VTR . . whats the real story

[_THE_STIG_]

right. . the VTR . . what is the actual story with this car, some people say there quick and some people say there not, and everyone says they handle well but my 1.1i is terrible.

so do VTRs handle well and are they quick, . . what can they keep up with/are quicker than?

really want to know as i will be looking for a new car soon and have £2,500 to spend and can go up to group 8 insurance. any ideas also, thanks the stig

[evans1089]

they are nippy and you can mod them nicely to give out a few bhp if you got the right money.
newer versions are 101bhp i think
older ones are 98bhp

Look on www.parkers.co.uk and check the facts and figures of similar cars like fiestas etc. :y:

[Jazz]

Similar pace to models such as Fiesta Zetec S, Corsa 1.4 16v SRi, Clio 1.4 16v, Toyota Yaris T-Sport.

Little, basic warm hatches, cheap to run, not exactly fast but nippy and fun to drive. Only insurance group 7. Phase one's are 90bhp, ph2 versions are 98bhp plus slightly better economy iirc...

Using Search will answer many of your questions. Hope that helps.

[craigy_87]

negative new ones are 98bhp older 90bhp

they are fairly nippy an do handle well (better than a 1.1) cheap to run which is good

[_THE_STIG_]

Similar pace to models such as Fiesta Zetec S, Corsa 1.4 16v SRi, Clio 1.4 16v, Toyota Yaris T-Sport.

Little, basic warm hatches, cheap to run, not exactly fast but nippy and fun to drive. Only insurance group 7.

Using Search will answer many of your questions. Hope that helps.

thanks

[Chronic-2001]

Brilliant little cars, i absolutaly love mine.

Gets alot of looks from the ladies, was out last night and got alot of nice compliments from people who had seen me in it earlier on in the day :D Got quite abit a pull in the lower gears, do feel abit like a goalcart though, i guess that just makes them even more fun though!

[evans1089]

negative new ones are 98bhp older 90bhp

they are fairly nippy an do handle well (better than a 1.1) cheap to run which is good

oh i am sorry....... i go by facts and figures....
http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/specs/Detail.aspx?deriv=17753

[craigy_87]

lol parkers is pish, read anywhere on this site about the bhp figures

[Evolution4589]

Parkers is notoriously shit for quoting the right figures. Citroën's old adverts claim that they're 90 and 98bhp.

[_THE_STIG_]

so the do 0-60 in 9.1 . . is that not slow for such a light 1.6

[moxy89]

my 1.1 handles well but it dropped 50mm. saxos vtr are good cars like all saxos, nice looking, cheap to run and buy and good laugh

[adam19]

you do the right stuff to a vtr then they be quiete rapid :P

[Jazz]

Parkers is a bit out on figures in this case. Its definately 98bhp for ph2 versions, 90bhp for older ones. Yeah 0-60mph is pretty decent for a 1.6 8v, they will feel pretty rapid after driving about in a 1.1.

[kc51]

buy mine:L just a bit away :D cheap too..... nah brilliant cars cant fault them with speed n all...

[burnoutsax]

rag em to deaf and they are ok

[Goldsax]

Ive driven 1ltr saxos, 1.1 saxos, 1.4 saxos, 1.6 8v saxos and 1.6 16v saxos, and i have to say the vtr came out top of all those, i wasent a big fan off a vts tbh, didnt like the ABS lol.....vtrs a quick, cheap, and nippy...best saxo imo

[burnoutsax]

u can esily stop the abs working thoug

[VTR_Craig]

you will feel a massive difference from a 1.1i

i went from a 1.1 saxo to a VTR, such a difference.

past 70mph there isn't much but second gear is good

if you could stretch to a VTS then i would but you will be happy with a VTR

[haroldno1]

vtrs are great! they are 'quick' but not fast, and they do handle very well!!

but then im driving a vts tmo so I may edit this?

but yeah from your 1.1i you will love a vtr :P

[Mattt-VTR]

The VTR for the price you pay, is a good car. generally speaking it's a good allround car and as people have said it does pull off well in 2nd car, but above that it starts to dip but nonetheless it has POWER! Lol.

[TU-Tuning]

theyre not fast cars, they were 'quick' for their class when they came out but theyve been outdone by most modern rivals. The handling and fun factor is immense though

[Steveo-vts]

Ive driven 1ltr saxos, 1.1 saxos, 1.4 saxos, 1.6 8v saxos and 1.6 16v saxos, and i have to say the vtr came out top of all those, i wasent a big fan off a vts tbh, didnt like the ABS lol.....vtrs a quick, cheap, and nippy...best saxo imo

im sorry but that just isnt true.

