
also the wankel engine is very relieable.. (god i should work for mazda)
and their not as thirsty as you think :)
but compare most engines to a saxo.. the Tu series was bang on with the power.. and the weight of it is even better :)
woop
djmartin
12th January 2008, 21:24
why couldnt Citroen stick a Turbo on the VTRs :p was driving behind a 1.3 glanza last week, he smoked me on motorway :(
then all the boyracers would not be able to offord a saxo LOL
tbh it would have been a good idea for them to have put on in as standard now thinking about it lol
DevilDamo
12th January 2008, 21:38
i love me clio :afro:
Clio's are better built but I'd find it hard to say which car I had/have more fun in. The VTS was a good car apart from the few issues I experienced. I haven't had any in the 172 (yet).
Again, people are slagging off zrs without owning one
You don't need to own one to be able to tell if it's good/bad. How do you know that the people "slagging" it off haven't owned one before?
why couldnt Citroen stick a Turbo on the VTRs :p was driving behind a 1.3 glanza last week, he smoked me on motorway :(
Because they'd blow up :panic: There were enough teething issues with the VTR's and VTS's let alone putting anything else onto them.
I wonder why Citroen haven't made a C2 VTS turbo... yet to compete against other small hatchbacks nowadays.
laura_g
13th January 2008, 13:25
wow i was only expressin my views dont think it deserved bad rep saddo
Mark51
13th January 2008, 13:26
I have heard nothing but problems with them. End of the day they are a rover
how true
chrichvtr
13th January 2008, 13:44
the rx8 has a well designed engine and the tax comes at a 1.3 price gotta to love the rotary engine though it has been around for some time!!
JimoVTR
13th January 2008, 13:52
I was using my step-mums 1.2 Clio - it was shite.
Id stick to my VTR anyday.
As for ZR's, I really like them, a mate of mine has a yellow one on a 52 plate, and has been as reliable as a Virgin Vicar
laura_g
13th January 2008, 13:56
i like this style one
http://search.autotrader.co.uk/es-uk/www/cars/MG+ZR/Ne-2-4-5-6-7-8-27-44-49-53-61-64-67-103-133-146,N-4294966121-4294967087/advert.action?R=200801301232258&distance=80&postcode=b77+3qs&channel=CARS&make=MG&model=ZR&min_pr=&max_pr=&max_mileage=
TypeRhys
13th January 2008, 14:28
saxo vtr 90/98bhp mg zr 1.4 105bhp how dose that work. You would think the saxo has more bhp:shocked: :ouch: :omg:
back to the question..........
why would citroen want to push any more power out of the vtr lump when it had the vts on the market with with 120 bhp.
it was kept low for insurance and price reasons......
its not that they couldnt make it more powerful its because they decided not to.
just look at honda, when they put their minds to it they can squeeze just shy of 190 bhp from a 1.6 engine :panic:
Mr_suv
13th January 2008, 14:31
man the worst are the 1.4 16v polos they rip it one of my friends has one and i struggle to get him off my ass all the time little c?*t and he pays cheaper tax!!!
Karl
13th January 2008, 14:58
serious?
The Polo GTi's are quite a fair bit slower than a VTS,
woulda thought a 1.4 16v polo would be quite sluggish and heavy?
nazz1
13th January 2008, 15:07
1.4 16v polos, my mate has one with a panel filter and de-cat it's quite nippy
a little bit faster than mine,
that was before my decat
DevilDamo
13th January 2008, 19:54
wow i was only expressin my views dont think it deserved bad rep saddo
And who said you're allowed an opinion. Only messing :p
I was using my step-mums 1.2 Clio - it was shite.
Why was it? Because it was slower? If so, that's because they are ;)
serious?
The Polo GTi's are quite a fair bit slower than a VTS,
Nah not really. They're pushing out 126bhp as opposed to the VTS's 120bhp but are a little heavier so it probably does balance out. The Polo would last longer too :)
girlracer1597
13th January 2008, 23:48
i thought the mg numbers ie 105 refered to ps not bhp
VTScruiser
13th January 2008, 23:55
Yeah, regardless of them having more BHP, they probably weigh more anyway, as the saxo is light in comparison, and thats wots the all important detail...... Power-weight ratio.
But I do hear from a work mate how unreliable the ZRs are..
Spanky
14th January 2008, 00:26
well, i had a MG ZR 105 before my saxo (altho i had the full 160 body kit on it :P) it is a very nippy car for a 1.4i but the main power is all above 4 - 5000rpm and is very slugish under this, it is rather a heavy car and the brakes could be better, but they do look veyr nice, especially in x-power grey when u wax them up! as for being reliable..... wll i went thru 2 NEW ECU's in less than 14month, says it all really, they are good cars but can b a bother! as for my saxo, it feels much quicker and alot more responsive.
if you no someone with a zr 1.4 do this test against your saxo
70 - 90 mph in 5th thats where the reall power & weight issues show
toodles!
vBulletin® v3.8.2, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.