VTS vs GTI 0-60

[Logan1987GTI]

Hey everyone

I have heard that the Saxo has a quicker 0-60 time than the 106 because of a raised 2nd gear meaning that you don't have to waste time changing in to 3rd before hitting 60. Is it true that the Saxo has this but the 106 hasn't?

I have also heard that there is no difference in 0-60 times but Peugeot intentionally had extra weight in the GTI when testing its 0-60 to purposely slow the car and reduce insurance costs? Personally I find this hard to believe but it could be true im not sure, hopefully someone can clear this up.

I thought they wer identical in every way performance wise, engine, transmission, brakes etc. Just wanting to know that if standard is the Saxo the quicker car? And would putting a VTS box in a GTI make them equally fast?

I ask as I have had 2 GTI's in the past and I am now thinking of getting another for track days but I will be entering in to 1600 "Standard class" (No performance mods) so wont be able to touch it, unless putting a VTS box in would be allowed I havent looked in to that yet. So if standard the VTS is a quicker car it would make sense for me to go with the Saxo instead.

:y:

[KamRacing]

Theres no difference in basic car chassis or engine so no difference in 0-60

[Logan1987GTI]

Ok thanks, so gear ratio is the same and both will do 60 or more in 2nd? I should of paid more attention when driving mine lol its been a few years so I cant remember :wall:

[m4tt274]

ive heard the VTS autocar used had an empty tank and the gti had 3/4. unsure if true. could well have been tires, engine/air/ambiant temp. humidity... etc etc like most engines on a dyno, few make the same power exactly every time.

both cars are the same though. VTS is slightly more aerodynamic.

[Jazz]

VTS is slightly more aerodynamic.

What makes you say that?

As you say, it could be a variety of things. Temp, surface, tyres.

Real world figures should be around the 8-second mark as a happy medium.

When I had my VTS we tested our Octavia vRS 0-60 against it which supposedly is 7.9s, but after about 50ish the Octavia was pulling ahead comfortbly.

[Logan1987GTI]

Thank you for the reply's, I read somewhere that the Saxo is 10kg heavier than the 106 but this will make no difference atall in the real world, im not sure about the aerodynamics tho. I do have one more question tho, is the mk2 VTS any faster or slower than the mk1? I prefer the look of the mk1's but would choose power over looks if it came down to it, cheers :drink:

[martin1985]

well according to parkers, http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/facts-and-figures/citroen/saxo/hatchback-1996/

the mk1 is 0.1 seconds quicker to 60, i don't know if the figures are right

also the 106 GTi is apparently slightly heavier http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/facts-and-figures/peugeot/106/hatchback-1991/12636/

[rey]

They're identical.

Pick whichever you think looks best/is cheapest/in the best condition

[jasonmayall]

They're identical.

Pick whichever you think looks best/is cheapest/in the best condition

This. They're the same cars - I thought it was common knowledge? lol

I'd go for the GTI - Looks better IMO.
But saying that, They are quite a bit more expensive than VTS'

[Ross]

gti is a better looking car and has 100x less chav factor. Insurance is lower too.
Win win.

[Prickle]

Insurance was more on a GTi for me then a VTS.

[Logan1987GTI]

Cheers everyone, that has cleared things up :y:

[Ross]

Insurance was more on a GTi for me then a VTS.
Higher value?

Insurance group is lower on the gti so like for like, should be lower premium.

[Prickle]

Higher value?

Insurance group is lower on the gti so like for like, should be lower premium.

God knows man.

Did quotes on both cars and that came more £££ + it was harder to find a decent one then it was to find a Saxo

[Ryan]

Gti had a different rear ARB.

about it in the none cosmetic dept