[Pat_Vts]

theyre not fast cars, they were 'quick' for their class when they came out but theyve been outdone by most modern rivals. The handling and fun factor is immense though

agree there, i had a VTR and i used to be outdone by quite a few cars...

but the fun i had in the VTR... 1 year and 2months of the VTR, immense!

would have my old VTR back anytime:y:

[Goldsax]

im sorry but that just isnt true.


how is it not?? i said imo (In my OPINION)....read before u comment!

[neilandhisvtr]

for an 8v 1.6 theyre not too shabby all things concidered.

the mk1 (black and silver rocker, cat under car) put out 90bhp and the mk2 (silver rocker cover, cat in the exhaust mani) put out 98bhp. but i challenge anyone to prove that 8bhp makes any difference what with all the emmisions add-ons. sort the breathing and and out and youll see a bit of an improvement, decent induction (enclosed), 4 branch mani and decent exhaust (non of this chavy jap pipe bollocks).

dont listen to people that say itll do 60 in 2nd gear either. it might show it on the inaccurate speedo but the gear ratios and rev limit prevent it.

handling is pretty good, remember both VT models share suspension and brakes (VTS has abs, although there are a few VTR with also i think it was an option).

group 7 insurance so not too bad, especially over 21. had mine insured for a shade over 300 all mods declared with flux.

anything else you want to know? lol

[Steveo-vts]

how is it not?? i said imo (In my OPINION)....read before u comment!

why is it the vtr better then the vts?

Because you cant afford the insurance?

[neilandhisvtr]

if you can keep keep it on cam then the VTS is far superior performance wise. 90/98bhp vs 120bhp, bit of a no brainer..

[Mieran]

My MK1 VTR didn't feel much quicker than my 1.1 106 tbh, you can definitely feel the difference but its not much.

[potatopete]

why is it the vtr better then the vts?

Because you cant afford the insurance?


IMO, the VTS uses loads more fuel than the VTR, and for the difference in performance, you/re much better going for the VTR.

But, before any VTS owners start jumping out of their prams, that simply my opinion.

[neilandhisvtr]

must agree my modded old blacktop didnt drink too much, went from bmouth way up to castle douglas (scotland) on one tank of optiflop..

[saxokid100]

Vtr"s are great little hot hatches,all day long!! then the vts is the nexted step up for more fun handlen,and better performance!!!:y::y:

[maylia1]

i agree with the 1.1's my g/f has got one and they are pretty pap i love my vtr just seen one on pistonheads that is pretty nice

[Steveo-vts]

IMO, the VTS uses loads more fuel than the VTR, and for the difference in performance, you/re much better going for the VTR.

But, before any VTS owners start jumping out of their prams, that simply my opinion.

thats fair enough. my vtr used more petrol then my vts.
vtr (dog) - 31-33 mpg
vts (v.well looked after)- 35 - 40 mpg

just goes to show how much difference it makes if u look after you car.

[b0t13]

there a gd car and better than rivals in many ways, but a vtr is nothing compared to a vts is soo many different ways, both decent tho..

[MaRiO89]

I love my VTR..The 98 BHP model is defo the one to go for aswell..

They handle great too and are quite quick..You cant compare a VTR to a VTS std vs std..One is designed to be quicker than the other..lol

I have to say though, VTR's look better than VTS's imo..VTR wheels really finish the saxo off..:D also prefer the MK2 VTR interior than the VTS, its more modern etc..

I dont think i'm goin to get rid of mine for ageess, it does everything i want it to and will keep up with alot of things, especially if you catch them off guard..

[makaveli144]

I have to say though, VTR's look better than VTS's imo..VTR wheels really finish the saxo off.. also prefer the MK2 VTR interior than the VTS, its more modern etc..

What about VTS with VTR wheels then?

VTRs are good, very different to the S but my old R felt more responsive from lower revs.

And whoever was on about compliments from girls....rofl

[neilandhisvtr]

VTRs are good, very different to the S but my old R felt more responsive from lower revs.

power band is higher up on the S

[Pat_Vts]

VTS pisses on VTRs

how can you compare them two in performance

just look at how much difference in the insurance groups there are... end offff

[b0t13]

im sure they use a better glue to make the vts too as they feel better built than the lower models, dunno why, and vts seats are better than vtr seats in terms of comfort etc.. tho the pattern isnt too nice tbh

[yorkie]

i am glad to see there are others that feel the vtr is a better car to drive i fort i was on my own.......

i would hate to drive a vts everyday!!! i hate the way you have to revs the tits off the vts to pull out of juns and have to change gear to overtake things....

the lack for torque at low revs is the vts's downfall for a good easy to drive car the vtr is one of the best i can think of.... well mine seems to tick all the right boxes...........


ps i am 25 so the just coz you cannot afford the insurance does not wash with me and vts with all the same mods is £4 more......lol

[DawsonWicked]

it cracks me up how people say, you dont have a vts because you cant afford one. haha thats aload of poop ! maybe some people dont have them because they cant afford one but some people dont have them becuase they dont want one simple as, and i would love to own a vts but tbh im not even all that bothred anymore id rather move away from the saxo scene tbh.

[makaveli144]

power band is higher up on the S

Yea I know, my powerband is 5k onwards.

im sure they use a better glue to make the vts too as they feel better built than the lower models

I have to agree, mine is older than my VTR but is def better put together.

[LeeM]

i have a vtr, i could happily afford a vts but for now i cant justify the extra cost and dont have much experience of using more than a 1.1 on a daily basis on the roads so thought i'd get a vtr then move on to a vts next year if i still want a saxo, if not its a 182

[Explicit]

Ive gone from a 220bhp DC2 to a VTR, i'm laughing as my petrol bill has dropped by more than double. Happy days!

[LeeM]

my vtr gets double the mileage my golf did, yet im spending double on fuel lol! i love diving the saxo it never gets boring! ive just taken the gf home she lives 2 miles away and somehow it took me a 20 mile round trip down the lanes!

[Pat_Vts]

iv got VTS i swear VTR was same kinda on fuel...

my old VTR was decatted though...

[Yates]

s2 rallye is what you want

or a mint xsi

[DavoVTR]

My opinion on VTR's, fun, nippy, cheap to run cheap to get hold of... what more d'ya want?

Handling isn't great to be fair, but don't let that put you off.

[potatopete]

I'm always surprised by how cheap parts are for the VTR, although that might also be the case for the VTS too.

[flynnsvtr]

I have owned a VTR and have just sold it to buy a VTS.

First of all I will say the VTR is a great little car, tbh i didnt see much difference petrol wise to my 1.1. Cracking nippy little car which can beat most cars in or around its insurance group off the lights. I would recommend to anyone however....

....If you can afford a VTS i would by all means get one. When i went to drive my VTS for the first time i was gobsmacked lol. For some reason i thought meh 2 seconds different 0-60 then the VTR isnt that much its still a saxo at the end of the day then i put my foot down and had 2 slam on the brakes immediately after as i pulled out of a junction n neary hit a parked car lol was upto 50 before i knew it. Puts a smile on my face everytime i put my foot down!
Yeah it uses a bit more fuel but it defines the words "performance hot hatch" to me, dont see how people can say a VTR is better, only financially (insurance + petrol), imo the VTS wins in every other way, its a poor mans Clio 182 lol (although yes the clio is miles better but u get what i mean lol)

[Scott-jarvis]

i have a w reg (90bhp) vtr, and my mate has a 105 bhp mg zr, can kick his ass anyday, another mate had an automatic 2.0 mitsibushi fto, by the end of a 2 mile stretch he was abotu 100 metres in fornt, so they are prety darn good in my opinion

[evans1089]

who the fhk gave me neg rep for a quoting a genuine websites figures?

[stendog]

who the fhk gave me neg rep for a quoting a genuine websites figures?

that would be the anonymous e warrior dont worry about it :y:

[Jazz]

VTR's for their insurance group are very good, 0-60mph in just over 9 seconds is on par with many entry level executive cars which cost considerably more money, plus the revised versions supposedly do over 40mpg, which is very good. Only problem is, they're constantly over-shadowed by the faster 16v S, which rules the roost around here.

[daz_rt_04]

why do people love the 172/182's so much then? because i've just downgraded from a 172 to my vts...

yes the clio does have more punch and handling on a circuit may be better....but im happy with the choice i made tbh, the money i saved from downgrading...i could do the whole exhaust, cams, re-map blah blah...im sure it would be to a 172 pace then.

i did enjoy a little rant driving a vtr, although i have to agree...the vts is a different level/ballgame.

[Shak]

The vtr's a good car, but it's 8 valves short of being a better car.

[bytor]

i am glad to see there are others that feel the vtr is a better car to drive i fort i was on my own.......

i would hate to drive a vts everyday!!! i hate the way you have to revs the tits off the vts to pull out of juns and have to change gear to overtake things....

the lack for torque at low revs is the vts's downfall for a good easy to drive car the vtr is one of the best i can think of.... well mine seems to tick all the right boxes...........


ps i am 25 so the just coz you cannot afford the insurance does not wash with me and vts with all the same mods is £4 more......lol

Then i question your drivin ability. Changing down a gear in a vts to sit the revs at 4k, eg 4th to 2nd doin 40~ for an overtake as you mentioned, 4th gear, clutch down, neutral, hit the throttle, 2nd gear, takes all of 1/2 second? and now your left with 2nd gear 40 mph. Thats a pleasure imo, but then if you just clutch down from 4th into 2nd and lift clutch up i could see it would be a pain :y:

[stevemcbride]

why do people bum over the price a vts costs to run, its not even that expensive! mpg isnt bad at all for what it is, i'd say i get atleast 30mpg... mixed driving including speeding, stop starting etc.. im sure i did like 90mile off £15 other day aswel then light had only just came on, also insurance is not bad at all, policy in my own name, granny as named driver (if i crash it in no way effects here ncb) with one claim costs 1600tpft which i dont think is bad at all... thats paid off in full on a 0% credit card... so really paying monthly still.. ow and im 18, id get a vts if i were you... screw all this having to change gear bollocks what people are talkin about

[Pat_Vts]

... im 18 years old with a VTS too

IMO in the vtr country lanes i had to drop into 2nd to overtake any slow bint safely

in the vts i just drop it down to 3rd from 4th... instead of 4th to 2nd and booting it completly damaging the car 3rd is sufficent

the main thing for VTS is the insurance for young drivers, thats it... otherwise everyone would be getting VTS lol

theres not much difference in petrol maybe 50miles thats it to a full tank driving normally, i dont rag my VTS every single day all day, i am quite sensible nowdays tbh

[evans1089]

... im 18 years old with a VTS too

IMO in the vtr country lanes i had to drop into 2nd to overtake any slow bint safely

in the vts i just drop it down to 3rd from 4th... instead of 4th to 2nd and booting it completly damaging the car 3rd is sufficent

the main thing for VTS is the insurance for young drivers, thats it... otherwise everyone would be getting VTS lol

theres not much difference in petrol maybe 50miles thats it to a full tank driving normally, i dont rag my VTS every single day all day, i am quite sensible nowdays tbh

How much you paying for the S on insurance? i take it with 1 years no claims?

[Pat_Vts]

no lost the no claims in a accident

paying 2k... the vtr i would have been paying 1k if it was my name

[rey]

According to Joesnows Gearbox ratio guide, a VTR does 60.1mph in second

Click me (http://www.saxperience.com/forum/showthread.php?t=125615)

not that 60 in second matters, it goes well enough wether it does it or not

[Pat_Vts]

try racing VTS after 100mph+

;)

[rey]

try racing VTS after 100mph+

;)

the point being...?

blatently a VTS is faster, its made to be

its also 7 insurance groups higher and no matter what anyone says, if you drive both an S and an R the same, the S will use more petrol..

[neilandhisvtr]

According to Joesnows Gearbox ratio guide, a VTR does 60.1mph in second

Click me (http://www.saxperience.com/forum/showthread.php?t=125615)

not that 60 in second matters, it goes well enough wether it does it or not

providing the ratios used are correct.

sorry but its been said for many many years that standard box and limit the vtr wont hit 60 in 2nd.

[rey]

providing the ratios used are correct.

sorry but its been said for many many years that standard box and limit the vtr wont hit 60 in 2nd.

notice how i said, according to his guide..

doesnt neccesarily mean its correct

[neilandhisvtr]

sorry speed reading..

[rey]

lol no worries, just realised how arsey my last comment looked, my bad!

[louis_23]

i think vtr's are quite quick bud cant complain when its only group 8 iver. my misses has got a seat ibiza sport 1.4 16v and a mate got corsa sri 1.4 16v and other mate a fiesta zetec s and can blow all three cars easy bud. i cant w8 to have a vts conversion to see the difference. :y:

[yorkie]

Then i question your drivin ability. Changing down a gear in a vts to sit the revs at 4k, eg 4th to 2nd doin 40~ for an overtake as you mentioned, 4th gear, clutch down, neutral, hit the throttle, 2nd gear, takes all of 1/2 second? and now your left with 2nd gear 40 mph. Thats a pleasure imo, but then if you just clutch down from 4th into 2nd and lift clutch up i could see it would be a pain :y:

alot of effort that i just but foot on go pedel and the low rev torque does the rest....

[Pat_Vts]

VTRs are good at their jobs

but if you rag every single day in and out dont expect it to not to break lol

[Zach]

I love my VTR.

Fuel is great in it. Especially considering mani, decat, and enclosed raceland. Helps that it has always been well serviced.

Speed wise, it's quick enough to be fun. I've driven my 1.9 GTI track car on the road a few times(I'm insured to.. it's just really not nice to drive on normal roads so doesn't happen often) and yes, that was fast, and made me wish the R was a little faster.

But the VTR still satisfies me for now. Like is said, they're fast enough to have fun in, but not so fast that your looking at sub 30mpg. Depends how much you want that extra speed of the S or another faster car to justify a higher fuel bill

i'm aware alot of people get the same MPG out of VTS's, but in general i imagine if driven quick, they will return a lower mpg like any other hot hatch

[bytor]

alot of effort that i just but foot on go pedel and the low rev torque does the rest....

My point is that its not effort if you can do it. ;) 1/2 second and then you have 120bhp for your overtake.