182 V's saxo VTS modded(i hope)

[Ian_182]

Had a race on a private runway yesterday and all i can say is wow.
I saw this saxo closing up on me in traffic.As it got closer it was silver on a R plate.The number plate was moved over to the side of the car and it looked low.I thought oh heres another chaved up saxo who wants some...
I moved up and overtook a couple of cars and he was right behind me and as we came to an island he was all over me.We exited an island and i floored it in 2nd.I had the initial launch and left a small gap,as we got close to 3 figures he literally zoomed up behind to overtake but traffic held us up.
This carried on for a couple of miles and whatever i did he just kept coming and was much faster than me in all the straights we were on.I gave a nod as we went our seperate ways and he gave a flash.
All i can think is this was turbo'd ,the speed he caught up was something like a subaru would do
Fair play to the sleeping saxo is all can say.This was in telford if anyone knows the car

ian

 

[makavelli]

vts' are nippy little beasts as standard cos they weigh fook all!
a few tweaks in the engine and exhaust department and he could well be all over you! probably not turbo'ed tho

 

[RobHardyUK]

prob supercharged. loadsa people have the gmc conversion on them. the produce 185 bhp typically. so power to weight is very good. there nippy as standard though.

 

[cK]

I've raced a quick civic jordan around Telford. The pull in my car was a lot better than his, I got lengths in-front but my suspension let me down as I had it too stiff and when I hit about a ton 20 on the start of the EP I went over a bump and almost jarred my back. Had to slow down and he turned off but at one point he was right on my bumper.

Sound's like that saxo was heavily modded.

 

[Tom_E]

must of been well modded?! ermmm:S

 

[Mike_SE]

not necessarily. must have had a few bits done, but they are fast in standard form anyway!

 

[Mike-bham]

They are pretty quick!

Private runway, with traffic lights and an island... wow I want one lol

 

[Chris1.4RT]

My old X reg VTS was rapid. To be honest I think it was quicker than my 172. I remember having a few tussles with 172s and one with a Cup, I was all over the Cup (surprisingly) and the 172's were not much trouble.

Sure not everyone can make the most out of their car but the VTS is a rapid motor in the right hands. Some of them were stupid quick out of the box. Wasn't it Craggy's who's was a bit of a freak performance wise?

 

[gazcaddy]

My old X reg VTS was rapid. To be honest I think it was quicker than my 172. I remember having a few tussles with 172s and one with a Cup, I was all over the Cup (surprisingly) and the 172's were not much trouble.

Sure not everyone can make the most out of their car but the VTS is a rapid motor in the right hands. Some of them were stupid quick out of the box. Wasn't it Craggy's who's was a bit of a freak performance wise?

they are close in performance but the 172/182 should have the edge over 60 with more bhp. I remeber seeing a video (may have been top gear) and the 172 was a fair bit quicker in a straight line, i guess it all comes down to whether you get a good or a bad engine and driver ability

 

[fungusman]

yeah what you gotta remember is that although they are similar cars.. if the person driving them is either a good driver or mad.. he will keep up.. or overtake..

 

[Martin]

Wasn't it Craggy's who's was a bit of a freak performance wise?

Yup....14.6@94mph with zorst & filter anyone? That will beat most 172/182s out there.

 

[Neil G]

Still a Saxo at the end of the day...it could be as fast as the Millennium Falcon for all I care

 

[gazcaddy]

Yup....14.6@94mph with zorst & filter anyone? That will beat most 172/182s out there.

thats impressive, i once read a mag and it had 0-100 for a VTS in about 22secs clearly the one in question here is a damn site quicker than that!

 

[Guy]

theyre very under rated cars.

they weigh just over 900kg, and often produce 130+bhp out the box.

craggys was a very fast one.

cams, induction kit, exhaust, and remap will take it to circa 160bhp and 140lbft of torque...
strip it out and its down to about 870kg. you got a quick motor

supercharge/turbo them and theyre generally 200bhp AT THE WHEELS (240bhp ish) and theres a 6 speed one out there thats 300bhp.

VTRs supercharged are roughly around 180/190bhp at the fly.

 

[freefly]

I used to have a VTS and im hard pushed to tell the difference between that and the 182.

it pulled 120.0bhp bang on with a back box fitted on a Dynodynamics rolling road.

I loved it to bits, sometimes wish i still had that.

 

[Guy]

but they are totally different cars..

the only bit of luxury in a vts is electric windows and wingmirrors.

