Citroen Saxo VTS now Insurance Group 7...

[Conor D]

I don't know if this is big enough news to anyone.. But they seem to be a very popular enough track/weekend car. They used to be Group 14, but I was informed that a couple of companies have now classed them as Group 7. I got a quote for one on Axa Direct, and the price was just slightly higher than it was for a Group 6 Honda.

Yet another option for a summer toy..

[Defcon5]

Are you sure? The VTR is group 7

[2fster]

The news hasn't reached Parkers yet - they've still got VTR in 7 and VTS in 14.

[anonymous-user]

Its probably due to the reshuffle insurance group rating have had, its just taking time to filter in.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/insurance/car/article...

[Defcon5]

champ54321 said:

Its probably due to the reshuffle insurance group rating have had, its just taking time to filter in.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/insurance/car/article...

If that were the case it would go up. I reckon its down to the computer system that the OPs insurance companies use - it is lumping the VTR and VTS together as the same car

[Conor D]

Defcon5 said:

Are you sure? The VTR is group 7

Apparently it's right enough.. Hughes, Axa and the Post Office are all said to be classing the VTS as group 7..

I'll be giving them a call tomorrow though, just to double check.

[anonymous-user]

Defcon5 said:

champ54321 said:

Its probably due to the reshuffle insurance group rating have had, its just taking time to filter in.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/insurance/car/article...

If that were the case it would go up. I reckon its down to the computer system that the OPs insurance companies use - it is lumping the VTR and VTS together as the same car

You're right, i've just checked the thatcham web site and it is a 14 with the old system and 27 with the new one. The insurers system must be incorrect

http://www.thatcham.org/abigrouprating/index.jsp?p...

[ADM06]

I couldn't give less of a st if I was severely constipated.

[Pentoman]

ADM06 said:

I couldn't give less of a st if I was severely constipated.

Why not? Good car.

[ADM06]

Pentoman said:

ADM06 said:

I couldn't give less of a st if I was severely constipated.

Why not? Good car.

I'm just having a laugh.
When I came out of the cinema earlier there was about five of them round the back, full of pimply 17 year olds and banging 'choons.

[ScottishSamurai]

ADM06 said:

Pentoman said:

ADM06 said:

I couldn't give less of a st if I was severely constipated.

Why not? Good car.

I'm just having a laugh.
When I came out of the cinema earlier there was about five of them round the back, full of pimply 17 year olds and banging 'choons.

Fantastic, I've seen several Ferrari 360/F430s driven like bellends and many are owned by footballer types, still want one though.


Grow up

[Pentoman]

I think 95% of chavs are in VTRs which inferior to the VTS. Is it just the engine that's different - anyone know?

[Silvester21]

Pentoman said:

I think 95% of chavs are in VTRs which inferior to the VTS. Is it just the engine that's different - anyone know?

VTR's 8v, VTS 16v

roughly 20bhp difference!

Are you sure its changed? because the VTR is a group 7 for sure..

[Silvester21]

champ54321 said:

Its probably due to the reshuffle insurance group rating have had, its just taking time to filter in.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/insurance/car/article...

that is 3 years old news? i doubt its relevant

[iggletiggle]

Pentoman said:

I think 95% of chavs are in VTRs which inferior to the VTS. Is it just the engine that's different - anyone know?

as silvester said.. different engine

Slightly different (stiffer) rear suspension, ABS as standard also

There was a batch of VTS models that left the factory with around 135bhp (2001-2002 model IIRC) as well..

[CampDavid]

iggletiggle said:

Pentoman said:

I think 95% of chavs are in VTRs which inferior to the VTS. Is it just the engine that's different - anyone know?

as silvester said.. different engine

Slightly different (stiffer) rear suspension, ABS as standard also

There was a batch of VTS models that left the factory with around 135bhp (2001-2002 model IIRC) as well..

Suspension is identical and the 2001 "130bhp model" is a bit of fiction really, though it did get a few improvements in the head in late 2000 before a new environmentally superior ECU came in in March 2001. Most VTS' make more than 120bhp out of the box, the engine is a total peach.

The big difference with the VTS is actually the gearbox. The VTR is hampered by long gearing while the ratios in the VTS (bar second, which is a touch long for that good 0-60 time) are perfect. An example with fast road cams will pull well from 20mph through to 98mph, which is really quite surprising.

Other bits on the VTs over the VTR are ABS, a passenger airbag and side bags after March 2001 and massive road tax (£245 a year)

[Shropshiremike]

CampDavid said:

iggletiggle said:

Pentoman said:

I think 95% of chavs are in VTRs which inferior to the VTS. Is it just the engine that's different - anyone know?

as silvester said.. different engine

Slightly different (stiffer) rear suspension, ABS as standard also

There was a batch of VTS models that left the factory with around 135bhp (2001-2002 model IIRC) as well..

