dogboy1

Also i have size 9 feet and am 6 ft tall. Ive never experienced any trouble placing my feet on the correct pedals or getting in/getting out/ getting comfortable in my VTs.

davedipster

Trouble free french cars? you must be having a laugh.
My 172 was a complete pile of french poo, never never going to buy a Renault again.
My wifes fiesta zetec s on the otherhand is a great fun car, and one on a 52plate with ac can be had for 4-5k. My mates VTS is a nippy buzzbox but I would go for the fiesta everyday.

Dipster

stew-vts

hi,another paxo owner here, just thought id add to this.
ive owned a vtr and vts,both good cars,vts is far superior though.
saxo and 106 are the same car,minus the panels and interior,same engines,chassis, etc.
the vts and 106 gti are the same spec, engine,gear box,etc, the only thing slightly different is the dampers on the gti are slightly higher rated than the saxo,that may be why the saxo is more forgiving.
as said,the chassis isnt strong,one bump and its probably game over. thank god for seam welding.
there are many areas on which to improve upon. unfortunatly, most of the market now is show and shine crap, but there are some of us who like to abuse our cars on track(road racing is not condoned and damn stupid) so we spend our penny's on performance parts,of which there really is a large selection.

as for the TEST figures,cant really believe any of them,every magazine does their own tests under different conditions etc.but its ok as a guide.

talizman

iTrader: (1)

I can vouch for the trouble free french cars!!

My missus and I have amassed the following -:

1990 Citroen AX GT - pretty trouble free
1997 Saxo VTS - no problems at all
1998 Saxo VTR - no problems
1994 Clio Williams - clutch cable snapped twice and alternator went
2000 Saxo VTS - no problems
2003 Clio Cup - no problems

Now, this is too much to be considered coincidence, so I rate the french cars up there with the rest!

The build quality will never be Germanic, but they are not as bad as the masses seem to think.

Eatpies

just to add, the VTS and 106gti have exactly the same gearbox and ratios. Check the part numbers.

talizman

iTrader: (1)

Correct. Like I said earlier, its the ECU's that differ

davedipster

A few of my purchases over the years...

1992 clio 1.2 -loads of trouble head gasket, suspension etc
1994 clio RSI - fuel pump, fuel lines flew off, water leaks, head gasket
2002 fiesta zetec s - no bother
2002 honda CTR - no real bother
2002 clio 172 - loads of bother
2003 scooby - no bother at all

A pattern forming here, for me at least
French=poor build, components and Bother

Dipster

gravelexpress

A lot of positive response on a car that seems to recieve more flak than a B-17 overflying Berlin in 1944.

I`m really looking forward to a test drive.

talizman

iTrader: (1)

The common theme seems to be that you and French stuff aren't meant to be!

Tip-: Don't put a lottery ticket on in France, you won't win!

Brun

Another vote for the Clio 16v. Quicker than the VTS any day of the week and when fitted with an induction kit, has a soundtrack to die for

RichH

I've got a standard 2001 Saxo VTS, and I'd disagree with some of the comments on here about them.

Firstly, the Clio 16v is no quicker than a VTS, I've had a fun run ins with them and they've mostly been dead even, right upto 117mph (end of 4th gear), and one I've beat between roundabouts, up some straights. It's all down to the driver being able to keep the car on the boil.

I've had a few things replaced on it under warrenty, rear lights leaked, front lights were replaced 'coz the indicators went yellowy, knocking noise from front was wiashbone nut coming loose, air bag light has just come on, battery light came on and wouldn't go out (took many visits to fix that one, turned out to be a wire shorting out somewhere). Apart from these minor niggles, it's never let me down.

It handles fantastic, in the dry it'll grip and grip (Yoko A539s, 195/45/15) until all four wheels lose grip, but it comes with plenty of warning, due to the fantastic feedback through the 'wheel. In the wet under power, it'll obviously understeer, but be gentle with the throttle and get entry speeds right, and it'll go round no problems, unless you lift the throttle or dab the brakes, bad idea! That makes the rear go extremely light, but again, not too bad to catch, and great fun when you've mastered it!

It'll crack 60mph in 2nd gear no problems, and has enough grunt to beat most cars on the road that you're likely to come up against on the average spirited drive, as long as you keep the revs above 4500RPM.