 

[Chris1.4RT]

Yeah but they do exactly what it says on the tin; cheap, fast, fun car. Underestimated by so many fools. Like GuyS says, different cars. You're not really comparing like with like if you talk of all the interior stuff. Performance wise they are fairly well matched up to daft speeds. Round a track, nothing in it.

So what if it doesn't have creature comforts. If we were all comfort lovers we would be on a different forum not cliosport.net.

VTSs are great drivers car for what they are.

1.6 16v n/a ? Only one 1.6 n/a is faster to my knowledge. The old Civics.

 

[freefly]

but they are totally different cars..

the only bit of luxury in a vts is electric windows and wingmirrors.

it did have ABS a luxury VTR's dont have.

I think the status of clios is slightly better although not entirely perfect the VTR does seem to attract the 'wrong crowd'

 

[jayxx83]

"the only bit of luxury in a vts is electric windows and wingmirrors"

Ha Ha, yea my saxo was fun, just too flimsy, the 182 feels nice and grown up... ish! Has anyone started to go mad on tuning the 172/182? Or has everyone realised from their Saxo (and similar) days, that modding is a waste of time!?

 

[Chris1.4RT]

Still a Saxo at the end of the day...it could be as fast as the Millennium Falcon for all I care

Have you actually ever driven one? Brilliant cars. Out handle a 172 anyday. I've had a VTS and now the 172. To be honest I like the 172 as the all round car but for thrills the VTS wins hands down.

I'm not so snobby that I was ashamed to be in a Saxo. So what. More fun seeing people's reactions to it's speed. People slate the Saxo because being a cheap small car it's been chavved up by some young wannabes. So what. So have most cars. I've seen stacks of ridiculous egg-boxed up yoghurt potted Clios on here and around town. Almost makes me ashamed to have a 172 lol.

lol, I ain't having a rant at you mate just merely airing a few thoughts.

 

[doddy]

ive always liked the vtr's, but the do attract the wrong crowd.

im hopin to get a 106 gti in the near future, which is same engine as vts but supposed to handle like a go kart!

 

[Chris1.4RT]

For the record, the VTS I had came with,

Twin airbags (2002 onwards had lateral ones too)
ABS
Electric heated mirrors
Electric windows
15 inch alloys
CD player
Rear headrests.

Not the most dazzling of spec but it's not a motorway cruiser is it. I refer you to my 'cheap, fast, fun' comment.

 

[freefly]

I never really felt looked down on in my VTS if anyhting i used to feel proud the only time i used to skulk from its character was when i used to hang around with my friends with Subarus and Evo's.

I never really did anything cosmetically to it as i found it already as 'sporty' as it needed to be.

although i do find VTR's with dodge stripes on + lexus lights do lower the tone.
Fortunatley with the VTS being IG 14 it puts most of the wannabe's off.

All in all fantastic car and lots of fun. Handling felt a bit flimsy alot of the time but still was much better than alot of other cars of the same price-range.

As was said before they are what they are.

 

[Neil82]

Number plate moved over to side makes me think its got an intercooler on it.

 

[trailerparktrev]

For the record, the VTS I had came with,

Twin airbags (2002 onwards had lateral ones too)
ABS
Electric heated mirrors
Electric windows
15 inch alloys
CD player
Rear headrests.

Not the most dazzling of spec but it's not a motorway cruiser is it. I refer you to my 'cheap, fast, fun' comment.

You're forgetting the handy nets, by the side of the gear lever - you can fit two cds in each one - the joys having no glove box in a VTS.

Great car, as Chris says I don't think there's much difference, between the two. I wish I still had mine (along with my 182)

 

[Guy]

You're forgetting the handy nets, by the side of the gear lever - you can fit two cds in each one - the joys having no glove box in a VTS.

Great car, as Chris says I don't think there's much difference, between the two. I wish I still had mine (along with my 182)

standard for standard the 172/182 would win EVERYTIME..
theres no denying that

but the vts wouldnt be far behind until you get to illegal speeds.

you'll never get the amount of torque steer you get in the 182.

but for fun/£ you cant beat the vts. can pick them up for 2k nowadays..

 

[trailerparktrev]

Ah the torque steer love it, definitely a lot more aggressive in the 182, from what i recall i used to get a bit in the saxo too. I had a 2000 W plate, one of the first with teardrop headlamps.

