VTr faster that C2 VTS

  1. Infrequent Poster Joined: May 2012 oswestry Posts: 233 Saxo VTR 2003
    #1
    Right so i have a mk2 Vtr and the only mods it has got is a decat mani and full sportex system (awaiting saxsport) and induction kit, and thats it so far.. so my friend bought a C2 VTS (120hp) and we both assumed it would have the edge on my vtr but even managed to pull past him one night on a bit of dual carridgeway, quite supprised with that, must be down to the weight of the C2....
  2. Forum Section Moderator Joined: Aug 2008 Liverpool Posts: 15517 Saxo VTR
    #2
    Your VTR is about 920kg (Presuming you haven't stripped anything out)

    His C2 is about 1,050 kg

    That's 130kg difference, it will certainly give you an edge. For every 10kg of weight lost you gain 1bhp/tonne (IIRC) - So in theory you have "13bhp" just from the weight difference.


    So, you start out with a 98bhp VTR, add the parts you have, call it 8 - 10bhp from them, and then add the "13bhp" you have in theory around 120bhp the same as he does, take into account gear ratios, drivers, and many other small technicalities - what happened is about right.
  3. Saxperience Post Whore Joined: Nov 2010 Kent Posts: 8439 Gen 7 Celica 190.
    #3
    James you bastard!
  4. Forum Section Moderator Joined: Aug 2008 Liverpool Posts: 15517 Saxo VTR
    #4
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Cam View Post
    James you bastard!
    It's been done to death on here, come on now, "he was doing the speed limit". Lets keep it on topic
  5. Frequent Poster Joined: Jul 2012 North East Posts: 510 EP3 Type R
    #5
    but the 0-60 on a c2 vts is 8.0 apparently and a vtr is 9.1?
  6. Forum Section Moderator Joined: Aug 2008 Liverpool Posts: 15517 Saxo VTR
    #6
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by martin1985 View Post
    but the 0-60 on a c2 vts is 8.0 apparently and a vtr is 9.1?
    On standard cars yes, his VTR Is not standard is it. Plenty of other technicalities too, it wasn't timed at Santa pod, anything could of happened.
  7. Saxperience Hardcore! Joined: Dec 2007 smurfland. Posts: 17346 Ex saxo owner.
    #7
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by martin1985 View Post
    but the 0-60 on a c2 vts is 8.0 apparently and a vtr is 9.1?
    Its down partially to weight & other factors like how well a car puts the power down onto the road.
  8. Frequent Poster Joined: Jul 2012 North East Posts: 510 EP3 Type R
    #8
    well apparently my vts does 0-60 in 7.5 and with the mods i have based on peoples theories on here it should be around 6ish some where
  9. Infrequent Poster Joined: May 2012 oswestry Posts: 233 Saxo VTR 2003
    #9
    that was the only reason we could come up with but still a win for the 8V!!!
  10. Saxperience Forum Bum Joined: Sep 2011 Doncaster Posts: 2627 Fabia VRS, mk1 fiesta + some others
    #10
    its because your VTR is sick y0.
  11. Super Moderator Joined: Nov 2009 Cambridge(ish), UK. Posts: 10581 BMW 5x M50d.
    #11
    The stig driving the VTR, duh.. obviously.
    1 user thanked this post:
  12. Newbie Joined: Nov 2012 Paris Posts: 18 Ford Taunus TC1 1600 GXL(Cortina Mk3) AX 16v
    #12
    The frontal area of the C2 is much higher than the Saxo's.
    So around 60 mph and after for any sigle mph added the C2 spend more Horse power only for pusching air in front of it.

    That's one of the reason (add the weight) I don't like de C2.

    The C2, or when the daughter made things worst than his mother Saxo...
  13. Infrequent Poster Joined: May 2012 oswestry Posts: 233 Saxo VTR 2003
    #13
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by m4tt274 View Post
    its because your VTR is sick y0.
    ...yes
  14. Saxperience Post Whore Joined: Jul 2007 West Sussex Posts: 7566 CLS63 AMG
    #14
    0-100mph the C2 is down as 24.4 seconds, thats over 3 seconds slower than a saxo vts. C2 weighs just under 1100kgs as well, a fair bit heavier.

    A vtr with those mods 'edging' one seems entirely viable.