Clio 172 for a Scooby ?
28 October 2002, 04:54 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 13,720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know a guy down south with a mint diablo red Y-reg, low miles VTS that's been looking to do a part-ex on a scooby. It really is a great car IMO and performance wise easily the match of the 172. However, it isn't as good quality, roomy, etc as the 172 but cheaper. If your interested I've got his email, mobile, etc 
28 October 2002, 05:04 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 1,653
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not really looking at the VTS mate, although I'm not dissing them in any way. Too small for me really.
The 172 is a bit of a Scooby chaser so it'll do me for a while.
The 172 is a bit of a Scooby chaser so it'll do me for a while.
Trending Topics
28 October 2002, 05:31 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Well seeing as you're all here 
Theo.............
DON'T DO IT, they rattle, they suck and I sure hope you don't play golf cos it's back seat down time.
I had one for a week as a 'negotiated' (
Renault scum) courtesy car and I was delighted to collect my Laguna at the end of the week and I hated that car.
Was even having roundabout nightmares where I would wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat, dreaming that my work had relocate me to Milton Keynes
They will grip tenaciously on very new fronts then bye bye grip
Theo.............
DON'T DO IT, they rattle, they suck and I sure hope you don't play golf cos it's back seat down time.
I had one for a week as a 'negotiated' (
Renault scum) courtesy car and I was delighted to collect my Laguna at the end of the week and I hated that car.Was even having roundabout nightmares where I would wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat, dreaming that my work had relocate me to Milton Keynes
They will grip tenaciously on very new fronts then bye bye grip
28 October 2002, 05:36 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 1,357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must admit I have driven the 172 and I did have fun in it plus I didn't manage to upset the owner too much with my driving skills!
Although I have been persuaded that the VTS is quite good but I have yet to try one so I can't give you an comparison between the 2.
AJ
Although I have been persuaded that the VTS is quite good but I have yet to try one so I can't give you an comparison between the 2.
AJ
28 October 2002, 05:59 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 13,720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Saxo is every bit as quick as the 172, but as theo says its smaller (although not by much). More importantly the 172 is better equipped and better built. The VTS/106 GTI are ace fun you should try one aj
[Edited by Saxo Boy - 10/28/2002 6:00:02 PM]
[Edited by Saxo Boy - 10/28/2002 6:00:02 PM]
28 October 2002, 06:04 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Saxo is a good car, especially around the track. However, I am quite pleased with my Cup, and it takes some thought, as I have gone from a scoob, an evo6, a Caterham 7( 180 hp ) and an Integra Type-R to a Clio, so I was a bit apprehensive at first!
It is fearsomely fast though, and the kind of car that demands constant attention when driving it fast, which makes it rather fun.
So I like my Cup... Even if some of you don't!
It is fearsomely fast though, and the kind of car that demands constant attention when driving it fast, which makes it rather fun.
So I like my Cup... Even if some of you don't!
28 October 2002, 06:05 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 13,720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good call.....how??? I think you should phone a Citroen dealership and play the dizzy women that really wants to try one for the day. I'll cover it on my insurance if need be
29 October 2002, 11:37 AM
#17
Scooby Regular
Nice1car
Think you'll find it was And why did they give it to me you ask? Because, they were putting ANOTHER (3rd faulty they fitted in 2 weeks) wheel bearing on my Laguna and decided to smash it into their dealership wall, then the mechanic who did it decided not to tell the manager. Gave it a quick wash and expected me A) Not to notice, B) Expected me to admit it was pranged before I took it in
When threatened they were only too happy too give me the most decent thing they had as a courtesy car before I sued their *** off
Did you manage to find a decent driving positon with support
?
Did you not find the pedals offset ?
Did you try and fit more than a pack of cigarettes in the boot ?
Did you try a roundabout in the rain ?
Fun car
but uncomfy and NOT safe IMHO. No comparison at all to the scoob
Does that clarify the fact that 'yes I did actually know what I was driving?'