 

[Dean]

mines a little flyer! never worried about having a blast with a 172/182 because theres not alot in it unless your on a long straight road and want to go to silly speeds

chris1.4rt knows what its all about!

and for the money u cant fault them i sold my 172 a year and half ago and got a vts as i was having a career change! dont regret it!

 

[Chris1.4RT]

GuyS, 'everytime' is not so.

That would really have to be two clone drivers one in each car with identical skills, then I'll grant you the 172 is quicker, like it is on paper.

How often do you get two identical set of circumstances? Both cars, going for it at the same moment, the same amount of traction, perfect gear changes for both etc.

In reality, the gap can be huge or nil depending on who's in which car.

 

[Ricardinho]

i had a 106 rallye before the clio, must say i miss it, more fun to drive than the clio and not much slower, had a 1.6 8v and a group n decat, sounded awesome! like a proper mini rally car

 

[Chris1.4RT]

To be honest Dean, I felt more confident driving the VTS quickly. Felt more agile, nimble, able to change direction faster.

172 feels a bit lumpy like a boat lol.

If I ever felt I couldn't afford the 172 for one reason or another I'd defo go back to a VTS.

NOTHING beats them, bang for buck.

 

[crazycup]

1.6 16v n/a ? Only one 1.6 n/a is faster to my knowledge. The old Civics.

106 GTI? i know they are well rapid, my cup only just managed against one. Had a little blast against a VTS once and i could clearly see I was pulling on him, but you never know the full circumstances. Best way is on the track

 

[Ricardinho]

agree with you there chris, i felt more in control of the 106 rather than the clio, much more responsive steering and throttle response. prob cos of having a cable rather than that silly thing on the 172

 

[Guy]

GuyS, 'everytime' is not so.

That would really have to be two clone drivers one in each car with identical skills, then I'll grant you the 172 is quicker, like it is on paper.

How often do you get two identical set of circumstances? Both cars, going for it at the same moment, the same amount of traction, perfect gear changes for both etc.

In reality, the gap can be huge or nil depending on who's in which car.

but the 172 will always be in front unless theyre driven by a complete idiot and the stigs in the VTS..

ive driven plenty of vts and 106 gti and had a 180bhp 820kg vtr engined 106 that would murder my 182.

the vts is a fast car (standard/mild mods) and will keep up with a 172. but thats it. its not going to blow it away or anything.

they do approx 16 second quarter miles (or if you get a very lucky perfect launch and have a good engine and slight mods, 15seconds)
seen some people get 16.5/17 seconds with terrible drivers whereas some have got 15.5's with a good driver and slight mods.

standard 182 gets 15 dead.


the 106/saxos are great cheap quick cars and bloody amazing for a 1.6 16v na really. same/slightly better performance as 2.0 16v focus st170's

but thats what they are. cheap. and theyre cheap for a reason..

i wanted to get rid of the 106 cos i wanted a car that was quick, comfy, had leather, aircon, xenons, and handled ok as standard.



think if any of us got in financial trouble and had to get a cheap car everyone would get a vts. lots of fun for £2k.

 

[Chris1.4RT]

Yeah I'll agree with that Guy.

Crazycup.... 106 Gti, VTS are the same car in essence with the VTS being slightly lighter, but same engine.

 

[Guy]

106 gti is heavier slightly i think due to the leather/alcantara

on paper (depending on where you look) the gti is slightly slower than vts

think this is due to weight when peugeot do there tests.. like a full tank or some luggage or something whereas citroen dont. IIRC.

practically same car but 106 gti has uglier dashboard but nice seats. and IMO looks a better/has less of a reputation. and 106 gti's tend to cost more than vts, probably for this reason.

 

[Trueblue]

it wont need to be that modded to keep up with a renaultsport... a few breather mods and away you go... up until 85mph not really much in it!!

between a VTS and a 106Gti they are both a big bang for your buck!!!

 

[Ian_182]

All i can say is for the price the saxo is a great buy and it goes like stink.
The one i raced was special.Ive race 3 vts's around here in the past few months and they were fairly new and beaten them all by a bit but this was a cool car

ian

 

[Ian_182]

What suprised me was the way it caught me up from 80+mph

ian

 

[Guy]

if it managed to do that its most likely forced induction.

catching up ALOT 85+ needs a lot of power and ALOT of torque..

4/5k ish gets you 230ish+ bhp at the fly.

and fairly reliably too.. just gearboxes that dont like much over 200..