just in general is a saxo or a clio (the older one not the 172 as i know that is) just wondered as i have heard the vtr and vts are fast!
BSNC
www.woah.co.uk
ClioSport.net
Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.
whats faster saxo or clio
- Thread starter BigStereoNoCar
- Start date
-
- Tags
- clio
just in general is a saxo or a clio (the older one not the 172 as i know that is) just wondered as i have heard the vtr and vts are fast!
BSNC
www.woah.co.uk
Please no dont start this debate again!!
VTRs = slow
VTSs = very fookin fast!
what about handeling? i have heard that they outhandle clios with simlar suspension work done to them? - i dunno, i am considering getting a new car and the arguments for a saxo have been put to me so i need to hear why clios are better really.
BSNC
www.woah.co.uk
VTRs cant be that slow tho, i mean you know compared to what? - they wud spank a clio rt wudnt they?
BSNC
www.woah.co.uk
TT 225
Are you after information or an arguement? An RT is what? 1.2 or a 1.4 and the VTR a 1.6? Simple maths would deduce that the VTR would be quicker
Ive owned both - last car was a Saxo. The build quality was appauling. Im still a member on saxosportsclub and read about all the faults people are having with the new saxos. But then its the same on here - theyre French! lol
Handling? Well all I know is that my Saxo was OK - but the Williams kicks ass
not really after an argument just trying to deduce weater i want a saxo or a clio - isnt that what boardslike this are meant to offer to peeps like me? if you cant tell me without going off on one thats hardly my fault is it?
and with regards to RTs etc i agree it is clear but when glenn said they were slow i was simply pointing out that they aint slow when compared to the next modle down from the 16valve and by that rationale why is a VTS nearly the same speed when it too is a 1.6 but a 16v - does this mean the clio engine isnt as powerful?
BSNC
www.woah.co.uk
what u basing that on? i dont want a load of factory figures quoted at me here - i just wanna know in real life, as in if u raced one and they were going for it as were u who wud be vitorious?
BSNC
www.woah.co.uk
ExigeV6|Q5|DS3|Fiat
Up to 80/90 the VTS is a contender for the 172/willy/16v.
After that it loses momentum, and the larger engines should pull infront.
I have raced a modded 106Gti (chipped) and 0-60 he was slightly ahead, after 80mph i was pushing him down the dual carrageway.......all recorded on video.
For your information the next model down from a 16v clio is a 1.8 RSi (8v) and although not being of great pace it would beat a VTR!
what a spod u are glen - and thats a 1.8 so based on kellys rationale that is an unfair competiton - and lets be honest wud a 1.6 VTS wipe the floor with it - my guess is yes - so anyway - away from these factory figures that i didnt want.... i dont do much driving over the 90mph barrier *cough* so wud that make the VTS the faster car for me?
BSNC
ps u aint excluded _KDF
http://www.woah.co.ukwww.woah.co.uk
VTRs are nowhere compared to the 1.8 16v Clio / Williams in terms of power. VTS, as I know, are worryingly quick on the straight and level, but the Willy edges it up hills and, standard vs. standard, handles better. To follow a Williams a VTS needs to use both sides of the road (isnt that right, Craggy....lol!).
Audi TT Stronic
Whohoo..
Well in that case, I have raced 2 VTSs and It really was no contest, so either
a) the VTSs really are not a problem for a 172 (pulled away with ease from traffic light starts)
b) both VTSs were VTRs baged up
c) The drivers sucked.
*edit* oh btw both were straight line races.. no real twisties. This would stick with the 7.7 for VTSs and my own 0-60 of 6.7 with two people in my car and a half tank of petrol.
glenn not Rhys - also i live in essex, not renowned for its mountainous regions so whats the guff? is a VTS better than a 16v? i cant really afford a williams, well lets be honest i cant afford a 16v or a VTS but i was interested- i am more in the low power game how does a furio compare to a RT and a westcoast toa 1.2?
but ultimately i aspire to play with the fast boys so keep me informed on that too.
BSNC
http://www.woah.co.ukwww.woah.co.uk
oh right i didnt realise you were just hanging out to boast about howfast yer 172 was - lol
go back to your corner _KDF - lol
BSNC
http://www.woah.co.ukwww.woah.co.uk
well i been thru this a million times having had many an encounter with all the hot clios and everyone is well aware what all these cars are capable of im sure. on the whole the vts is regarded to be on par with the valver, mine seems to have the legs on most of the 16vs out there and it is standard, but im aware there are some vts that seem to lack a little pace(tend to be the mk1s tho funnily enough). i tend to be up there with the williams, and the slower of the 172s, especially sprints upto 80 or maybe higher then the 1.6 struggles against 2.0 power. theres tonnes of video footage floating around so keep ur eyes open or search this site............
Not that I was ever considering getting a saxo.. but one of the main reasons I didnt was because a VTS and a VTR look identical apart from side badges
I would hate to see mothers of 2 doing the shopping in a car that was similar if not identical to mine....
In short... Saxos are like arseholes... everyones got one.
Id be a little more original if I were you and get a valver.
Revels Mum & Sister
Have to agree with Craggy. Where I live there are SO many VTRs or VTRs badged as VTS. But there are about 2-3 in the town that I know off. HArdly any.
I do Like the VTS and the 106 GTi. But couldnt dtrech to the GTi or VTS. So I settled for the valver. Even after all that has happened. I got her back today and fell in love again.
I would go for a VTR over a Furio. Doubt much difference in Insurance. If you can afford a 16V get that over the Saxo. Either way be preapred they are french cars. Have a deep pocket ready!
I can verrify that the RSI whoops the VTR, however I got ABSOLUTELY cained by a 106 GTI. (FYI but the VTR and my RSI are standard apart from induction / back boxs)
The RSI comes into its own on hills, however lacks the top end to back up the torque
yeah yeah VTR sub 10 second 0-60 my ARSE. When you see what cars can do with proper external timing gear clocking them...Revs 0-60 day a couple of years ago on a dead flat airfield, about 10.5 was the quickest. BTW mine was the quickest valver on 7.7 or something. Loads of supposedly hot hatches couldnt run less than 8 in the real world.
But to get back to the point, Saxos are supposed to handle well, just that I find them far too small to be comfy in, and far too common to be seen in. There are good deals on them and they are quick and an excellent match for a valver. Short geared so they sprint well but run out of puff on the motorway. Still quick for a 1.6 you cant take that away from them.
Depends what you want really. You want a cheap small car that will look the part even with a small engine, then get a Saxo. The used values tell the whole story, look at valvers, a 10 year old 16v in good nick will still command 3-4 grand if its a good un, and a Williams anything up to 6 big ones. Whats a Saxo worth? Nothing, and theyre only half the age of the original Clios. Even the small engined Clios, unmodded 1.2 and 1.4 will fetch a couple of grand still if theyre looked after. Saxos are the new Novas! Apart from Craggys.
