clio 1.6 16v vs Saxo VTR

[Mattystan]

which is faster ?

 

[Alan]

I should hope the clio...

 

[clio__chris]

yeah the 1.6 16v clio is quicker than a VTR

VTS is another matter.......

 

[GarethM]

cant imagine there being much in it tbh arent the saxo's lighter?

 

[Mattystan]

yeah the 1.6 16v clio is quicker than a VTR

VTS is another matter.......

yea fort so i no the VTS is quicker.
i had a abit of a do with a m8 from collage iv got a clio hes got a saxo VTR and he kept up but couldnt overtake

 

[RichF]

About the same then. Depends what year of VTR it was, early ones were 90bhp, newer ones were 100bhp.

 

[Mattystan]

cant imagine there being much in it tbh arent the saxo's lighter?

yea saxos lighter but less power in the VTR

clio 1.6 16v has 110bhp
saxo VTR has 90bhp or the mr2 has 98bhp i think

 

[Rage]

clio....

plus which would you rather drive ...

 

[mini-valver]

Clio, tried and tested many a time. Close with the 98bhp models, above 70 though you're away.....

 

[gazbenger]

Clio is, as said clio 110bhp and saxo 98bhp. Its a 1.6 8v the vtr too, the 1.6 16v VTS walks over the clio. I was joining a dual carriageway having a go with some guy i knew once and i pulled to about 2/3 car lengths in front at about 50+. Also some tit in one cut me up the other week so i sat on his tail and he couldnt leave me at all. I think the only faster 1.6s are the minis? dont think zetec S's are, correct me if im wrong tho

 

[DamoWales]

106 Gti, Saxo VTS Would both beat the clio,

Not sure of the Mini...Suzuki Ignis Sport would also put in some competition?

 

[GarethM]

lupo gti?

 

[AlexS]

lupo gti?

Should be quicker than Clio 1.6, Saxo Vtr, Ignis, Zetec S, Mini etc
Not as quick as a 106 gti or VTS despite more power though.

 

[Andy_J]

lupo 1.4 sports are faster too! 100bhp

 

[GarethM]

thought it might be

 

[AlexS]

lupo 1.4 sports are faster too! 100bhp

They aren't bad and comparable to alot of 1.6's, the Gti is 125BHP though.

 

[Brett]

the clio 1.6 16v isnt designed as a hot or even walm hatch though so it is one of the fastest non sporty hatchbacks.

 

[Andy_J]

my 1.6 16v was pretty quick like, i had a BMC CDA larger TB de cat and full system.. i got beat by the lupo when it was std btw..

it went well, coilys, brembo max discs, ferodo track pads so could out handle and out break most hatches on the road! i even had a 172FF in it! i couldnt pass him when he was in front but he couldn't keep up when we went down the same road with me in front!

He'd be hammering the breaks down snaking about and i'm like wtf.. i just eased off and dropped a cog for some power out the bend..

 

[Andy_J]

just before i got shot of her my m8 had just stripped his vtr out and he was pulling away from me and handled just as well! it had similar mods to mine.

 

[gazbenger]

lupo gti, 106 gti and saxo vts are in different cateories, they are fancy models, where as the clios just a 1.6 engine which why you cant compare those ones. The one thing i dont like about the clio is the standard brakes, need something better

 

[Diesel_Power]

Ive got a VTR, 98bhp, mate has a 1.6 Clio. Whenever we have gone head to head its dead even, clio has more power, saxo has less weight, nothing in it. However my brother had a vtr and his was slightly quicker than the clio although he is a good driver and had some light breathing mods.

As for the which would you drive comment above, have you driven a saxo? They are far better handling cars than the clio and if it was the reputation you were taking a shot at, clios are not that far behind are they?

 

[willcrook]

Lupo gti / Saxo vts / 106 Gti

It's the same conversation as which is faster 182/172/Civic Type R!

 

[MT AUDIO]

Ive got a VTR, 98bhp, mate has a 1.6 Clio. Whenever we have gone head to head its dead even, clio has more power, saxo has less weight, nothing in it. However my brother had a vtr and his was slightly quicker than the clio although he is a good driver and had some light breathing mods.

As for the which would you drive comment above, have you driven a saxo? They are far better handling cars than the clio and if it was the reputation you were taking a shot at, clios are not that far behind are they?

1.6 clio has the sport suspension,i have had both cars and can honestly say that the clio handles better,much less roll on standard suspension however the vtr does feel quicker and much more raw with it having much less toys and doesnt feel as well built as the clio

0-60 as standard official times
clio 9.3 secs
vtr 9.9 secs

id rather my clio any day of the week

 

[MT AUDIO]

About the same then. Depends what year of VTR it was, early ones were 90bhp, newer ones were 100bhp.