It's meant to be a bit more hardcore than the 106 (apparantly easier to catch out the unwary driver, see the back of EVO magazine), but apart from different sized wheels on facelifted VTSs, and the ECU mentioned previously, everything is practically identical. I prefer the VTS, looks "harder" and less girly.

I love mine, looks great in black. Not many things will out-handle it, not even an Impreza (in the dry!), and goes like a clappers for a 1.6. I do drive mine hard (spends most of its time above 5000RPM), and although it gets through a lot of fuel, it's been totally mechanically reliable.

Rich

In the right hands, they're a tool.

*Edit* A Zetec S, handles better? No way! And they're loads slower!!

WRX Wannabe

I have owend a Vtr & Vts

Good little car when you drop a new set of race cams in them

talizman

iTrader: (1)

RichH,

As you'll see from my previous posts on this thread, I have fought the Saxo's corner all the way, but I have to say......

FFS! take off the rose tinted specs mate!

Simply not true.


Obviously a well driven Saxo will be quicker than a badly driven Clio, but you seem to think that this makes it a quicker car?


LOL, yeah right!


I think you are vastly over-complimenting it now.
It does handle well in the dry, but lets not class it the same as a 4WD machine with the handling characteristics of the Impreza. Not even in the same league mate.



And I'm not just a cynical Scooby driver, I've owned a VTR, 2 x VTS's (Mk1 and Mk2), Clio Williams, as well as 4 Scoobs, so I have a rough idea what I'm talking about!

Eatpies

or when you combine the race cams with throttle bodies it makes a good car a great car

talizman

iTrader: (1)

A chap I know had a fully race-prepped Saxo with TB's and lumpy cams etc and was road legal, although was really a track toy.

The car put out 200bhp, but unless you can get all that power down through 2 spinning wheels, 1.0 micras will see you off at the start line!

stew-vts

vts with a couple of thousand spent on suspension will beat a scoob round bedford....proven by moi.

sure,if the scoob has been fettled then game on, saxo would be left behind.

anyway,why is a cheap french hatch being compared to a jap turbo 4wd nut car?

talizman

iTrader: (1)

All that proves is that you beat another driver who happened to be in a Scooby. It doesn't mean anything other than you drove quicker.

I've saw a Mk3 Golf GTi lapping Knockhill quicker than a few Scoobs, so does that mean that the Golf is quicker or handles better? Of course not!






Simply because the thread starter asked a question, thats why.

allywrx

A couple of thousand on suspension.....
On a saxo.....
How did you manage that?
My old gaffer spent a fraction of that to still manage 16th on the Tour of Mull in his vts

Jamescsti

Have you actually driven the Zetec-s?
I have I owned one for 2 1/2 years before i got the STi
and i'd happily put it up against a VTS on a twisty road the handling is far superior, it's built more solid than the VTS (but so is a baked beans can!)
And it doesn't have the same image as the VTS either (widely accepted as the new Nova)
And I seem to remember in a group test in EVO magazine, overall it actually came out better than the VTS!

Andy M3

I've got a 2002 VTR - There is no way i would buy a second hand one though - i know how they are driven and they have such bad reputation for boy racer style owner ship the 'new nova' as has been said - shame really -

As far as the Zetec - S thing goes, i have never driven one or been on a track whilst against one, but even my VTR can catch the Zetec S out -

Value for mony the VTS is a winner - but don't mistake it for a good car - it has too many down sides, including the great handling, which is very skitish as a standard set up - i think the 306 GTI-6 is a better motor, with a wider track and more civilased all rounder i would recomend it - whether you would find one for £3000 i don't know -

Andy

ScoobyDoo555

How about a 206 GTI (or a GT)?

I remember driving one, as a mate was a salesaman for Peugeot. Flung it around roundabouts etc, just no real grunt.


But I was comparing it to my Scooby!!!

Dan

MooseRacer

James, you're right, the Zetec-S is a great handling car.

RichH

Talizman, seeing as you insisted on picking my post apart, I'll bother replying.

