Saxo v’s C2 - Saxperience

Zouk · 10th January 2006, 00:07

Howdy, i wasn't sure where to put this thread so i stuck it in here.
Basically, i'm thinking of exchanging my 1.1 Saxo for a C2 sometime this
year. I was looking at the specs for the 1.6 16v model and it's 0-60 was
8.3 but on the 1.6 16v saxo it's 7.9. What do people think about the C2? I
think it looks pretty lame compared to the Saxo

starkie · 10th January 2006, 00:26

Its only because the C2 is heavier than the saxo!

Scott^p · 10th January 2006, 00:30

also saxo vts is group 14, c2 vts 8 or something. Better built and safer to.

Zouk · 10th January 2006, 00:43

ah right so it would be alot cheaper on the insurence. 8.3's pretty nippy,
compared to my current 14 seconds or something lol

Aled · 10th January 2006, 20:56

Depends on the insurance company aswell, if you're insuring fully comp the C2's a newer and more expensive car compared to some VTS'. so that could bunk the premiu.

Dan · 10th January 2006, 22:58

I like the saxo far more than the c2 but as scott mentioned its cheaper to insure plus alot safer, I'd still choose the saxo though.

woodsy · 11th January 2006, 00:21

7.2 seconds for the vts if its standard

andy51086 · 11th January 2006, 00:30

saxo is better. that stupid gearbox that comes with the c2 will give you nothing but problems. my uncle's brother has a c2 vts. he has had it for a month and its already broke down twice due the gearbox sensors failing

RIBstaff · 11th January 2006, 00:57

my bro has had the c2 vts for months and still hasnt had any problems with it. Yes it is slower but that is only due to its weight and believe me it would make up for it with the handling on the track.

as the stats state the sax is faster but c2 is safer and better handling