98 to '01 vts whats the difference??

  1. #1
    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. #2
    nada!!
    both are 120bhp standard.
    mk1 (98 model)
    is slightly quicker i believe..
    but not much.
  3. #3
    Not really any difference performance wize, mk2 slightly more economical.

    Id get a mk2 becouse of the cheaper tax.
  4. #4
    I thought the earlier ones were cheaper to tax?

    Al
  5. #5
    No. Newer cars are cheaper. Why would older cars with higher emmisions be cheaper when they polute more?
  6. #6
    Well check out this link....

    http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/road-t...27&deriv=17754

    Al
  7. #7
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by vtsal View Post
    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. #8
    i think the mk2 vtr's are cheaper to tax...
  9. #9
    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. #10
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by frankie View Post
    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. #11
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by vtsal View Post
    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. #12
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by frankie View Post
    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. #13
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by vtsal View Post
    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. #14
    So there's a differance between VTR's and VTS's...bloody government making up stupid rules!!!

    Al
  15. #15
    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. #16
    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. #17
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by db_sax View Post
    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