I didn't say a VTS was quicker than a Clio 16v, I just said it was no slower. There are good and bad examples of both, same as there are good and bad drivers about. If both cars are driven to their maximum potential, there's nothing between them. The ***** is only slightly faster than then VTS, and that's above 60mph.

I'm not sure what you found quite so funny about me saying that on the average (not every!)spirited drive, the VTS will mostly (mostly, not every!!) beat what you come across, as long as it's kept on the boil. I don't know about your average drive, but I don't usually come across anything much faster. I don't bump into Evos and Scoobs on every drive out. Sorry.

The Imprezas I've driven (all Bug eyes, I admit), including the Turbo were not that great in the dry. Sure, it has AWD, but that doesn't count for much when tarmac is smooth and dry. Maybe exit speeds off a roundabout, but even then, you'd struggling to contain understeer in the Impreza. I found my Saxo had more outright grip. Let's not confuse handling with grip though, eh. My VTSs steering was sharper, turn in was crisper and I found it more communicative. Sorry?!

Enjoy whatever car you go for. And I wasn't aware of the VTS being the new Nova, I think you'll find that it's the lesser model Saxos, upto a VTR. And the Zetec-S has a great image. Not.

Rich

Brun

The VTR/S is a victim of it's own success. I class them together as they are way too similar. I'm sure the Nova comment is based on the fact that it's now the Kev machine to have, be it a 1.1 or a VTS. The Nova was the car to mod, but it's time has now passed - long live the Saxo
As for the Fiesta - it is a better car than the Saxo, but not as quick. I would choose a VTS for this reason alone. The Fizzy-s is not a hot hatch, just warm
Back to the Clio valver - bearing in mind this appeared back in 1991/2 or there abouts, it was a much nicer car than the Saxo is now - inside and out, and in comparison somewhat exclusive due to the number built. Having owned a Pug 1.9 GTi and a Clio valver, i would pick the clio as the faster car point to point would you believe??? Hard to believe but it was probably my fave car i've had (including the 260 bhp scoob i have now)
All IMO

talizman

iTrader: (1)

Lets not split hairs.

You said that the VTS was not slower than the Clio 16v, which is simply not true. End of story.


Having owned both, I'd have to say [cough]bull$hit![cough]



If you want to brag about the "average" cars that you beat on your "average" spirited drive then carry on.
Personally, beating Modeo, Volvos and Ka's doesn't impress me much. (I assume these marques are "average" enough for your example?)



By your own admission, you have only driven the slowest, and the most lacking in driver feedback/steering of EVERY Impreza to date, so I'd say that your opinion isn't an informed one.

AWD doesn't count for much when the tarmac is smooth and dry? WTF?

Struggle to contain understeer in an Impreza? You sound like you have swallowed a copy of Evo magazine?

What utter bollock$!

To struggle to contain understeer in the dry like you suggest, you'd need probably in excess of 400bhp, for even an incompetent driver to get the car out of shape!

I'm not even going to address the points about the grip and steering feedback, both of which the Impreza is reknowned for! I have owned and driven all of the cars we have discussed, and my glasses aren't rose-tinted. Are yours?

As for the Nova comment.....

I never called the Saxo the "new Nova", I think that was someone else.

What I did say was that the Saxo's are a victim of the Max Power generation, and I doubt many would disagree with that comment.

Andy M3

16v is only a bit quicker to 100 than a 100bhp VTR, so i imagine the VTS would keep with the pace of a 16v ?



I have had a go with more than a couple of impreza's in my M3, and despite my lack of power (relative) i have never come across one that can turn in and maintain my pace through bends as well as the M3- i would agree that they are very grippy but in the dry i think it counts against them - having said that even a tiny bit of damp sends my car in different directions, so it is rough with the smooth i guess

Good points all round though -

Jamescsti

That was my comment, I admit it!

As someone mentioned above the 306 GTi-6 would be a good buy or even the Rallye version both very nice cars

Andy M3

I also said the Nova comment, and i own one !!!

talizman

iTrader: (1)

IIRC, the Clio 16v could hit the ton in 21-22 seconds whereas the 90bhp VTR took about 10 seconds more. The VTS was a good bit faster, but still not as quick as the Renault.

Andy M3

Well ??? Is a Clio 16v quicker than a VTS ?