Suspension is identical and the 2001 "130bhp model" is a bit of fiction really, though it did get a few improvements in the head in late 2000 before a new environmentally superior ECU came in in March 2001. Most VTS' make more than 120bhp out of the box, the engine is a total peach.

The big difference with the VTS is actually the gearbox. The VTR is hampered by long gearing while the ratios in the VTS (bar second, which is a touch long for that good 0-60 time) are perfect. An example with fast road cams will pull well from 20mph through to 98mph, which is really quite surprising.

Other bits on the VTs over the VTR are ABS, a passenger airbag and side bags after March 2001 and massive road tax (£245 a year)

Could you get split/fold rears on the VTR ( or was it an option )?

[iggletiggle]

CampDavid said:

iggletiggle said:

Pentoman said:

I think 95% of chavs are in VTRs which inferior to the VTS. Is it just the engine that's different - anyone know?

as silvester said.. different engine

Slightly different (stiffer) rear suspension, ABS as standard also

There was a batch of VTS models that left the factory with around 135bhp (2001-2002 model IIRC) as well..

Suspension is identical and the 2001 "130bhp model" is a bit of fiction really, though it did get a few improvements in the head in late 2000 before a new environmentally superior ECU came in in March 2001. Most VTS' make more than 120bhp out of the box, the engine is a total peach.

The big difference with the VTS is actually the gearbox. The VTR is hampered by long gearing while the ratios in the VTS (bar second, which is a touch long for that good 0-60 time) are perfect. An example with fast road cams will pull well from 20mph through to 98mph, which is really quite surprising.

Other bits on the VTs over the VTR are ABS, a passenger airbag and side bags after March 2001 and massive road tax (£245 a year)

Doesnt the VTS have a thicker anti roll bar (23mm i thought? where as the VTR is only a 21mm?)

and that clears up the increased power models.. thanks

[Shropshiremike]

iggletiggle said:

CampDavid said:

iggletiggle said:

Pentoman said:

I think 95% of chavs are in VTRs which inferior to the VTS. Is it just the engine that's different - anyone know?

as silvester said.. different engine

Slightly different (stiffer) rear suspension, ABS as standard also

There was a batch of VTS models that left the factory with around 135bhp (2001-2002 model IIRC) as well..

Suspension is identical and the 2001 "130bhp model" is a bit of fiction really, though it did get a few improvements in the head in late 2000 before a new environmentally superior ECU came in in March 2001. Most VTS' make more than 120bhp out of the box, the engine is a total peach.

The big difference with the VTS is actually the gearbox. The VTR is hampered by long gearing while the ratios in the VTS (bar second, which is a touch long for that good 0-60 time) are perfect. An example with fast road cams will pull well from 20mph through to 98mph, which is really quite surprising.

Other bits on the VTs over the VTR are ABS, a passenger airbag and side bags after March 2001 and massive road tax (£245 a year)

Doesnt the VTS have a thicker anti roll bar (23mm i thought? where as the VTR is only a 21mm?)

and that clears up the increased power models.. thanks

At one time the 106Gti had a thicker rear arb than the same MY VTS. Not sure if the later VTS got it

[CampDavid]

iggletiggle said:

CampDavid said:

iggletiggle said:

Pentoman said:

I think 95% of chavs are in VTRs which inferior to the VTS. Is it just the engine that's different - anyone know?

as silvester said.. different engine

Slightly different (stiffer) rear suspension, ABS as standard also

There was a batch of VTS models that left the factory with around 135bhp (2001-2002 model IIRC) as well..

Suspension is identical and the 2001 "130bhp model" is a bit of fiction really, though it did get a few improvements in the head in late 2000 before a new environmentally superior ECU came in in March 2001. Most VTS' make more than 120bhp out of the box, the engine is a total peach.

The big difference with the VTS is actually the gearbox. The VTR is hampered by long gearing while the ratios in the VTS (bar second, which is a touch long for that good 0-60 time) are perfect. An example with fast road cams will pull well from 20mph through to 98mph, which is really quite surprising.

Other bits on the VTs over the VTR are ABS, a passenger airbag and side bags after March 2001 and massive road tax (£245 a year)

Doesnt the VTS have a thicker anti roll bar (23mm i thought? where as the VTR is only a 21mm?)

and that clears up the increased power models.. thanks

No, it doesn't, though I can certainly see why you'd think that.

The rear roll bar is a really weird variation in spec. Some get a 22mm bar, others are on 19.5mm. It appears to be totally random and none of the other suspension specs differ. Most early VTR/S get the thicker 22mm ones with late 2003 cars getting a 19.5mm bar, however when we compared my 2001 car with a mates 2003 car his had the thicker bar whereas mine was on the thin bar. Both were factory order cars two years apart (to clarify, we were swapping suspension over, we didn't just wake up one morning and decide to rip the ARBs out of our cars!

The 106 GTI had a 24mm bar and this is a fairly common mod and enhances the lift off oversteery nature of the car.