98bhp one was heavier though so the 0-60 was no different

 

[Diesel_Power]

Ive got a VTR, 98bhp, mate has a 1.6 Clio. Whenever we have gone head to head its dead even, clio has more power, saxo has less weight, nothing in it. However my brother had a vtr and his was slightly quicker than the clio although he is a good driver and had some light breathing mods.

As for the which would you drive comment above, have you driven a saxo? They are far better handling cars than the clio and if it was the reputation you were taking a shot at, clios are not that far behind are they?

1.6 clio has the sport suspension,i have had both cars and can honestly say that the clio handles better,much less roll on standard suspension however the vtr does feel quicker and much more raw with it having much less toys and doesnt feel as well built as the clio

0-60 as standard official times
clio 9.3 secs
vtr 9.9 secs

id rather my clio any day of the week

Saxo is 9.1 seconds to 60, officially. Straight line speed there is hardly an argument though, they are both relatively slow and similar in pace. Handling wise however the 172/182 (non cup) suspension and chassis cant compete with a vts and the vts and vtr are relatively the same setup. The clio i admit has more reserves of grip but im going to completely disagree with you about body roll, the weight transfer and turn in on the clio is far less responsive not to mention the lack of feel whilst perofrming the task. Handling in its definition is the ability to change direction and thats exactly what the Saxo does better than the clio. Ive driven Saxos since 2004 round the nurburgring and back and anyone who knows how to drive both cars will agree that the saxo is a better handling car. Less weight, sharper chassis, excellent weight distribution.

 

[pain]

daihatsu charade 1.6 gsxi !!

 

[Timmo]

I was following a VTR (kitted up) the other day and when we got to a staright he floored it and didn't really pull away from me in my 1.4 16v (standard)

 

[Diesel_Power]

Unless you could see his foot to the floor i wouldnt assume he floored it, probably a rodgered up kitted car anyway with cheap mods. Im not arguing which is quicker anyway, theres nothing in it in my opinion.

 

[Timmo]

Specs of mine 1.4 16v Clio:

Fuel Delivery - Injection
BHP - 98.0
Torque (lbs feet) - 93.7RPM
to which the Torque refers - 3750
Maximum Speed - 116
Acceleration (0-60) - 10.5

1.6 16v Clio:

Fuel Delivery - Injection
BHP - 110.0
Torque (lbs feet) - 109.2RPM
to which the Torque refers - 3750
Maximum Speed - 121
Acceleration (0-60) - 9.6

Saxo VTR:

Fuel Delivery - Injection
BHP - 98.0
Torque (lbs feet) - 100.0RPM
to which the Torque refers - 3500
Maximum Speed - 120
Acceleration (0-60) - 9.4

All based on 2001 cars.

 

[gaz44]

1.6 clio has the sport suspension,i have had both cars and can honestly say that the clio handles better,much less roll on standard suspension however the vtr does feel quicker and much more raw with it having much less toys and doesnt feel as well built as the clio

0-60 as standard official times
clio 9.3 secs
vtr 9.9 secs

id rather my clio any day of the week

Saxo is 9.1 seconds to 60, officially. Straight line speed there is hardly an argument though, they are both relatively slow and similar in pace. Handling wise however the 172/182 (non cup) suspension and chassis cant compete with a vts and the vts and vtr are relatively the same setup. The clio i admit has more reserves of grip but im going to completely disagree with you about body roll, the weight transfer and turn in on the clio is far less responsive not to mention the lack of feel whilst perofrming the task. Handling in its definition is the ability to change direction and thats exactly what the Saxo does better than the clio. Ive driven Saxos since 2004 round the nurburgring and back and anyone who knows how to drive both cars will agree that the saxo is a better handling car. Less weight, sharper chassis, excellent weight distribution.

I agree, my VTR was fanatastic. Not really anything in the speed though.

 

[tommyboy]

both aren't what I'd call "quick" tbh

Clio ftw

 

[superbenji88]

went looking at a 1.6 RSI today
http://www.elegantcarsales.co.uk/GetDealer.do?did=21951&pageid=1
what do you think of it?

 

[skiptontweed]

Id rather drive a turd than a saxo

 

[Gaz_]

I was following a VTR (kitted up) the other day and when we got to a staright he floored it and didn't really pull away from me in my 1.4 16v (standard)

Might have been a Westcoast (same kit) but 1.4 8v

 

[superbenji88]

i think a clio rsi has a higher top speed than 121mph because i can easily hit 120

 

[E-ray_172]

All depends on the driver.

standard VTR do avg 16.5-16.8sec 1/4 mile which i guess the clio is high 16's at best. also put corners into and the clio has no chance whatsoever. the saxo vtr is a warm hatch i.e sports suspension etc.. the clio 1.6 16v is a shopping trolley with no mechanical sport features but with a decent good size engine in it. the clio has a much better equipment spec and more comfort ride as its designed for the avg house hold.