@antonyr123, Yeah i never said there were going to be quicker! VTS's are alot quicker as they have a 16v engine with 20bhp more and a different box. Well its a n/a 1.6 its not gonna be stupidly quick unless forced induction was used! Its not as fast as alot of cars in a straight line but the 106 gti (which is the same chassis as the VTR/VTS) was voted second best handling in some top gear episode and it was against ferraris and shit. handling > power (where i live anyways)
I am to please :) Truth is I have nothing against any car when it comes out of the factory (even cheapo french stuff), but people seem to try and convince themselves that these cars are fast and are for racing etc.... Its the type of car your mum buys.....
saxo vts is quicker than crx on 400m about 2 cars ahead.this has to do with the better gearbox of the saxo.crx gears are to "long".we always talk about unmodified cars;)
That is vts 16 120, or 90? Seems 120 bhp version. 8.9 secs 0-100, seems quite slow, claimed 7.7... I think there are people that do it quicker, more similar to claimed figure, even measured with Draggy in not engine tuned cars
I don't agree with you. CRX EE8 has shorter gears ratio: 1st-3.250,2nd-2.052,3rd-1.416 ...and final reduction 4.133 or 4.250 in EF specification. I think the B series naturally aspirated engines from HONDA are more "developmental" than 1.6 from saxo. BLANCHE RACING CRX B16 did 10.2ET with 280whp
@LIP15, Stop chatting shit. 170bhp in a 920kg car is overkill for most road users not only does it increase insurance prices and fuel prices by having forced induction but it also will increase the amount of fatalities caused by having too much power in a car that weighs practically nothing. There cheap, nippy and great handling cars full stop.
hahaha Its not that I dont like Saxo's I rem test driving a VTS when they first came out, and it was very nippy but all the chavs were lining up too so I walked I have just come hate their image, people chat on threads like this about 0-60 times and their handling etc... when its the type of car your mum buys! Everytime I see a VTR its always being driven erratically by some twat with a baseball cap on who thinks hes Schumacher because hes got 87bhp! the C2 has gone the same way to twatville
Its OK in German I will translate for you: 0:29 This velour interior is typical of the French, its plasticy and crap! 0:37 This car was designed for 17's yr olds, dwarves and your mother. Real men cant fit behind the wheel even with the seat adjusted 1:06 When you thrash the nuts off it and change gear as if your Schumacher you'll still get beaten by a Mondeo 2:12 Buying this chav car means your required to permanently drive up someones arse as Demonstrated here 3:04 Dont bother, buy Audi
its times like these when i wish i lived in europe
this citroen has like amazing handling for a front-drive car WOW.
Getting a Saxo VTS Special Swiss Edition with a Compressor ! 6.3 sec 0-100 In 2016 ! My first car guys! I'm so in love! :D
Darko Hugo nice car but it was a widowmaker
And me 5.9 with 140hp and 13.59 gearbox ..
Classic CZcams video from 2006. Amazing 😊
that is pretty good.
I love hot hatchbacks, economical, good handling, brakes and performance, affordable prices.
Great test, great car and great driver. :)
El saxo y su suspensión genial lo amo
great car!
phase 1 VTSs had those wheels on it, the phase 2 had the ones you're thinking of.
Saxos rule!
My vtr got 14s
my phase 2 has those wheels too
I agree with you. Saxo VTS has better acceleration than poor 8,9s
@antonyr123, Yeah i never said there were going to be quicker! VTS's are alot quicker as they have a 16v engine with 20bhp more and a different box. Well its a n/a 1.6 its not gonna be stupidly quick unless forced induction was used! Its not as fast as alot of cars in a straight line but the 106 gti (which is the same chassis as the VTR/VTS) was voted second best handling in some top gear episode and it was against ferraris and shit. handling > power (where i live anyways)
@Testostrone250 Yeah, i thought it was 7.6 secs aswell :s
I have saxo 1.6 VTS stock it runs 7.6-100 sec, my friend have the same car, and it runs also 7.6 +-0.1 sec. Measured by G-tech SS.
@Y0RKSHRE ah i see, i have driven them before and they do seem quicker, never timed it though, 0-60 is so good because of the longer ratio 2nd gear
dich means 'you'
@WillJPalmer haha hardly, as apposed to a ford puma or vauxhall tigra, or do oyu have one of them ^_^
loving saxo
specialy mine
oder so ähnlich
@deviljamez 0-60 in my VTS, and i would say all VTS's is much lower than that, easily less than 7 seconds..
yep, I agree with druide106. these cars don't need more than 8 sec from 0-100 for sure...
the first ever VTS' had the pepper pot style alloys
😊😉
vts mate. Phase 1 VTS had the same wheels as Phase 1 VTR. The Phase 2 VTS has different wheels but the Phase 2 VTR has the same wheels as the Phase 1.
