RE: Shed Of The Week: Citroen Saxo VTR
Discussion
The rear looks okay, the front doesn't though.
Actually I've now looked at more of the dealer's photos and teh nearside rear ride height looks off too. Never mind, 1 correct wheel out of 4 isn't too bad.
The interior; are those coloured plastic surrounds standard? I would say not.
Actually I've now looked at more of the dealer's photos and teh nearside rear ride height looks off too. Never mind, 1 correct wheel out of 4 isn't too bad.
The interior; are those coloured plastic surrounds standard? I would say not.
Edited by DrSteveBrule on Friday 10th March 11:05
Nanook said:
Kitchski said:
They're 15's, and that is standard ride height. They always look like they're on stilts on 15's, even the VTS wheels.
You think so?Standard:
This one:
Your right about the wheels, they even have the appropriate size tyres on, the 45 profiles. So why do those 2 pictures look so different?
Dark blue one looks really good actually
DoubleTime said:
Also, the mk1 golf gti's 1.6 8v made c. 108 bhp in something like 1902, so how in the name of zeus butthole does the same sized engine made 5 zillion years later not only not match the performance, but generates less?
It's deliberate. If it was any more powerful, the insurance would have been out of reach (it was grp. 7 when launched, which was very cheap. VTS was grp. 14, by comparison).Also, weren't there mk3 Golf 1.6's kicking around with 75bhp? It's just a lower state of tune. The engine in a Saxo VTR isn't sporty at all, it's just a normal engine. Even the VTS engine isn't exactly running at full capacity.
Another way to look at it is the 106 Rallye 1.3. That had 100bhp, from a 1300cc engine (also a TU engine, like the Saxo). A late mk3 Polo GT had what, 75bhp? It all depends how much effort they make. VTR only had 90bhp because they deemed it to only need around 90bhp, not because that's all they could muster.
As has been said. I agree with the sentiment of shed’s recollection of these cars but to me this looks like some ‘yoof has had a front end bump and has decided to pass the car on. He’s taken the twin exhaust off and passed on to his mate, and left the naff looking wheels as he either couldn’t sell them on, or didn’t have the originals.
Yes. An unmolested one of these would be a nice shed. This is not that car.
I recall a Nitrous Oxide one not too long back on SOTW which whilst was very much molested, had clearly had a lot of thought and £s spent on it making it infinitely better than this pile of turd.
Yes. An unmolested one of these would be a nice shed. This is not that car.
I recall a Nitrous Oxide one not too long back on SOTW which whilst was very much molested, had clearly had a lot of thought and £s spent on it making it infinitely better than this pile of turd.
Blackpuddin said:
Kitchski said:
the VTS is still available at shed money
They're well hidden then, having looked at Autotrader and ebay I could only find one very grotty looking 'not with a long bargepole' example. https://www.motoringresearch.com/car-news/opinion/...
Kitchski said:
Blackpuddin said:
Kitchski said:
the VTS is still available at shed money
They're well hidden then, having looked at Autotrader and ebay I could only find one very grotty looking 'not with a long bargepole' example. https://www.motoringresearch.com/car-news/opinion/...
Blackpuddin said:
Kitchski said:
Blackpuddin said:
Kitchski said:
the VTS is still available at shed money
They're well hidden then, having looked at Autotrader and ebay I could only find one very grotty looking 'not with a long bargepole' example. https://www.motoringresearch.com/car-news/opinion/...
I love these, but not this one. Its been chavved to within an inch of its life then hastily (and cheaply) returned to as standard as possible. Whats going on with the horrific trim on the dash?
I had one of these in 2002 as my first 'performance' car. I loved it. I spent far too many hours experimenting with lift off oversteer on damp roundabouts. Lovely.
I had one of these in 2002 as my first 'performance' car. I loved it. I spent far too many hours experimenting with lift off oversteer on damp roundabouts. Lovely.
Nanook said:
The standard front springs on a VTR/VTS are in the order of 120lb/in, and having removed and replaced a few VTR/VTS engines in the my time, there's basically f
k all in it. It's all in the heads, and there's not much there.
1.1 springs were a bit softer, but longer free length, so it would potentially sit higher. There's definitely something off about it.
I know the VTR we have not sits a bit lower with the VTS engine in, but never actually mentioned how much it was.k all in it. It's all in the heads, and there's not much there.1.1 springs were a bit softer, but longer free length, so it would potentially sit higher. There's definitely something off about it.
Now I look more at that side pic, the front does look a bit high. Back looks as expected IMO, but perhaps the nearside wheel is up on a bump, causing the offside to droop slightly?
This is the first time that when looking through the MOT history of a car I've found years when it's failed to pass twice in a row before passing 3rd time. And not just once, not just twice, not even 3 times, but 4 separate years it failed two MOTs in a row! How the hell do you go away from an MOT with a list of failure items and then go back for a re-test with the same failures?
I was going to say that it's sitting too high, but after looking at Google images I'm not so sure. It's not exactly easy to find pics of a new totally OE VTR though! You'd think there'd be original press photos, road tests etc, but my search skills are failing me today. But there were a few, and the height seems to match. But as others have said, I'm going with the theory that this has lived a life of chavvery and was once slammed, and has had to be returned to a more normal height to make it sellable. Failure items on last years MOT means it HAS had some suspension work done. Now whether it has been done properly and to the correct OE height is another matter, and it would hardly be surprising if they've bunged on some second hand base model struts and springs and then adjusted the beam up to match (well, I say match, but it looks bit higher to me, giving the car a bit of forward rake).
I was going to say that it's sitting too high, but after looking at Google images I'm not so sure. It's not exactly easy to find pics of a new totally OE VTR though! You'd think there'd be original press photos, road tests etc, but my search skills are failing me today. But there were a few, and the height seems to match. But as others have said, I'm going with the theory that this has lived a life of chavvery and was once slammed, and has had to be returned to a more normal height to make it sellable. Failure items on last years MOT means it HAS had some suspension work done. Now whether it has been done properly and to the correct OE height is another matter, and it would hardly be surprising if they've bunged on some second hand base model struts and springs and then adjusted the beam up to match (well, I say match, but it looks bit higher to me, giving the car a bit of forward rake).
I like a quick French hatch as much as (probably more than) the next guy, but my preferences are definitely Peugeot and Renaultsport oriented.
Can't really get excited about a saxo. Not even a VTS.
A friend had a 1.4 'quicksilver' for years. Repeatedly broken into. Lots of bits went wrong. Not that nice to drive.
Can't really get excited about a saxo. Not even a VTS.
A friend had a 1.4 'quicksilver' for years. Repeatedly broken into. Lots of bits went wrong. Not that nice to drive.
Not sure whether it's actually "good" but a friend had one of these back in the day, and I borrowed it for a trip to Edinburgh for a reason I forget. It felt fast as f*ck and sort of go-karty by comparison to my then-usual Mondeo, even though it actually wasn't. I'd not like to have had a crash in one, though, part of the reason it felt fast as f*ck and sort of go-karty seemed to be it being made of tinfoil.
Kitchski said:
Now I look more at that side pic, the front does look a bit high. Back looks as expected IMO, but perhaps the nearside wheel is up on a bump, causing the offside to droop slightly?
NS photo makes the back look higher than the front (and rear arch gap looks bigger than the OS). The OS photo makes the front look higher than the back. Entirely possible it's just the uneven ground though.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff