VTS vs GTI 0-60

1. Logan1987GTI Newbie Joined: Feb 2010 Posts: 9

   #1 3rd December 2012, 20:59

   Hey everyone
   
   I have heard that the Saxo has a quicker 0-60 time than the 106 because of a raised 2nd gear meaning that you don't have to waste time changing in to 3rd before hitting 60. Is it true that the Saxo has this but the 106 hasn't?
   
   I have also heard that there is no difference in 0-60 times but Peugeot intentionally had extra weight in the GTI when testing its 0-60 to purposely slow the car and reduce insurance costs? Personally I find this hard to believe but it could be true im not sure, hopefully someone can clear this up.
   
   I thought they wer identical in every way performance wise, engine, transmission, brakes etc. Just wanting to know that if standard is the Saxo the quicker car? And would putting a VTS box in a GTI make them equally fast?
   
   I ask as I have had 2 GTI's in the past and I am now thinking of getting another for track days but I will be entering in to 1600 "Standard class" (No performance mods) so wont be able to touch it, unless putting a VTS box in would be allowed I havent looked in to that yet. So if standard the VTS is a quicker car it would make sense for me to go with the Saxo instead.
   
   
2. KamRacing Saxperience Addict Joined: Nov 2006 A farm shed in Aylesbury Posts: 14916 Corolla AE86 Peugeot 205 B18C (in bits)

   #2 3rd December 2012, 21:03

   Theres no difference in basic car chassis or engine so no difference in 0-60
3. Logan1987GTI Newbie Joined: Feb 2010 Posts: 9

   #3 3rd December 2012, 21:18

   Ok thanks, so gear ratio is the same and both will do 60 or more in 2nd? I should of paid more attention when driving mine lol its been a few years so I cant remember
4. m4tt274 Saxperience Forum Bum Joined: Sep 2011 Doncaster Posts: 2627 Fabia VRS, mk1 fiesta + some others

   #4 3rd December 2012, 22:06

   ive heard the VTS autocar used had an empty tank and the gti had 3/4. unsure if true. could well have been tires, engine/air/ambiant temp. humidity... etc etc like most engines on a dyno, few make the same power exactly every time.
   
   both cars are the same though. VTS is slightly more aerodynamic.
5. Jazz Saxperience Post Whore Joined: Jul 2007 West Sussex Posts: 7566 CLS63 AMG

   #5 3rd December 2012, 22:12

   Quote:

   Originally Posted by m4tt274 VTS is slightly more aerodynamic.

   What makes you say that?
   
   As you say, it could be a variety of things. Temp, surface, tyres.
   
   Real world figures should be around the 8-second mark as a happy medium.
   
   When I had my VTS we tested our Octavia vRS 0-60 against it which supposedly is 7.9s, but after about 50ish the Octavia was pulling ahead comfortbly.
6. Logan1987GTI Newbie Joined: Feb 2010 Posts: 9

   #6 4th December 2012, 14:26

   Thank you for the reply's, I read somewhere that the Saxo is 10kg heavier than the 106 but this will make no difference atall in the real world, im not sure about the aerodynamics tho. I do have one more question tho, is the mk2 VTS any faster or slower than the mk1? I prefer the look of the mk1's but would choose power over looks if it came down to it, cheers
7. martin1985 Frequent Poster Joined: Jul 2012 North East Posts: 510 EP3 Type R

   #7 6th December 2012, 15:34

   well according to parkers, http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/review...atchback-1996/
   
   the mk1 is 0.1 seconds quicker to 60, i don't know if the figures are right
   
   also the 106 GTi is apparently slightly heavier http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/review...ck-1991/12636/
8. rey Saxperience Post Whore Joined: May 2006 Kent Posts: 8205 :(s)rac

   #8 6th December 2012, 16:48

   They're identical.
   
   Pick whichever you think looks best/is cheapest/in the best condition
9. jasonmayall Established Member Joined: Mar 2011 Birmingham Posts: 2148 Rover BRM, Rover 800 Coupe, Mk6 golf.

   #9 6th December 2012, 17:25

   Quote:

   Originally Posted by rey They're identical. Pick whichever you think looks best/is cheapest/in the best condition

   This. They're the same cars - I thought it was common knowledge? lol
   
   I'd go for the GTI - Looks better IMO.
   But saying that, They are quite a bit more expensive than VTS'
10. user_39461 Super Moderator Joined: Nov 2009 Cambridge(ish), UK. Posts: 10581 BMW 5x M50d.

    #10 6th December 2012, 17:31

    gti is a better looking car and has 100x less chav factor. Insurance is lower too.
    Win win.
11. Pricklep Saxperience Hardcore! Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 31279 Citroen Saxo VTS, S60 D5

    #11 6th December 2012, 17:35

    Insurance was more on a GTi for me then a VTS.
12. Logan1987GTI Newbie Joined: Feb 2010 Posts: 9

    #12 6th December 2012, 17:37

    Cheers everyone, that has cleared things up
13. user_39461 Super Moderator Joined: Nov 2009 Cambridge(ish), UK. Posts: 10581 BMW 5x M50d.

    #13 6th December 2012, 18:30

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Prickle Insurance was more on a GTi for me then a VTS.

    Higher value?
    
    Insurance group is lower on the gti so like for like, should be lower premium.
14. Pricklep Saxperience Hardcore! Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 31279 Citroen Saxo VTS, S60 D5

    #14 6th December 2012, 18:36

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Ross Higher value? Insurance group is lower on the gti so like for like, should be lower premium.

    God knows man.
    
    Did quotes on both cars and that came more £££ + it was harder to find a decent one then it was to find a Saxo
15. Ryanp Super Moderator Joined: Feb 2004 Tonbridge United Kingdom (England) Posts: 38236 Vtr, 172, throttle bodied track slut

    #15 6th December 2012, 18:38

    Gti had a different rear ARB.
    
    about it in the none cosmetic dept