98 to '01 vts whats the difference??

1. vtsal Infrequent Poster Joined: Apr 2010 Amlwch Posts: 156 Saxo VTR

   #1 11th April 2010, 00:28

   Already posted in the newbies section to welcome myself but after 8 hours got no reply(friendly bunch...not).
   
   Went to view a VTS today 01 y reg but on waiting for a insurance quote the car sold...question is i have chance of a 98 vts and i'm wondering what differances there are performance wise?...please help.
   
   Al
2. johnlambert Saxperience Forum Bum Joined: Mar 2009 Dublin Posts: 4359 Honda S2000

   #2 11th April 2010, 00:30

   nada!!
   both are 120bhp standard.
   mk1 (98 model)
   is slightly quicker i believe..
   but not much.
3. Mochachino Saxperience Hardcore! Joined: Nov 2007 Guantanamo Bay Posts: 28700 oyster card

   #3 11th April 2010, 00:30

   Not really any difference performance wize, mk2 slightly more economical.
   
   Id get a mk2 becouse of the cheaper tax.
4. vtsal Infrequent Poster Joined: Apr 2010 Amlwch Posts: 156 Saxo VTR

   #4 11th April 2010, 00:38

   I thought the earlier ones were cheaper to tax?
   
   Al
5. Mochachino Saxperience Hardcore! Joined: Nov 2007 Guantanamo Bay Posts: 28700 oyster card

   #5 11th April 2010, 00:41

   No. Newer cars are cheaper. Why would older cars with higher emmisions be cheaper when they polute more?
6. vtsal Infrequent Poster Joined: Apr 2010 Amlwch Posts: 156 Saxo VTR

   #6 11th April 2010, 00:52

   Well check out this link....
   
   http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/road-t...27&deriv=17754
   
   Al
7. Mochachino Saxperience Hardcore! Joined: Nov 2007 Guantanamo Bay Posts: 28700 oyster card

   #7 11th April 2010, 00:57

   Quote:

   Originally Posted by vtsal Well check out this link.... http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/road-t...27&deriv=17754 Al

   You proved me wrong. I swear the newer Saox were cheaper, couse the ones with the older saxos on here were moaning ours were more expensive even though they were the same engin as the new ones.
   
   Im happy now though knowing theyre cheaper than mk2s now lol.
   
   It dosent make much sense at all though. Newer cars give less polution and mroe efficient than older cars, so the tax should be more on old cars?
8. frankie Saxperience Addict Joined: Apr 2006 Frome, down deepest, darkest zummerset Posts: 12971 VTRallye

   #8 11th April 2010, 01:00

   i think the mk2 vtr's are cheaper to tax...
9. vtsal Infrequent Poster Joined: Apr 2010 Amlwch Posts: 156 Saxo VTR

   #9 11th April 2010, 01:02

   I agree with you mate....my wife bought an 04 rover to use as a taxi and it was advertised as cheap tax(1.4) but when i taxed it i found out it wasn't as cheap as a 1996 rover 1.4 that we used to own....whats going on as you say you would think a newer less pollutive car would be cheaper to tax
   
   Al
10. Mochachino Saxperience Hardcore! Joined: Nov 2007 Guantanamo Bay Posts: 28700 oyster card

    #10 11th April 2010, 01:02

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by frankie i think the mk2 vtr's are cheaper to tax...

    Yeh your right, so i can be unhappy again now.
    
    19 Oct 1999 – 1 Mar 2001 £112.75 £205.00 -
    1 Mar 2001 – 1 Dec 2003 £85.25 £155.00
    
    Big difference.
11. Mochachino Saxperience Hardcore! Joined: Nov 2007 Guantanamo Bay Posts: 28700 oyster card

    #11 11th April 2010, 01:04

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by vtsal I agree with you mate....my wife bought an 04 rover to use as a taxi and it was advertised as cheap tax(1.4) but when i taxed it i found out it wasn't as cheap as a 1996 rover 1.4 that we used to own....whats going on as you say you would think a newer less pollutive car would be cheaper to tax Al

    Havnt got a clue! Makes no sense.
    
    The mk2 VTS is more expensive to tax than a Mk1 VTS
    
    but
    
    The Mk2 VTR is cheaper to tax than the Mk1 VTR
    
    
12. vtsal Infrequent Poster Joined: Apr 2010 Amlwch Posts: 156 Saxo VTR

    #12 11th April 2010, 01:05

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by frankie i think the mk2 vtr's are cheaper to tax...

    Check out the link mate...i don't know for sure,but it looks like the older ones are cheaper tax!!
    
    Al
13. Mochachino Saxperience Hardcore! Joined: Nov 2007 Guantanamo Bay Posts: 28700 oyster card

    #13 11th April 2010, 01:22

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by vtsal Already posted in the newbies section to welcome myself but after 8 hours got no reply(friendly bunch...not). Al

    Just replied to that with some points for you btw.
14. vtsal Infrequent Poster Joined: Apr 2010 Amlwch Posts: 156 Saxo VTR

    #14 11th April 2010, 01:24

    So there's a differance between VTR's and VTS's...bloody government making up stupid rules!!!
    
    Al
15. vtsal Infrequent Poster Joined: Apr 2010 Amlwch Posts: 156 Saxo VTR

    #15 11th April 2010, 01:31

    I think i should go back to bikes....1000cc,cheap insurance(108 a year fully comp)tax at £80 a year,180mph top speed,0-60 in 3 seconds and standing 1/4 mile in less than 11 seconds...............why bother with a slow tin box???
    
    Al
16. Mochachino Saxperience Hardcore! Joined: Nov 2007 Guantanamo Bay Posts: 28700 oyster card

    #16 11th April 2010, 01:34

    Keeps you dry and warm. 4 wheel cheap entertainment is the saxo's highlight! Popular cheap tracktoy for a reason. Or a Mazda MX5 if you want RWD.
17. vtsal Infrequent Poster Joined: Apr 2010 Amlwch Posts: 156 Saxo VTR

    #17 11th April 2010, 01:48

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by db_sax Keeps you dry and warm. 4 wheel cheap entertainment is the saxo's highlight! Popular cheap tracktoy for a reason. Or a Mazda MX5 if you want RWD.

    Quite true....especially coming home after a hard day's work on a cold winter night when you aint bothered about performance figures
    
    Al