RE: Vauxhall Insignia VXR Supersport | Spotted
RE: Vauxhall Insignia VXR Supersport | Spotted
Today

Vauxhall Insignia VXR Supersport | Spotted

A 170mph bargain when new; now a lesser spotted Q-car curio for cheap


Probably a Vauxhall Insignia isn’t the first car that comes to mind when the ‘Supersport’ moniker is brought up; maybe the new Bentley would be, or the new Morgan, or anything over the decades that’s combined ‘super’ and ‘sport’ in some form over the decades. You wouldn’t be alone in thinking of the Ford Fiesta Supersport before the Vauxhall Insignia Supersport

That being said, the old VXR was nothing if not an incredible value proposition at launch in 2012. The standard hot Insignia had launched in 2009, brimming with tech if not oodles of charisma. The model that followed three years later wasn’t transformatively different, however its stats were truly headline hogging. Not since the Lotus Carlton had a Vauxhall been so potent: 170mph for £29,995.

Ultimately, the Supersport was a delimit and a price drop, with no more power than a standard VXR, but that performance was undoubtedly a talking point. This was before a lot of the German makers would charge more to take limiters off, so from the factory they were stuck at 155, with this hotted up repmobile ranking with Maseratis and Bentleys as one of the fastest four doors in the world. It meant a day on PH in 2012, too, where the £30k six-cylinder hatch being talked about wasn’t the M135i… 

Even all these years later, and with that £30k now the best part of £45k in today’s money, the VXR would sound like decent value. Obviously not as sharp to drive or as fast as something like a Golf R, but spacious, smart looking, and still with more than 300hp. Those who miss buttons would absolutely get their fix in an Insignia, too. 

Because the Supersport didn’t change a great deal, the Insignia VXR didn’t sell in huge numbers. As when the (much worse) Vectra equivalent existed, people didn’t want their speedy saloon (or hatch or estate) to have a Griffin on the front. Which seems a bit of a shame, variety being the spice of life and all that. A decade on from the end of production, you never, ever see them.

This Supersport is notable as an actual four-door saloon (note no rear wiper), a fittingly old school version of what was always quite a traditional fast family car. Furthermore this one has been with just one owner since first registration in 2013, who’s covered fewer than 40,000 miles in that time. And kept it serviced on time, too. They must have been one of those people swayed by the value proposition, and it would appear their enthusiasm for such a niche machine is reflected in the condition: there’s really not a mark on it. What seemed to be blemishes on this screen were instead remnants of lunch. Even the sculpted Recaros are in good shape. Those after an automatic saloon with a turn of pace and fine motorway manners could surely do a whole lot worse - particularly at just £12,995. 


SPECIFICATION | VAUXHALL INSIGNIA VXR SUPERSPORT

Engine: 2,792cc V6, turbocharged
Transmission: 6-speed automatic, four-wheel drive
Power (hp): 325@5,250rpm
Torque (lb ft): 321@5,250rpm
MPG: 26.7
CO2: 249g/km
First registered: 2013
Recorded mileage: 39,000
Price new: £29,995
Yours for: £12,995

See the original advert

Author
Discussion

RedLightGreenLight

Original Poster:

269 posts

50 months

Fairly priced but dull as ditch water styling

FourGears

369 posts

81 months

Oof a saloon as well.

Shame it's an auto.

Get a remap to sort the midrange out.

Lincsls1

3,980 posts

166 months

This will be a great car.

GreatScott2016

2,381 posts

114 months

RedLightGreenLight said:
Fairly priced but dull as ditch water styling
Compared to modern stuff, I’m not so sure that the styling is that bad smile

NGK210

4,752 posts

171 months

A 2.8-litre V6 turbo that only produces 325hp?
Were these engines just very primitive or deliberately under-stressed?
Shurley a mild remap could yield an extra 50hp and 60lb-ft, or would it start bending rods and melting the autobox / diffs / driveshafts?

Andy86GT

977 posts

91 months

These must be incredibly rare as they would have been monumental BiK tax as a company car and virtually no-one bought Insignias privately.
I remember James May quite liked it (the regular VXR), claiming it to be the first "de-chaved" VXR;


Flyingakite

133 posts

1 month

NGK210 said:
A 2.8-litre V6 turbo that only produces 325hp?
Were these engines just very primitive or deliberately under-stressed?
Shurley a mild remap could yield an extra 50hp and 60lb-ft, or would it start bending rods and melting the autobox / diffs / driveshafts?
I think there were. Limiting factors of drivetrain if I remember.

These are top sleeper cars you can take anywhere.

Stu0302

50 posts

16 months

NGK210 said:
A 2.8-litre V6 turbo that only produces 325hp?
Were these engines just very primitive or deliberately under-stressed?
Shurley a mild remap could yield an extra 50hp and 60lb-ft, or would it start bending rods and melting the autobox / diffs / driveshafts?
I don't think that's too bad - my 2017 BMW 540i produces 335 hp from a 3.0 straight 6 turbo (B58).

I've actually always liked this version of the Insignia - especially in VXR saloon form.

cerb4.5lee

42,730 posts

206 months

170mph seems a bit too quick for me, and I'd rather be pegged back at a 112mph instead in something like a modern Volvo! hehe

Joking aside, I've always had a bit of a soft spot for these for sure.