Think you'll find it was
And why did they give it to me you ask? Because, they were putting ANOTHER (3rd faulty they fitted in 2 weeks) wheel bearing on my Laguna and decided to smash it into their dealership wall, then the mechanic who did it decided not to tell the manager. Gave it a quick wash and expected me A) Not to notice, B) Expected me to admit it was pranged before I took it in When threatened they were only too happy too give me the most decent thing they had as a courtesy car before I sued their *** off
Did you manage to find a decent driving positon with support
?Did you not find the pedals offset
?Did you try and fit more than a pack of cigarettes in the boot
?Did you try a roundabout in the rain
?Fun car
but uncomfy and NOT safe IMHO. No comparison at all to the scoob Does that clarify the fact that 'yes I did actually know what I was driving?'
29 October 2002, 12:40 PM
#19
Scooby Newbie
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was only asking.
I found the seats where to high and couldnt really get a decent driving postion.
I didnt really have a major problem with the pedals but I can see were your coming from.
I have driven the car in the rain and can say it handled really well there was a little to much torque steer though
I found the seats where to high and couldnt really get a decent driving postion.
I didnt really have a major problem with the pedals but I can see were your coming from.
I have driven the car in the rain and can say it handled really well there was a little to much torque steer though
29 October 2002, 01:46 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 253
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get the 172
There is no way a VTS is a match for it on either straight line or country roads. Remember the 106 was a much better handling car than the VTS too, even although it was alledgedly slower in a straight line (which I never found in my experience).
Chris
There is no way a VTS is a match for it on either straight line or country roads. Remember the 106 was a much better handling car than the VTS too, even although it was alledgedly slower in a straight line (which I never found in my experience).
Chris
29 October 2002, 01:50 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 13,720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dark force, put "Saxo VTS" into the search between Feb 02 and Jun02...read all 12 pages of my thread and come back and appologise re: the straightline VTS v 172 comment
VTS would be better than GTI on smooth track but yes, the 106 suspension is more forgiving on b-roads.
VTS would be better than GTI on smooth track but yes, the 106 suspension is more forgiving on b-roads.
29 October 2002, 01:55 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 253
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I won't take it back, because in my experience of driving all the cars mentioned, i've found the 172 to be quicker.
Re. the 106/VTS. I seem to remember that in one of Autocars "greatest hot hatch" tests or whatever, the 106 came in either 1st or 2nd, and the Saxo 10th, which included track day driving.
Chris
Re. the 106/VTS. I seem to remember that in one of Autocars "greatest hot hatch" tests or whatever, the 106 came in either 1st or 2nd, and the Saxo 10th, which included track day driving.
Chris
29 October 2002, 02:06 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 13,720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no point arguing VTS V GTI as they are pretty much the same car. I think the VTS is better looking and the sales package is far too appealing (free insurance, etc). With equal drivers the performance of the two would be pretty much identical! I raced one from the gogar up the bypass and shock, horror...both accelerated at exactly the same rate
The 172 is obviously faster than the VTS but it is very marginal. Bluenose172 and Richard Pon both slated me for saying that in the vts thread but eat their words after crail. I did in fact beat bluenoses 172 down the strip but his car will have loosened up a bit since then. A workmate used to have one and given its name '172' I expected big things and expected it to murder the VTS...I was dissapointed The only modern day hot-hatch I've been in that was noticeably quicker than my saxo was the CTR! Any 172 owner playing with one of these is going to get burnt.....and some scooby owners too
Peace
Theo, what about a 1.6 crx VTI thingy (160bhp vtec), they are mega quick and also cheap!
The 172 is obviously faster than the VTS but it is very marginal. Bluenose172 and Richard Pon both slated me for saying that in the vts thread but eat their words after crail. I did in fact beat bluenoses 172 down the strip but his car will have loosened up a bit since then. A workmate used to have one and given its name '172' I expected big things and expected it to murder the VTS...I was dissapointed
The only modern day hot-hatch I've been in that was noticeably quicker than my saxo was the CTR! Any 172 owner playing with one of these is going to get burnt.....and some scooby owners too Peace
Theo, what about a 1.6 crx VTI thingy (160bhp vtec), they are mega quick and also cheap!