I am to please :)
Truth is I have nothing against any car when it comes out of the factory (even cheapo french stuff), but people seem to try and convince themselves that these cars are fast and are for racing etc....
Its the type of car your mum buys.....
it's VTS 16V, just look at the engine.
Será el 90 cv
agreed!
Wow 11 years jajajaja
Its actually a VTS mate look at the engine, it has VTR wheels on it though
these 90's cars looked realy good, what the fuck did they do with the C2 it looks likes a fuckin post mans van
isnt that a VTR? has the VTR alloys no?
Dimonmmc
true!!!:D
saxo vts is quicker than crx on 400m about 2 cars ahead.this has to do with the better gearbox of the saxo.crx gears are to "long".we always talk about unmodified cars;)
8.9 secs 0-60, my vtr mk2 will do it in 9.4 secs , not fast i know but not much difference between 8v and 16v :S
just a great chassis, a car with 100hp less than the S3 being only a few tenths of a second slower
Well, I would be expecting even more difference that that, given the tight corners of that test. Big power is virtually useless in that kind of track
That is vts 16 120, or 90? Seems 120 bhp version. 8.9 secs 0-100, seems quite slow, claimed 7.7... I think there are people that do it quicker, more similar to claimed figure, even measured with Draggy in not engine tuned cars
heheh well enough for this vid
+1 my stock 1.6 VTS `00 7.6/100 tested by G-Tec
My dad just gave me his 2002 saxo vts
Then, does that mean that the UK is NOT part of Europe?
@rumble291 vtr are still slower then vts no matter how u look at it lol
since when was 8.9 seconds worth talking about
faster than a trashmerican Corvette, enough said!
You clearly didnt grasp the sarcastic nature of my post
0-100 8.9 ????
Yes why??
nah you should just read the info.
I don't agree with you. CRX EE8 has shorter gears ratio: 1st-3.250,2nd-2.052,3rd-1.416 ...and final reduction 4.133 or 4.250 in EF specification. I think the B series naturally aspirated engines from HONDA are more "developmental" than 1.6 from saxo. BLANCHE RACING CRX B16 did 10.2ET with 280whp
If its fast, cheap and handles how can you complain.
Are you sure??? honda CRX also has 1.6 NA, but CRX is lighter and faster than saxo VTS. D16a9 have 130hp or b16a with 160hp...
@LIP15, Stop chatting shit. 170bhp in a 920kg car is overkill for most road users not only does it increase insurance prices and fuel prices by having forced induction but it also will increase the amount of fatalities caused by having too much power in a car that weighs practically nothing. There cheap, nippy and great handling cars full stop.
my mk2 vtr does 0-60 in 8.8 seconds with 3 people in the car....
Moose test Peugeot 307
Guys from motorvision ought to learn how to start correctly...
/watch?v=6y1zebGeGXU
bass riders
hahaha Its not that I dont like Saxo's
I rem test driving a VTS when they first came out, and it was very nippy but all the chavs were lining up too so I walked
I have just come hate their image, people chat on threads like this about 0-60 times and their handling etc... when its the type of car your mum buys! Everytime I see a VTR its always being driven erratically by some twat with a baseball cap on who thinks hes Schumacher because hes got 87bhp!
the C2 has gone the same way to twatville
@LIP15, tu ne sais pas de quoi tu parle...
corsa is car for tiny girls,
this is a vtr not a vts. Look at the alloys
Look at engine bay pal
lol
0-100 in 8,9sec???? what a bullshit, I never saw a Saxo/106 wich need over 8sec!! all cars were faster than 7,5-7,9sec stock!
your german isn't too well eh????
mate you havent even got the slightest clue what your on about
Mir juckt mein Saxo
Its OK in German I will translate for you:
0:29 This velour interior is typical of the French, its plasticy and crap!
0:37 This car was designed for 17's yr olds, dwarves and your mother. Real men cant fit behind the wheel even with the seat adjusted
1:06 When you thrash the nuts off it and change gear as if your Schumacher you'll still get beaten by a Mondeo
2:12 Buying this chav car means your required to permanently drive up someones arse as Demonstrated here
3:04 Dont bother, buy Audi