Citroen Saxo VTR/VTS

Author
Discussion

D_Mike

Original Poster:

5,301 posts

242 months

Tuesday 19th July 2005
quotequote all
CAn anybody enlighten me as to the differences between the two? Which is cheaper for insurance? General opionions on them would also be good :)

Thanks

bmgm3

10,480 posts

245 months

Tuesday 19th July 2005
quotequote all
I think one is an 8 valve engine and the other is a more powerfull 16 valve. Brother had the VTS and it keeping blowing head gaskets . He vowed never to buy another French car after that

KB_S1

5,967 posts

231 months

Tuesday 19th July 2005
quotequote all
VTR 8v and 14"rims 100bhp

VTS 16v and 15"rims 120bhp and Grp 14

i love my VTS, gets 35-42mpg depeding on use and costs me £650 fc
@24yrs with 1 yr NCB

ninjaboy

2,525 posts

252 months

Tuesday 19th July 2005
quotequote all
VTR is 90 - 100 bhp depending on year pretty quick and cheap to insure 8v OHC engine. The VTS is 16v DOHC and is very quick but not cheap to insure both look similar except the wheels are 14" on the VTR and 15" on the VTS

cyberface

12,214 posts

259 months

Tuesday 19th July 2005
quotequote all
VTR feels like the breathing is horribly strangled... I suspect that it'd actually be easily as quick as the VTS if induction / head was sorted.

Much cheaper to insure as well - I bought one for the girlfriend a while back and it was free insurance. The VTS, IIRC, is 4 groups higher?

Entertaining handling, not quite as lairy as the old 205 GTis (the reason why I tried one in the first place) but still OK. Cheap plastic interior, the steering wheel is disgusting. Fun though to throw around.

Unfortunately they're pretty badly tainted with the 'chav' label esp. in the south east. This may have affected insurance costs since I had one (3-4 years ago)

saxo-stew

8,006 posts

240 months

Wednesday 20th July 2005
quotequote all
the vtr would need ALOT of engine work to really get it up to the vts level. they really are two totally different cars.

but as said, the chav image has tainted them badly(although some are real performers(mine)).

4WD

2,289 posts

233 months

Wednesday 20th July 2005
quotequote all
I used to have the 106GTi, which is the same chassis and engine as the VTS underneath. Plus it had decent suede seats and was a bit less common. The saxo's sold a lot more due to their free insurance deals ages ago, plus they had cheaper finance and were 1k cheaper from memory.

Steve_Evil

10,668 posts

231 months

Wednesday 20th July 2005
quotequote all
Bugger all pedal room too, designed for people with tiny feet or women.

D_Mike

Original Poster:

5,301 posts

242 months

Wednesday 20th July 2005
quotequote all
that post implies a distinction between people and women

4WD

2,289 posts

233 months

Wednesday 20th July 2005
quotequote all
I would like to have a subaru or similar engine dropped into a 106GTi. They're only about 800kgs! Cool project? Might need lengthening a tad.

anonymous-user

56 months

Wednesday 20th July 2005
quotequote all
4WD said:
I would like to have a subaru or similar engine dropped into a 106GTi. They're only about 800kgs! Cool project? Might need lengthening a tad.

There's talk on the PPC forum at the moment of dropping an Mi16 engine into a 106...

Steve_Evil

10,668 posts

231 months

Wednesday 20th July 2005
quotequote all
Reading my post again it does seem to imply a difference between the species, oh well.

I can't see all the fuss about dropping an Mi16 engine in a 106, it's only about 160bhp from what I remember, hardly gonna set the world on fire is it? and 800kg is a bit on the bloated side if we're talking power to weight, half that and it'd be interesting.

4WD

2,289 posts

233 months

Wednesday 20th July 2005
quotequote all
I know that's an old pug engine, but I don't know any specs. I'm guessing it's NA?

A turbo lump would be my choice!

anonymous-user

56 months

Wednesday 20th July 2005
quotequote all
4WD said:
I know that's an old pug engine, but I don't know any specs. I'm guessing it's NA?

A turbo lump would be my choice!
Mi16 is an old 16v NA lump from a (I think) 405. Most of the time when they're used in transplants they're fitted with ITBs or carbs and give around 200bhp.

cyberface

12,214 posts

259 months

Wednesday 20th July 2005
quotequote all
Steve_Evil said:
Reading my post again it does seem to imply a difference between the species, oh well.

I can't see all the fuss about dropping an Mi16 engine in a 106, it's only about 160bhp from what I remember, hardly gonna set the world on fire is it? and 800kg is a bit on the bloated side if we're talking power to weight, half that and it'd be interesting.

The Mi16 engine (original ally one) was a great engine, I think it was only put in production cars to fulfil homologation requirements. It has big ports and massive valves *as standard* and only requires TBs or twin 45s to get around 200 bhp. It also is good for 8500 rpm.

I had one with twin webers in my 205 special, it was a bit of a beast even though it was nowhere near its full potential.

If it fits properly in the 106 then it'd be enormous fun, though it required the engine to be tilted back in the 205 so I'm not sure how easy a 106 transplant will actually be...

dieseljohn

2,114 posts

258 months

Wednesday 20th July 2005
quotequote all
I had a VTR for a few years. Cheap but fun overall.

VTS has a shorter ratio gearbox to take advantage of the higher redline. This makes it a fair bit faster (along with the 20-30 extra bhp) but makes it quite buzzy at motorways speeds. Also insurance is way more.

Second hand values were similar on both when I traded in a year or two ago due to the extra insurance cost of the VTS putting off most of the potential buyers (young lads).

anonymous-user

56 months

Wednesday 20th July 2005
quotequote all
cyberface said:
If it fits properly in the 106 then it'd be enormous fun, though it required the engine to be tilted back in the 205 so I'm not sure how easy a 106 transplant will actually be...
Thread on PPC forum here

KB_S1

5,967 posts

231 months

Wednesday 20th July 2005
quotequote all
Don't worry about the pedals, i have size 10 feet and as long as i don't wear big boots its not a problem.
The running costs for me so far have been ridiculous.
First set of tyres lasted till 33000 miles
Original front pads only now need replaced after 38000 miles
Service interval is 12500 (or every 7 months for me)
Nothing broken except windscreen £50 xs on ins.

the bb cap image is unfortunate, just take joy in leaving it standard in terms of wheels'n'springs and then making numpties out of the guys with 17" anchor weights and belly scrape ride when it comes to twisties and roundabouts (and speedbumps).

Up for sale in September if anyone wants

Getting something even smaller and lighter

4WD

2,289 posts

233 months

Wednesday 20th July 2005
quotequote all
That looks ok, but still not that extreme. I was thinking more about really silly power to weight ratios. Things like - cossie turbo with 4x4 in a fiesta, or a VR6 supercharged in a mk1 golf with golf rallye 4x4 transmission, or maybe a 106 rally on subaru running gear. Any other mad ideas for the future?

cyberface

12,214 posts

259 months

Wednesday 20th July 2005
quotequote all
4WD said:
That looks ok, but still not that extreme. I was thinking more about really silly power to weight ratios. Things like - cossie turbo with 4x4 in a fiesta, or a VR6 supercharged in a mk1 golf with golf rallye 4x4 transmission, or maybe a 106 rally on subaru running gear. Any other mad ideas for the future?

My current project is a Ford Ka with a to-be-decided engine transplant. Unfortunately it won't be anywhere near turbo-nutter power-to-weight, but I'm concentrating more on handling, so I don't have to slow down anywhere and still enjoy driving without licence-killing speeds!

Racing Puma engine transplant looks like best bet for now.

As to more extreme things for you, the Twini concept makes a lot of sense... Love machine posted about this in Engines & Drivetrain. Dubsport did a Golf with two turbocharged VR6 motors, total around 800 bhp in a stripped mk3 shell.