Clio vs Saxo

[Ben j]

Quote: Originally posted by jph172 on 30 January 2005165mph from 120bhp-thats the biggest load of crap ive heard in ages!!! definatley dreaming there.

u havnt been reading have u?




na rob. my point is. i dont need to defend the vts over a 172/182. i have one that would paste (alomost) any clio.(nick read knows im after him!) but my point is in standard form round a track, as much as the 2l drivers dont want to admit it, there wouldnt be much in it at all. they are great handling and shifty little cars. altho yes on the road. a 172/182 is a far better car overall.


and how many of you have actually driven a 16v clio, 172 clio and a vts saxo to know what your arguing about? i have

 

[m4rk]

Quote: Originally posted by arj256 on 29 January 2005

Quote: Originally posted by MattyK on 29 January 2005

Quote: Originally posted by arj256 on 29 January 2005


The 1.1 saxo is 60bhp as well but is only Spi.

My friend used to have one and it was quick, but my 1.2 was quicker top end and acceleration than his.

Yeah this is true I have noticed it being quite nippy through higher speeds its just in second gear it seems to be a slow b*****d!

2nd Gear in mine is one of my quickest gears, not too much acceleration up to 30, but from 30 up to 45-50 its pretty quick (for a 1.2)

one of your quickest gears, such as the 2nd quickest gear as in 1st being the quickest then 2nd gear, 3rd being the next quickest 4th being the 4th quickest.. hmmm see a patern??

[Edited by m4rk on 30 January 2005 at 9:19pm]

 

[Clarkie172]

the sarcasm

 

[RobHardyUK]

hahahaha very true tho

 

[Jamie]

my mate has a vts which is decated, performance manifold, uprated cams, chip and green force air i/g, from this he reckons he is pushing 160bhp. hes had numerous races with ctrs and the other day he had a race with a cup which he said it was like for like up to 130! so i cant see how a standard vts could keep up with a standard 172!

are you sure your 172 is running right?

 

[jph172]

Theres only one way we can sort this- we guys(&girls) need to set up a date at santa pod! Clio 182/172,,,,,s verses saxo vtr,s/vts,s!!! What you all think???

 

[Andi RT]

My RT is slightly quicker than saxo VTR.

every engine is different and will vary on performance!

 

[Chris1.4RT]

Most of you have missed the point on how the vts vs 172 debate in this thread has started:

Clarkie172 now owns Deans old mk1 172.

Dean was posting under Clarkies id to say Saxos are better (tongue in cheek) as Dean now owns a VTS.

He was just pulling yer plonkers but BANG, one word of a VTS even coming close to a 172 and most of the 172 my car is considerably faster than yows crew come on saying how a 172 will destroy a VTS.

Destroy, lmfao! Ive had a fair few tussles with 172 and destroy is a ridiculous word to use. Unless you get up to silly license losing speeds, a 172 will never destroy a VTS unless the driver is a pillock.

From a standing start its entirely down to who can change gear quicker. Ive had some traffic light grand prix with 172s and theres barely half a car length in it to 60 and up to 100 the Clio pulls about 1.5 car lengths. Not an awful lot in the real world.

On the move the 172 will pull a little on a VTS due to the increased torque from the larger engine.

Some of the comments are ridiculous in this thread.

Driving a VTS, I come across 172s fairly regularly as 172s are quite common. I cant imagine a 172 would come across many VTSs. Most of you guys have probably had one or two gos at a VTS. Woopee, you can pull in a straight line. Takes skill that does.

As for leaving a VTS behind on the corners. WTF? Get real.

And in all fairness, Im fed up with these VTS vs 172 threads. Theres already a million of them on here.

Underestimate a VTS at your peril. Anyone who believes book 0-60 times is stupid. They assume both drivers are clones.

Dont get me wrong, Im getting a 172 as my next car but not at all for the speed as I dont expect a great increase (except a bit more grunt on the move) but I want one because they way the look, equipment etc.

 

[David]

saxos are good cause of their weight. i got a dynamique 1.6 16v and can whoop a vtrs tiny ass, done it many times too esepcially round my area. not the case with a vts though. never beaten on once.

i think it is worth mentioning that a 1.6 16v keeping up with a 2.0 is a fair achievement but bottom line is that comparing a vts against a 172 is pretty pointless. everyone knows the outcome.

 

[mcoppen]

I to have a 1.6 16v Clio and have no problems with vtrs. But have yet to battle a VTS. But at the end of the day, whoever owns either car is going to say there better. Is one of those never ending arguments. In as real life situation the driver is going to play one of the biggest influences. If it takes the driver a second longer to change gear than the other, than 0-60 times are going to become obsolet.

 

[y0z2a]

Quote: Originally posted by Clarkie172 on 29 January 2005
yes it is a known fact that the clio is a very slow careven the more powerful range such as the 172 is not upto the pace of the saxo vts


I totally agree, I just cant keep up with the saxos...

:-(

/y0z

 

[Hendy]

I used to drive a wee zetec fez and I used to eat my mate in his 97 1.4 clio..

I cant understand why this was, only think I can think of was the fact that his was 8v and my yoke was 16v..

Its a funny old world.

 

[TheJesus]

Quote: Originally posted by y0z2a on 31 January 2005

Quote: Originally posted by Clarkie172 on 29 January 2005


yes it is a known fact that the clio is a very slow car

even the more powerful range such as the 172 is not upto the pace of the saxo vts

I totally agree, I just cant keep up with the saxos...