29 October 2002, 02:13 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 253
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saxo Boy
I agree with most of your points. My decision in choosing a 106 GTi over a VTS in 1998 were a combination of many factors (including the fact the my head rubbed off the top of the roof of a VTS, but not off a 106, which was odd!) plus I prefered the look (but thats obviously opinion!
My 172 loosened a lot after the first 2,000 miles, which was nice.
My feelings over the CTR are mixed, I have to say. I suppose i'm not really a fan of very very peaky engines. It handles exceptionally well though, but it looks like my dear old mother should be buying one, not me.
Chris
I agree with most of your points. My decision in choosing a 106 GTi over a VTS in 1998 were a combination of many factors (including the fact the my head rubbed off the top of the roof of a VTS, but not off a 106, which was odd!) plus I prefered the look (but thats obviously opinion!
My 172 loosened a lot after the first 2,000 miles, which was nice.
My feelings over the CTR are mixed, I have to say. I suppose i'm not really a fan of very very peaky engines. It handles exceptionally well though, but it looks like my dear old mother should be buying one, not me.
Chris
29 October 2002, 02:39 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 13,720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe the GTI seats are mounted lower I don't see how any car wearing the boots that the CTR has :drool: could be driven by yer mam!! Those 17s are to die for
Sipie, quit with the smart **** jokes that I don't understand Translate please
I don't see how any car wearing the boots that the CTR has :drool: could be driven by yer mam!! Those 17s are to die for Sipie, quit with the smart **** jokes that I don't understand
Translate please
29 October 2002, 02:52 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 253
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SiPie,
Sorry, I can't translate "My cars are made of tin foil" into Japanese
Saxo Boy - I suppose my mother did buy a new 944 Turbo in 1985, so she can't be too tasteless
Chris
Sorry, I can't translate "My cars are made of tin foil" into Japanese
Saxo Boy - I suppose my mother did buy a new 944 Turbo in 1985, so she can't be too tasteless
Chris
29 October 2002, 05:54 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Spec C - 12.5 @ 110(340/350)
Posts: 2,314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SaxoBoy,
With all due respect..."WILL YOU CHANGE THE FARKING RECORD"
The VTS is not as fast as the 172 in a straight line!!! FACT!
It doesn't have as flexible an engine, it can't pull from low down, it cant do 0-60 in 6.6 standard, it can't crack 100 in 17s and it can't do the 1/4 mile in under 15 seconds!!!!!!
Ah that feels better!!
With all due respect..."WILL YOU CHANGE THE FARKING RECORD"
The VTS is not as fast as the 172 in a straight line!!! FACT!
It doesn't have as flexible an engine, it can't pull from low down, it cant do 0-60 in 6.6 standard, it can't crack 100 in 17s and it can't do the 1/4 mile in under 15 seconds!!!!!!
Ah that feels better!!
29 October 2002, 05:57 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not driven Saxo but reckon the 172 feels quicker than MY01 bugeyes I've driven and alot quicker than my old 206 gti which was tested as low as 7.4 to 60mph in some mags.
My new Cup (still to loosen up) feels an improvement over the 172 in steering department. According to Autocar's latest test the Cup got a quicker 0-100 road test time than the CTR did in the recent 0-100-0 issue. It certainly doesnt feel slow.
[Edited by wilf - 10/29/2002 5:59:07 PM]
My new Cup (still to loosen up) feels an improvement over the 172 in steering department. According to Autocar's latest test the Cup got a quicker 0-100 road test time than the CTR did in the recent 0-100-0 issue. It certainly doesnt feel slow.
[Edited by wilf - 10/29/2002 5:59:07 PM]