Idiot

[beckha]

Originally Posted by RAFkev

When compared to ferrari lamborghini etc this is true.

But compared to your run of the mill 1.6 car the vts is pretty quick.

When you think all hot hatches now have 2.0 engines or turbos. The Saxo goes well for 1.6 N/A.

Not as well as a standard B16 civic...

x

[Jeffers-Gti]

Ive been up against a mate in a 57 plate Focus ST in standard form. He cannot pull away from me untill over 100

This is with me in a vts with nothing other than an air filter and on a private road of course.

Just goes to show that extra 900cc, oh and a turbo gets you no where when your car is a fat bastard

[VTHall]

Originally Posted by Jeffers-Gti

Ive been up against a mate in a 57 plate Focus ST in standard form. He cannot pull away from me untill over 100

This is with me in a vts with nothing other than an air filter and on a private road of course.

Just goes to show that extra 900cc, oh and a turbo gets you no where when your car is a fat bastard

maybe due to a shit driver.

[danny-boi]

well saxos are light as anything the engine doesnt have to shift as much weight hence why motor bikes can shoot off the line as the engine doesnt have anything to pull

[Yellow_Saxo_Paul]

Just dont compare saxos to mercs, mazdas, bmws etc, they are not in the same league unless you've wasted most of your wages on modding them when you could of just bought a higher performing car lol

[Dom]

Originally Posted by Yellow_Saxo_Paul

Just dont compare saxos to mercs, mazdas, bmws etc, they are not in the same league unless you've wasted most of your wages on modding them when you could of just bought a higher performing car lol

A BMW is not a higher performing car until you get a 325 or something. I have had a little play with one and it couldn't overtake me no matter how hard it tried. All the cars you have named are more for luxury, not power imo.

[Yellow_Saxo_Paul]

Thats what I meant...

A VTS is nowhere near as fast as some of the RX series, just look at the 0-62 ratio and top speeds.

[Yellow_Saxo_Paul]

After looking on 0-60 website:

vts 0-60: 7.8 seconds... Mazda 3: 5.7, Mazda 6: 5.9, RX7: 5.3, RX8: 5.8, BMW 135: 4.8, BMW M3: 3.9,

Unmodded by the way and there were loads of others but I couldn't be arsed to post.

[Dom]

Originally Posted by Yellow_Saxo_Paul

After looking on 0-60 website:



Unmodded by the way and there were loads of others but I couldn't be arsed to post.

Thats the Flagship models of them models though, the Mazda3 normally comes in 1.6 diesels, unless you were talking about the MPS model which is 6.2s 0-60. Unless we want to throw in a load of models with the big engines, stick to 1.6's to 2.0's.. Not many of them N/A engines will get away from a VTS. Even the case with a BMW 325 and 730.

[makaveli144]

Just dont compare saxos to mercs, mazdas, bmws etc

Lol, you do like mazdas dont you. There not luxury or performance cars so whats the deal?

[Yellow_Saxo_Paul]

omfg this site is full of...

[Dom]

Are you sure?

[Slugshead]

we used to have a 735i, the new shape one... was crap off tghe mark but once the speed picks up it went like stink... hit the limiter in it only ever once, would be terrifying to get my vts to that speeds

[CHIP]

What you have to remember about a FRS, m3, Astra VXR etc... is that, whilst some smaller engined, cheaper car's might be as fast/nearly as fast... They're still a better car.

My mate has a 1.8 16v Mk1 Clio Turbo running 270bhp, it eat's Scooby's, lower spec Porsche's, some Evo's, Skyline's, Supra's etc.... He's got a video of him literally annihilating a FRS which had been tuned, and i mean - he killed it!!!

What would i want as my daily though? The FRS ofcourse, more comfortable, looks good, all the toy's etc.
Which is more fun? Well the Clio i'd imagine would put a much bigger smile on your face.