:-(

/y0z

it will be those 1.2 badges slowing you down mate!

 

[y0z2a]

god totally...

I will have to take them off... try and shed a few kilos ;-)

/y0z

 

[Tucks]

One of my best m8s has a vts,I cant blow him away,but the clio is slightly quicker especially up hill.I wouldnt swop cars with him either.

 

[Darren S]

Jeez - the Saxos arent that good. Most VTS owners just back off with the 182 - in case they get shown up. Pug 106GTi owners tend to be more cheeky though!

A pleasant surprise was the Fabia vRS - that diesel wallop mid-range gives it some pace, but once the VVT on the 182 is on song, it reels it in.

D.

 

[sargeantinio]

well i had a saxo vtr a few years ago and ok its not to touch a vts so keep ya pants on but the handling was sh*t and i mean sh*t my 182 handles tonnes better and as for youre 200 bhp saxo fair play it might be fast but thought we were talkin standard vs standard werent we? dont get upset guys just wake up in the land of the living please

 

[TheJesus]

Quote: Originally posted by sargeantinio on 31 January 2005

well i had a saxo vtr a few years ago and ok its not to touch a vts so keep ya pants on but the handling was sh*t and i mean sh*t my 182 handles tonnes better and as for youre 200 bhp saxo fair play it might be fast but thought we were talkin standard vs standard werent we? dont get upset guys just wake up in the land of the living please

youve not heard of the 14.5 second VTS with exhaust mods then!

 

[Ben j]

Quote: Originally posted by sargeantinio on 31 January 2005well i had a saxo vtr a few years ago and ok its not to touch a vts so keep ya pants on but the handling was sh*t and i mean sh*t my 182 handles tonnes better and as for youre 200 bhp saxo fair play it might be fast but thought we were talkin standard vs standard werent we? dont get upset guys just wake up in the land of the living please


yea im talkin standard for standard. i was just tryin to point out to the "narrow minded" people that i dont have to defend it as "my car" as i know its already faster. im talkin vtss in general.

i think a vtr has the same suspension as a vts? not sure tho, but the vts/gti is known as one of the best handling hatches ever! u must have had something wrong with yours. mine is astounding compared to my valver! round some twisty bits my valver would be left for dead!

 

[chris_m182]

there isnt much between the vts and the 172 - end of!!

myself, dean, and clarkie172 all had a spirited drive *cough* *race* quite recently over a stretch of road with a few twitsy bits and a few straights, and guess wot....... nothing in it until the 172 got over 100. ive got a clio 16v (chipped, decat, etc) deans vts is one of the rare 130bhp models (according to dean - lol) all the cars were bumper to bumper round the bends, off the roundabouts, and down the straights until the 172 had a slight edge over 100mph.

 

[jongsr4]

Quote: Originally posted by Chris1.4RT on 31 January 2005


Most of you have missed the point on how the vts vs 172 debate in this thread has started:

Clarkie172 now owns Deans old mk1 172.

Dean was posting under Clarkies id to say Saxos are better (tongue in cheek) as Dean now owns a VTS.

He was just pulling yer plonkers but BANG, one word of a VTS even coming close to a 172 and most of the 172 my car is considerably faster than yows crew come on saying how a 172 will destroy a VTS.

Destroy, lmfao! Ive had a fair few tussles with 172 and destroy is a ridiculous word to use. Unless you get up to silly license losing speeds, a 172 will never destroy a VTS unless the driver is a pillock.

From a standing start its entirely down to who can change gear quicker. Ive had some traffic light grand prix with 172s and theres barely half a car length in it to 60 and up to 100 the Clio pulls about 1.5 car lengths. Not an awful lot in the real world.

On the move the 172 will pull a little on a VTS due to the increased torque from the larger engine.

Some of the comments are ridiculous in this thread.

Driving a VTS, I come across 172s fairly regularly as 172s are quite common. I cant imagine a 172 would come across many VTSs. Most of you guys have probably had one or two gos at a VTS. Woopee, you can pull in a straight line. Takes skill that does.

As for leaving a VTS behind on the corners. WTF? Get real.

And in all fairness, Im fed up with these VTS vs 172 threads. Theres already a million of them on here.

Underestimate a VTS at your peril. Anyone who believes book 0-60 times is stupid. They assume both drivers are clones.

Dont get me wrong, Im getting a 172 as my next car but not at all for the speed as I dont expect a great increase (except a bit more grunt on the move) but I want one because they way the look, equipment etc.

This is exactly right

I had a VTS before my Cup and honestly, in the real world there is very little between these cars, im almost tepted to say that i preffered the VTSs handling compared to the Cup, the reason i have the Cup now is because i do feel safer in the Cup and IMO it looks better, but as Chris said....underestimate a VTS at your peril

 

[Mondial172]

Especially the ones that are crap colours with VTR wheels and no rear spoiler.

I preffer the Peugeot 106 GTi - far more class.

oh and the pedals suck!!!

 

[Ben j]

Quote: Originally posted by Adamf on 01 February 2005
oh and the pedals suck!!!


yea totally agree! man its hard to get used to drivin without pressin em all at once!

 

[Mondial172]

You get used to it though. Bit hard with size 11.5s though

Never forget first time i drove the VTR after my escort.

LOL!