Its Just Adz

18,290 posts

235 months

I seem to remember reviews at the time actually said these were quite decent. Or am I imagining that??

Either way, one would really have to want it to spend £13k on it.

cerb4.5lee

42,730 posts

206 months

Its Just Adz said:
I seem to remember reviews at the time actually said these were quite decent. Or am I imagining that??

Either way, one would really have to want it to spend £13k on it.
I think they were well regarded in their day as you say, but I thought £13k was a bit toppy as well to be honest.

kambites

71,030 posts

247 months

I don't think it's bad value for money when looked at objectively, but I still struggle to see who would actually buy it given the running costs it's realistically going to have and the lack of snob appeal.

CarlosSainz100

702 posts

146 months

It's a shame it's white and not that lovely blue colour they did.

MDMA .

10,400 posts

127 months

CarlosSainz100 said:
It's a shame it's white and not that lovely blue colour they did.
Arden Blue estate would be my choice too.

Bluehorseshoe

28 posts

1 month

Are these not 709 plus tax which is a bit of a kickers when a 2017 car would be £200

Turbobanana

8,131 posts

227 months

NGK210 said:
A 2.8-litre V6 turbo that only produces 325hp?
Were these engines just very primitive or deliberately under-stressed?
Shurley a mild remap could yield an extra 50hp and 60lb-ft, or would it start bending rods and melting the autobox / diffs / driveshafts?
Lat's have a think, shall we?

- Manufacturers do things different ways, resulting in different outcomes
- Manufacturers are as concerned with longevity as they are specific output
- Limitations of available running gear impose constraints on output
- Not every driver is Lewis Hamilton
- Emissions becomes a factor
- Product planners secretly hope they might get the opportunity to produce something more powerful later
- As someone else has pointed out, this engine compares relatively well with the opposition (BMW was the example), so why make it any more powerful?
- At a contemporary list price of £29,995, engineers obviously had a budget to work to: you could get more power if you made it from unobtanium, but then it wouldn't be £29.995, would it?
- In most markets, 170mph is about 100mph over the national speed limit so why do you need more power to go faster?

Take it to extremes: F1 engineers manage 1,000bhp from 1.6 litres. Top fuel dragsters make 10-12,000bhp from ~8 litres, if only for 1/4 mile at a time. Both would be utterly useless in a four door saloon, although I'd love to see the looks on the faces of SUV-driving school mums if you picked up little Johnny in a top fuel dragster.


SE2

434 posts

162 months

That first Insignia is a lovely looking design, IMO. The facelift really added the finishing touches, and I'm a fan of those Atomic wheels they did.

The VXR on the other hand, has never done anything for me, although I think the grille is better than the standard one.

stuart100

1,118 posts

83 months

Turbobanana said:
NGK210 said:
A 2.8-litre V6 turbo that only produces 325hp?
Were these engines just very primitive or deliberately under-stressed?
Shurley a mild remap could yield an extra 50hp and 60lb-ft, or would it start bending rods and melting the autobox / diffs / driveshafts?
Lat's have a think, shall we?

- Manufacturers do things different ways, resulting in different outcomes
- Manufacturers are as concerned with longevity as they are specific output
- Limitations of available running gear impose constraints on output
- Not every driver is Lewis Hamilton
- Emissions becomes a factor
- Product planners secretly hope they might get the opportunity to produce something more powerful later
- As someone else has pointed out, this engine compares relatively well with the opposition (BMW was the example), so why make it any more powerful?
- At a contemporary list price of £29,995, engineers obviously had a budget to work to: you could get more power if you made it from unobtanium, but then it wouldn't be £29.995, would it?
- In most markets, 170mph is about 100mph over the national speed limit so why do you need more power to go faster?

Take it to extremes: F1 engineers manage 1,000bhp from 1.6 litres. Top fuel dragsters make 10-12,000bhp from ~8 litres, if only for 1/4 mile at a time. Both would be utterly useless in a four door saloon, although I'd love to see the looks on the faces of SUV-driving school mums if you picked up little Johnny in a top fuel dragster.
I am currently in east Germany. Driven all the way across it in my E93 M3. I can say over the many hundreds of miles on this trip alone I am by some margin the fastest thing on it driving at around 120-130 mph. I’ve touched the limiter at an indicated 160 mph a few times when there’s been some space. But no one needs more than a 155mph anyway unless driving at really quiet hours.

el romeral

2,012 posts

163 months

Tremendous value for a car this capable. Relatively new, low mileage, spacious and looks good too. Former long term Vectra V6 owner here, so I am all in. This must be something of a rocket ship.

kambites

71,030 posts

247 months

stuart100 said:
I am currently in east Germany. Driven all the way across it in my E93 M3. I can say over the many hundreds of miles on this trip alone I am by some margin the fastest thing on it driving at around 120-130 mph. I ve touched the limiter at an indicated 160 mph a few times when there s been some space. But no one needs more than a 155mph anyway unless driving at really quiet hours.
yes Even in Germany, I think a top speed of about 120 is beyond adequate as long as the limit is electronic rather than being where power finally loses the battle against drag. Petrolheads in the UK seem to have this idea that everyone drives at 100+ on the Autobahn but in my experience it's just not true.

From what I've seen, if you drive at 90mph on a derestricted Autobahn, you'll be in the fastest 10% of traffic and at 110mph you'll be easily in the fastest 1%.