RE: Shed Of The Week: Citroen Saxo VTS
Discussion
I must have owned 10 Saxos by now. Must be 4 mk2 vts' and a mk1!
Don't think that I could go there again.
Look out for nackered axle/trailing arm bearings, costly common issue.
Gearboxes and driveshafts can be weak.
They do rust in the boot floor/inner arches, front chassis legs and inner wings.
Think one of my mates got his to nearly 200k with just the axle and general maintenance, by then the engine was starting to run rough and the rust had eaten most of the underneath at the back.
1999/2000 mk2 facelift without the euro 3 ecu etc is the model to have, 2001-2003 much more problematic. Mk1 dated looking.
Don't think that I could go there again.
Look out for nackered axle/trailing arm bearings, costly common issue.
Gearboxes and driveshafts can be weak.
They do rust in the boot floor/inner arches, front chassis legs and inner wings.
Think one of my mates got his to nearly 200k with just the axle and general maintenance, by then the engine was starting to run rough and the rust had eaten most of the underneath at the back.
1999/2000 mk2 facelift without the euro 3 ecu etc is the model to have, 2001-2003 much more problematic. Mk1 dated looking.
I had a VTR for 6 months (always had VTS envy - Stupid insurance!), the radiator popped, the brakes went floppy and the gearbox shattered (as did the clutch). It had done 95k miles to be fair, wasn't too bad to get fixed. Brilliant little car despite the explosions, although you need to have tiny girl feet to actually be able to use the pedals (too close together for regular men's shoes).
ARobinson said:
I must have owned 10 Saxos by now. Must be 4 mk2 vts' and a mk1!
Don't think that I could go there again.
Look out for nackered axle/trailing arm bearings, costly common issue.
Gearboxes and driveshafts can be weak.
They do rust in the boot floor/inner arches, front chassis legs and inner wings.
Think one of my mates got his to nearly 200k with just the axle and general maintenance, by then the engine was starting to run rough and the rust had eaten most of the underneath at the back.
1999/2000 mk2 facelift without the euro 3 ecu etc is the model to have, 2001-2003 much more problematic. Mk1 dated looking.
You're always going to come backDon't think that I could go there again.
Look out for nackered axle/trailing arm bearings, costly common issue.
Gearboxes and driveshafts can be weak.
They do rust in the boot floor/inner arches, front chassis legs and inner wings.
Think one of my mates got his to nearly 200k with just the axle and general maintenance, by then the engine was starting to run rough and the rust had eaten most of the underneath at the back.
1999/2000 mk2 facelift without the euro 3 ecu etc is the model to have, 2001-2003 much more problematic. Mk1 dated looking.
One day Fag
I had both a new VTR, then a New VTS back in the day.
VTS is fantastic little car, nothing but fond memories and I'd have another if a mint standard car turned up.
BUT, they are getting rare now and they have one huge problem...Clio 172/182's are just so plentiful and cheap at the moment that I can't see why you'd not buy one over a VTR R/VTS.
VTS is fantastic little car, nothing but fond memories and I'd have another if a mint standard car turned up.
BUT, they are getting rare now and they have one huge problem...Clio 172/182's are just so plentiful and cheap at the moment that I can't see why you'd not buy one over a VTR R/VTS.
paulmaurice99 said:
Fantastic cars! At least they were then they were new - I've since gone off old French cars, and I imagine if I tried this I'd probably not like it. But how much of that is down to age and the onmarch of sensibleness?
Mine (a relatively humble VTR - though the difference between the VTR and the VTS was very similar to the difference between 8v and 16v Golf, ie. not very much unless you had the space to push past 5k rpm in every gear) was purchased brand new in Jan 98 (2 weeks into my first ever proper job and I buy a brand new car - aah young and single) oddly enough to replace a tired 205 GTI 1.6. Whilst I was really disappointed with the Pug - though I'm sure that had a lot to do with the very average example I'd stupidly bought - I thought the Saxo was outstanding. It was SO agile, so 'up on its toes' I couldn't get enough of it. They were pretty lively at the back end and I had many 'moments' but the car always took care of me, with one exception*. The OE Michelins were without question the ones to have though, you could generally get away with anything. But I remember the car feeling pretty different after I'd changed for a different brand. They'd only been on the market for 6 months or so, and were THE hot hatch to have at the time. Had great times in that car, including 4 up to Cannes at a steady 95-110 all the way. Poor car.
Anyway, I'm rambling. The thing that interested me in the comments is the whole 'teenage/chav' image comments: whilst not applicable when they first came out, sadly many of the later owners ARE to blame for that rep, BUT mention a 205 GTI on PH and it's nothing but praise - and there were plenty of tw*ts driving those if I recall. And in my experience (limited to only 1 example of each) the Saxo was far and away the better, more fun, car. There, that'll get a response!
PS I remember being very chuffed about having an airbag in a car, how expectations have changed! *The exception was when chasing an Audi S2 coupe along a road I knew well, in the wet, and on an off camber 90 degree bend I decided I could throw the car in, lift off and fire the car out, thereby gaining precious seconds on a well driven 230bhp quattro... (yes, I know) and amazingly the car did a nice pirouette, even more amazingly hitting nothing and coming to a gentle stop an inch from the hedge.
ETA: EVO ran a VTS long termer around the same time - they LOVED it. Ask Dickie Meaden what he thinks of them.
Having owned and R reg VTR, then a 53 plate VTS, I can confirm there was actually a big difference in performance - a lot more than the figures suggest.Mine (a relatively humble VTR - though the difference between the VTR and the VTS was very similar to the difference between 8v and 16v Golf, ie. not very much unless you had the space to push past 5k rpm in every gear) was purchased brand new in Jan 98 (2 weeks into my first ever proper job and I buy a brand new car - aah young and single) oddly enough to replace a tired 205 GTI 1.6. Whilst I was really disappointed with the Pug - though I'm sure that had a lot to do with the very average example I'd stupidly bought - I thought the Saxo was outstanding. It was SO agile, so 'up on its toes' I couldn't get enough of it. They were pretty lively at the back end and I had many 'moments' but the car always took care of me, with one exception*. The OE Michelins were without question the ones to have though, you could generally get away with anything. But I remember the car feeling pretty different after I'd changed for a different brand. They'd only been on the market for 6 months or so, and were THE hot hatch to have at the time. Had great times in that car, including 4 up to Cannes at a steady 95-110 all the way. Poor car.
Anyway, I'm rambling. The thing that interested me in the comments is the whole 'teenage/chav' image comments: whilst not applicable when they first came out, sadly many of the later owners ARE to blame for that rep, BUT mention a 205 GTI on PH and it's nothing but praise - and there were plenty of tw*ts driving those if I recall. And in my experience (limited to only 1 example of each) the Saxo was far and away the better, more fun, car. There, that'll get a response!
PS I remember being very chuffed about having an airbag in a car, how expectations have changed! *The exception was when chasing an Audi S2 coupe along a road I knew well, in the wet, and on an off camber 90 degree bend I decided I could throw the car in, lift off and fire the car out, thereby gaining precious seconds on a well driven 230bhp quattro... (yes, I know) and amazingly the car did a nice pirouette, even more amazingly hitting nothing and coming to a gentle stop an inch from the hedge.
ETA: EVO ran a VTS long termer around the same time - they LOVED it. Ask Dickie Meaden what he thinks of them.
Sadly my VTS ended up like so many others - I wrote it off after 3 years of enjoyable ownership when my skills weren't up to the job and the dreaded lift off oversteer sent me into a concrete post.
Still miss it today. (the car, not the post, before anyone chirps up with that!!)
f1nn said:
I had both a new VTR, then a New VTS back in the day.
VTS is fantastic little car, nothing but fond memories and I'd have another if a mint standard car turned up.
BUT, they are getting rare now and they have one huge problem...Clio 172/182's are just so plentiful and cheap at the moment that I can't see why you'd not buy one over a VTR R/VTS.
I have owned both long term.VTS is fantastic little car, nothing but fond memories and I'd have another if a mint standard car turned up.
BUT, they are getting rare now and they have one huge problem...Clio 172/182's are just so plentiful and cheap at the moment that I can't see why you'd not buy one over a VTR R/VTS.
Performance wise not really much in it between a 182 and a VTS, most vts put out 130bhp standard, most 182 about 180, there's the150kg difference spec dependent.
The 182 uses less fuel, yes seriously. Some vts will average 40-45mpg with light use if in fine fettle which few will be these days. Had a huge variation in mine and my 106 gti, between 35 and 42mpg for same commutes, same driving. Clio will consistently do 38mpg on same routes which is good!
182 servicing much more expensive and complicated. Cam belt on vts a £60 diy(or £120 with tensioners and water pump), Clio can belt is no diy by any stretch.
Clio interior admittedly much nicer in FF spec.
Saxo has proper independent trailing arms, Clio semi independent torsion beam.
Both have gearboxes made from Roquefort.
Clio admittedly safer but nowhere near as safe as 197/200.
f1nn said:
I had both a new VTR, then a New VTS back in the day.
VTS is fantastic little car, nothing but fond memories and I'd have another if a mint standard car turned up.
BUT, they are getting rare now and they have one huge problem...Clio 172/182's are just so plentiful and cheap at the moment that I can't see why you'd not buy one over a VTR R/VTS.
Think I remember you from SSC days?VTS is fantastic little car, nothing but fond memories and I'd have another if a mint standard car turned up.
BUT, they are getting rare now and they have one huge problem...Clio 172/182's are just so plentiful and cheap at the moment that I can't see why you'd not buy one over a VTR R/VTS.
ARobinson said:
I have owned both long term.
Performance wise not really much in it between a 182 and a VTS, most vts put out 130bhp standard, most 182 about 180, there's the150kg difference spec dependent.
The 182 uses less fuel, yes seriously. Some vts will average 40-45mpg with light use if in fine fettle which few will be these days. Had a huge variation in mine and my 106 gti, between 35 and 42mpg for same commutes, same driving. Clio will consistently do 38mpg on same routes which is good!
182 servicing much more expensive and complicated. Cam belt on vts a £60 diy(or £120 with tensioners and water pump), Clio can belt is no diy by any stretch.
Clio interior admittedly much nicer in FF spec.
Saxo has proper independent trailing arms, Clio semi independent torsion beam.
Both have gearboxes made from Roquefort.
Clio admittedly safer but nowhere near as safe as 197/200.
Agree with everything there. My brother had a 172, and though I reckon the Clio would have the legs on our VTS(ish Saxo, there wasn't the huge difference 40bhp or so might suggest. But yeah, the Clio was awesome on fuel. 35-40mpg was easy, unless you cained it (which it was hard not to do).Performance wise not really much in it between a 182 and a VTS, most vts put out 130bhp standard, most 182 about 180, there's the150kg difference spec dependent.
The 182 uses less fuel, yes seriously. Some vts will average 40-45mpg with light use if in fine fettle which few will be these days. Had a huge variation in mine and my 106 gti, between 35 and 42mpg for same commutes, same driving. Clio will consistently do 38mpg on same routes which is good!
182 servicing much more expensive and complicated. Cam belt on vts a £60 diy(or £120 with tensioners and water pump), Clio can belt is no diy by any stretch.
Clio interior admittedly much nicer in FF spec.
Saxo has proper independent trailing arms, Clio semi independent torsion beam.
Both have gearboxes made from Roquefort.
Clio admittedly safer but nowhere near as safe as 197/200.
Kitchski said:
Clicked the Youtube link above and never realised how many Saxo VTS-related road tests there are on there:
Top Gear GTi v.s Fiesta Zetec S and Corsa SRi pt1.
Top Gear GTi v.s Fiesta Zetec S and Corsa SRi pt1.
Old Top Gear with young Clarkson vs. 106 GTi, Punto GT and a Polo of some sort
Richard Hammond in a previous life comparing a VTS to a Caterham!
Old Top Gear - Tiff vs. VBH in Clio 172/Saxo VTS track dual
some good vids there , cheers !Top Gear GTi v.s Fiesta Zetec S and Corsa SRi pt1.
Top Gear GTi v.s Fiesta Zetec S and Corsa SRi pt1.
Old Top Gear with young Clarkson vs. 106 GTi, Punto GT and a Polo of some sort
Richard Hammond in a previous life comparing a VTS to a Caterham!
Old Top Gear - Tiff vs. VBH in Clio 172/Saxo VTS track dual
man that car can corner !
love my 205 gti's but they are expensive now ...and these things look like they are faster and corner just as well ?
This brings back some memories!! Some very good ones and some not so good...
I had a mk1 facelift new in 1998 and the car entertained and frustrated in equal measures, I loved the handling and the agility but the fact it used to blow the end off the lambda probe every so often and the electrics where a nightmare!! I drove it to Bristol to view a Lotus Carlton(it was a dog) and the alarm kept going off and the doors unlocked and locked themselves about a million times. Aaarrgh!! I missed my AX GT mk2 more than that car...
I had a mk1 facelift new in 1998 and the car entertained and frustrated in equal measures, I loved the handling and the agility but the fact it used to blow the end off the lambda probe every so often and the electrics where a nightmare!! I drove it to Bristol to view a Lotus Carlton(it was a dog) and the alarm kept going off and the doors unlocked and locked themselves about a million times. Aaarrgh!! I missed my AX GT mk2 more than that car...
paulmaurice99 said:
Mine (a relatively humble VTR - though the difference between the VTR and the VTS was very similar to the difference between 8v and 16v Golf, ie. not very much unless you had the space to push past 5k rpm in every gear)
Ahh, the standard denial of VTR owners!!There was about 2 seconds difference in the 0-60 dash. Not much indeed.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff