VTR or VTS for track car?

18th March 2015, 16:07

So I am 40 years old and wanting to regain my youth by buying a saxo and prepping it for track day fun, whilst keeping it road legal/MOT'd.
I have been looking at buying a vts (obviously as they are the quickest lol) but been told by 2 or 3 knowledgable people that I should go for a vtr as they are far more reliable when thrashed and more suited to the track (gearing etc)
It is much much easier to find unmolested vtr's too.
Any thoughts?
I just kind of assumed that more bhp = better track toy lol!
Opinions?

(Never done track days before so its all new to me)

18th March 2015, 16:35

whoever has told you the vtr is more reliable is talking out of their arse if i'm honest - Yes the vtr is less complex with just a SOHC but if correctly looked after the S should be just as reliable as the vtr. I think a lot of the unreliablity stuff comes from the fact owners thrash the 16vs more so and abuse them.
You'll kick yourself if you dont get a 16v to be honest as no doubt you'll want more power in time, but then it may be worth finding a cheap vtr and putting a 16v engine and gearbox in (as the vtr one is horrid) if you cant find a decent vts.

18th March 2015, 20:28

Thanks Gandi699

19th March 2015, 09:24

Decide what its going to be and to what level you want to tune it. An 8v can be fast. You can get some ex race cars which are cheaper to convert to a road car than the other way round, and will come with good suspension, rollcage and many other bonus parts

19th March 2015, 09:30

Two perfect answers in a saxperience thread. One for the record books!

19th March 2015, 09:30

Ghandi has summed it up pretty well, can't really add to it. You would regret getting a vtr. Whoever said they're better on track clearly doesn't have a clue about them!

19th March 2015, 12:20

VTS every time unless your turboing. The VTS engines peak power is higher up the rev range than a VTR and has a hard and soft rev limiter at a higher RPM compared with the VTR, The VTR gets out of breath when you take it past 5000rpm and hits the hard limiter at about 6250rpm. The VTS will pull hard to around 7000 rpm.

The VTS gearbox is shorter ratio giving better acceleration by keeping you at peak power for longer.

I have had both, including a cammed VTR and I would go VTS everytime.

21st March 2015, 08:10

Can I just state for the record, a Vtr can be as quick around a track as a VTS/16valve. With the right suspension, brake upgrades and tyres, you can brake later, carry more speed through the corners and get on the power earlier. Plus the engine doesn't make you fast, it's your experience behind the wheel that makes you a quicker driver. £500 spent on upgrading the suspension and brakes and retaining stock power is better than £500 spent tuning the engine and neglecting the control elements of stopping and handling.

21st March 2015, 08:39

So with that logic, a vts with the same brake and suspension mods will be quicker. So your point is pretty invalid. You're assuming the Vts won't have any suspension or brake mods, of course it will.

I was hoping you were going to say that £500 spent on driver tuition would be better than any modification, which Id agree with. But oh well.

21st March 2015, 09:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by holdawayt

So with that logic, a vts with the same brake and suspension mods will be quicker. So your point is pretty invalid. You're assuming the Vts won't have any suspension or brake mods, of course it will.

I was hoping you were going to say that £500 spent on driver tuition would be better than any modification, which Id agree with. But oh well.

First off it all depends on people's budgets. The Vts is 7groups higher than a Vtr and with wanting to keep it road legal, there's the insurance factor, amongst others to consider in your budget. Vtr's also tend to be cheaper than Vts's depending on what people are asking. A well maintained Vtr is better than a cheaper, poorly maintained Vts.

Also, power is nothing without control. And a Vts with the same brake and suspension mods, on paper, should be quicker. An Astra VXR with suspension and brake upgrades would be quicker still. It all comes down to the driver at the end of the day. And if your starting out on track days, I'd much rather advise people to start slow and build your confidence up. Anyone can drive fast in a straight line but spending money on upgrading your brakes, suspension and tyres gives you a larger margin to work with on track while you learn to get to grips with your car and work towards how far you can push the car.

When I got my Vtr, people kept saying to drop a 16valve in for the power as it was quicker. I decided to build my 8valve for track days, and stick to the original engine and build it to show that an R can be quicker than an S on track, a point which I proved on Sunday on a track day.

Quoting Ben Collins: "Tyre Dynamics is what sticks the car to the road, not the metal bit sitting on top of them. Above all else, the chassis and suspension settings of a racing car are tuned to maximise the performance of the tyres. Some cars are better communicators than others, but every sensation the driver feels, every experience you will ever have on the road, travels along the hotline that connects the tyre to your backside".

I'm not saying that Andy isn't a competent driver but I'd prefer to have a chassis that tells me everything I need to know before, during and exiting a corner while getting used to driving on track than just wanting to go fast in a faster car. So no my argument is not invalid.

And yes driver tuition is without a doubt the best course to making the most of your driving experience and enjoying yourself on track. But it's better to get to grips with your car, learn your limits, THEN get a professional driver to tutor you and show you how to fine tune your driving, find where you can improve and go faster.

21st March 2015, 12:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by pedromakarachi

When I got my Vtr, people kept saying to drop a 16valve in for the power as it was quicker. I decided to build my 8valve for track days, and stick to the original engine and build it to show that an R can be quicker than an S on track, a point which I proved on Sunday on a track day.

That's a great story, but you could you could have been as fast as a vts if you'd have started with a vts and done a lot less work on it. That's the point.

No ones saying you can't make a vtr as fast as a vts but what's the point when you can start with something that's faster out the box.

21st March 2015, 13:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by pedromakarachi

The Vts is 7groups higher than a Vtr and with wanting to keep it road legal, there's the insurance factor

He's 40, I doubt insurance is a concern whatsoever.

21st March 2015, 17:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jizanthapus

That's a great story, but you could you could have been as fast as a vts if you'd have started with a vts and done a lot less work on it. That's the point.

No ones saying you can't make a vtr as fast as a vts but what's the point when you can start with something that's faster out the box.

I was faster than a Vts amongst a lot of faster cars thanks. The car is only as fast as the person willing to drive it that way. And as Andy has stated, try finding a standard Vts that hasn't been molested. Plus, the amount of adverts I've seen of people selling 16valve cars that have been "cammed" but have no proof. Stock Vtr's are more popular and it gives Andy the chance to build the car to his specification and adapt his driving to the modifications he fits. And build the car with the knowledge that he has built it correctly and safely.

Unless your willing to pay top dollar for a spec'd car that has been built professionally or by someone qualified to work on cars, the chances of buying a Vts with sensible and reputable modifications that are beneficial to a cars performance on a track day is fairly slim.

And yes a Vts is quicker, but only in a straight line. Both the Vtr and Vts, providing they are both stock cars and well serviced with quality tyres, will stop as quick and corner as quick as the other.

Each to their own I suppose though.

21st March 2015, 17:57

I was in a similar situation when i got mine. My main objective was cheap fun on the track. I got a vtr because it was much easier to find a better, lower milage example in my budget. Few hundred quid spent on suspension and secondhand seat. Yes things pass me on the track but i really don't care because it's great fun to drive and really cheap to fix. My daily car has nearly 4 times the power of the saxo, but i think i enjoy driving the little citroen more.

22nd March 2015, 08:37

Thanks for the replies everyone. Didn't intend to start any arguments though. I have been searching the forum and elsewhere extensively and I see the vtr/vts argument is a common one! Understandable when you are dealing with people's pride & joy.
Oh and no insurance is not an issue for me cos I'm mega ancient lol!
Anyway still on the search..... and still undecided on model :-)

22nd March 2015, 08:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy_W

Thanks for the replies everyone. Didn't intend to start any arguments though. I have been searching the forum and elsewhere extensively and I see the vtr/vts argument is a common one! Understandable when you are dealing with people's pride & joy.
Oh and no insurance is not an issue for me cos I'm mega ancient lol!
Anyway still on the search..... and still undecided on model :-)

The choice is yours. I'm a lot younger than yourself and insurance was an issue a few years back. Lol. When I was 19 I wanted a quicker car as my 1.4 furio was getting a bit boring after 2 years to say the least.

So I sought after a vts as that was what I wanted, found one I liked that had decent mileage and few subtle mods nothing drastic and ott. So I rang insurance to see how much to change over to the vts, long story short they wanted an extra £1700. That was a no brainer. Lol

So I sourced the next best thing a vtr. I got one and I loved the extra power I had and done a few mods to it myself to put my little touch in it. Was truly a great car. But a couple of years later I got my 1st vts. Well the difference is so much for just an extra 16v's I couldn't believe it. Lol. I still have my vts and I will never sell it. I love it so much.
Vts wins for me hands down every time.

22nd March 2015, 09:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by pedromakarachi

I was faster than a Vts amongst a lot of faster cars thanks. The car is only as fast as the person willing to drive it that way. And as Andy has stated, try finding a standard Vts that hasn't been molested. Plus, the amount of adverts I've seen of people selling 16valve cars that have been "cammed" but have no proof. Stock Vtr's are more popular and it gives Andy the chance to build the car to his specification and adapt his driving to the modifications he fits. And build the car with the knowledge that he has built it correctly and safely.

Unless your willing to pay top dollar for a spec'd car that has been built professionally or by someone qualified to work on cars, the chances of buying a Vts with sensible and reputable modifications that are beneficial to a cars performance on a track day is fairly slim.

And yes a Vts is quicker, but only in a straight line. Both the Vtr and Vts, providing they are both stock cars and well serviced with quality tyres, will stop as quick and corner as quick as the other.

Each to their own I suppose though.

The shoddy ones have nothing to do with it, you can find a decent 16v if you hang on for the right one - there's still loads about. The ones that have been 'cammed m8' with no proof are obviously the ones you want to stay away from.

That last paragraph is a complete contradiction - "vts is quicker but only in a straight line, but they handle the same"? Well the vts is obviously a quicker car then.

Like Milney said, there's a massive difference between the 2 and the vts is the better one, its pretty much fact!

23rd March 2015, 08:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jizanthapus

The shoddy ones have nothing to do with it, you can find a decent 16v if you hang on for the right one - there's still loads about. The ones that have been 'cammed m8' with no proof are obviously the ones you want to stay away from.

That last paragraph is a complete contradiction - "vts is quicker but only in a straight line, but they handle the same"? Well the vts is obviously a quicker car then.

Like Milney said, there's a massive difference between the 2 and the vts is the better one, its pretty much fact!

How is it a contradiction? Do the math, Vts is quicker accelerating so means you can hit higher speeds than a Vtr on the straights. But carrying more speed means braking earlier to reduce that speed before entering the corner. Vtr approaching the same corner, doesn't accelerate as quick as the Vts thus isn't carrying as much speed when approaching the corner, meaning you can brake later.

Finally, if the Vts is such a better car, quicker and more fun to drive, then why do the Junior Saloon Car Championship/French Car series/Stockhatch and the former Sax Max race series all run Vtr's?

A lot of people just seem obsessed with the Vts because of power! Power is nothing without control

23rd March 2015, 10:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by pedromakarachi

How is it a contradiction? Do the math, Vts is quicker accelerating so means you can hit higher speeds than a Vtr on the straights. But carrying more speed means braking earlier to reduce that speed before entering the corner. Vtr approaching the same corner, doesn't accelerate as quick as the Vts thus isn't carrying as much speed when approaching the corner, meaning you can brake later.

Are you for real? So you're saying a slower car will go faster round a track because it doesn't have to brake as much?

23rd March 2015, 10:24

What the hell I'm even reading...

23rd March 2015, 10:28

Haha I love this guy's logic.

In answer to the question "why do the championship guys use vtrs" it'll be because they're cheaper and more readily available. There's probably a power limit in the class too. 98bhp would be ideal for say a 100bhp limit.

You're such a derp. For the record I'm not a VTS fanboy, I had a VTR and enjoyed it. This is just simple logic though.

23rd March 2015, 10:52

its because of the regulations, 1400 cc 16v or 1600 8v in most cases. No wonder they picked the vtr, as said above they sold so many of the things due to the free insurance plus its a bit easier on the heart and wallet to smash up unlike an s2 rallye for instance.

Yes a VTR can be fun and with a few mods they arent too bad but considering the price of 16v units why would you even consider it?
Obviously the other PSA 8vs here not included such as the s1/s2 rallye as they were a whole different entity, not an insurance and mpg friendly hatch designed for those who wanted all the show but couldnt afford quite all the go.

23rd March 2015, 12:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by pedromakarachi

How is it a contradiction? Do the math, Vts is quicker accelerating so means you can hit higher speeds than a Vtr on the straights. But carrying more speed means braking earlier to reduce that speed before entering the corner. Vtr approaching the same corner, doesn't accelerate as quick as the Vts thus isn't carrying as much speed when approaching the corner, meaning you can brake later.

Finally, if the Vts is such a better car, quicker and more fun to drive, then why do the Junior Saloon Car Championship/French Car series/Stockhatch and the former Sax Max race series all run Vtr's?

A lot of people just seem obsessed with the Vts because of power! Power is nothing without control

Like for like the VTS will be faster. The VTR engine may be a bit lighter which will improve the cars handling vs the 16v but all else being equal raw power will win.

The 8v has been used in these series as a way of equalising the car against older machinery also in the championships.

Due to the popularity of the 8v's in racing you get a lot for the money when buying a second hand race car. They will have full roll cages (often the lighter t45 material), bucket seats, harnesses, race fuel tanks, decent suspension (i'd wait for one with AST vs Gaz and uprated torsionbars) and numerous other enhancements.
It will work out significantly cheaper than buying a car and doing even half the mods and if you feel you need more power then a 16v conversion is bloody simple and still cheaper overall.

The ex-race VTR's make a fast trackday car, maybe faster than most road 16v's taken on the track as they have been built to win races and are usually built with no compromise.

23rd March 2015, 20:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by holdawayt

Haha I love this guy's logic.

In answer to the question "why do the championship guys use vtrs" it'll be because they're cheaper and more readily available. There's probably a power limit in the class too. 98bhp would be ideal for say a 100bhp limit.

You're such a derp. For the record I'm not a VTS fanboy, I had a VTR and enjoyed it. This is just simple logic though.

If that's the case then why don't Euro Million winners with a passion for motorsport go out and buy an F1 car and jump into F1 racing? They can afford it but they don't. Could it be because buying a car that's faster on paper isn't always guaranteed to be quicker than it is, depending on who's behind the wheel? Or their experience driving powerful cars over what they have normally driven day-to-day?

And if your relying on basic logic, don't be so cock sure that it's right. On my last track day, I was quicker than everything apart from a Rage Buggy in my Vtr. My friend, who has 15 years Touring Car race experience and 2 years as a race instructor at Silverstone, was clocking 7mph faster than me down the back straight. And that was with his first time driving the car. We recorded all the data on his Vbox HD. So are you still going to rely on logic and factory figures that the VTS is quicker than a VTR? Or concede the fact that it is all down to the driver?

I'll even go as far to say that his son, who is racing in the Junior Saloon Car Championship this year in a Vtr, could beat 3/4's of the 16 valve owners on here around a track, and he is only 15. And to add to that, he's just been offered a drive in a Clio Cup car next year in a 24hour race in Dubai so trust me, he know's how to drive better than a lot of people I know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gandi699

its because of the regulations, 1400 cc 16v or 1600 8v in most cases. No wonder they picked the vtr, as said above they sold so many of the things due to the free insurance plus its a bit easier on the heart and wallet to smash up unlike an s2 rallye for instance.

Yes a VTR can be fun and with a few mods they arent too bad but considering the price of 16v units why would you even consider it?
Obviously the other PSA 8vs here not included such as the s1/s2 rallye as they were a whole different entity, not an insurance and mpg friendly hatch designed for those who wanted all the show but couldnt afford quite all the go.

Why does it always have to come down to power? I would rather drive a slower car with a bigger window of forgiveness for my first few outings on track, than buying something a bit quicker and reduce that margin for error, because your travelling quicker than anticipated, leading to making a mistake.

And judging by the amount of Peugeot/Saxo selling page's I watch, 16 valve units are more rife than the 8 valve units.

23rd March 2015, 20:54

I'm a better driver than u pal

24th March 2015, 09:22

No you're right. My Dad's 1950 Dellow Mk1 with roughly 20bhp is just as fast as my 278bhp Nissan. He's a far better driver so that's all that matters.

A VTS is quicker, there's no argument. It's like saying that the 1.6 Mini one is just as fast as the Cooper S. It just isn't. It's like you have small man syndrome or something. "My Vtr is the fastest thing in the world and you guys won't prove me wrong".

Sad really.

24th March 2015, 09:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by pedromakarachi

If that's the case then why don't Euro Million winners with a passion for motorsport go out and buy an F1 car and jump into F1 racing? They can afford it but they don't. Could it be because buying a car that's faster on paper isn't always guaranteed to be quicker than it is, depending on who's behind the wheel? Or their experience driving powerful cars over what they have normally driven day-to-day?

And if your relying on basic logic, don't be so cock sure that it's right. On my last track day, I was quicker than everything apart from a Rage Buggy in my Vtr. My friend, who has 15 years Touring Car race experience and 2 years as a race instructor at Silverstone, was clocking 7mph faster than me down the back straight. And that was with his first time driving the car. We recorded all the data on his Vbox HD. So are you still going to rely on logic and factory figures that the VTS is quicker than a VTR? Or concede the fact that it is all down to the driver?

I'll even go as far to say that his son, who is racing in the Junior Saloon Car Championship this year in a Vtr, could beat 3/4's of the 16 valve owners on here around a track, and he is only 15. And to add to that, he's just been offered a drive in a Clio Cup car next year in a 24hour race in Dubai so trust me, he know's how to drive better than a lot of people I know.

Why does it always have to come down to power? I would rather drive a slower car with a bigger window of forgiveness for my first few outings on track, than buying something a bit quicker and reduce that margin for error, because your travelling quicker than anticipated, leading to making a mistake.

And judging by the amount of Peugeot/Saxo selling page's I watch, 16 valve units are more rife than the 8 valve units.

I really dont understand what tangent you are going on. A VTR can be fast, but with the same driver and chassis spec a VTS with 20-30bhp more will be faster still. Do you understand quite how much of a performance leap 30 bhp is? Your touring car driver would have probably been another 5 seconds faster again, maybe even more..

24th March 2015, 09:36

no one is discussing what it comes down to in regards to driving skill - Standard for standard and with a driver of equal skill in each a 16v will be quicker than the 8v.
If you choose to own and drive the less powerful car on track as it suits your driving style then that is fine, whatever floats your boat - I've no doubt that a great driver with all the appropriate experience could pedal a saxo vtr round track faster than a novice in say a 911 let alone just the 16v version of the saxo.
ps The reason you see more 16v units for sale is because people actually want to buy them unlike vtr units which you cant even give away for free.

24th March 2015, 10:08

but....an 8v race car will most likely be faster round the track than a road based vts. Its a more focused car. The trick is to understand how extreme you want the car to be and how much you really want to spend to get it there. Theres a VTR race car shell on ebay at the moment. You could drop in a VTS engine and it would be a very capable car. Maybe faster than a touring car driver lol

24th March 2015, 12:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy_W

So I am 40 years old and wanting to regain my youth by buying a saxo and prepping it for track day fun, whilst keeping it road legal/MOT'd.
I have been looking at buying a vts (obviously as they are the quickest lol) but been told by 2 or 3 knowledgable people that I should go for a vtr as they are far more reliable when thrashed and more suited to the track (gearing etc)
It is much much easier to find unmolested vtr's too.
Any thoughts?
I just kind of assumed that more bhp = better track toy lol!
Opinions?

(Never done track days before so its all new to me)

One word

VTS

24th March 2015, 17:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samuel

One word

VTS

I'd have gone for the "3 letters" approach as opposed to the one word. Each to their own I suppose

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

24th March 2015, 19:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbrady72

I'd have gone for the "3 letters" approach as opposed to the one word. Each to their own I suppose

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's techically an acronym so it should be:

One acronym:

VTS

24th March 2015, 19:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jizanthapus

It's techically an acronym so it should be:

One acronym:

VTS

What a mighty fine educated fellow you are sir!
You go to the great university of Easo-m8?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

24th March 2015, 20:18

Harvard actually pal

They dint no what hit em

24th March 2015, 20:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jizanthapus

Harvard actually pal

They dint no what hit em

Haha yeah mertttt

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

25th March 2015, 12:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbrady72

I'd have gone for the "3 letters" approach as opposed to the one word. Each to their own I suppose

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jizanthapus

It's techically an acronym so it should be:

One acronym:

VTS

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbrady72

What a mighty fine educated fellow you are sir!
You go to the great university of Easo-m8?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did cross my mind actually, but I was ballsy and went for it anyway

26th March 2015, 17:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jizanthapus

Are you for real? So you're saying a slower car will go faster round a track because it doesn't have to brake as much?

Yes I am for real, it depends on the circuit layout. Long straights with flowing corners then yes there's no doubt that a VTS would be quicker. But on a tighter circuit it would be to close to call.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jizanthapus

I'm a better driver than u pal

That a throw down?

Quote:

Originally Posted by holdawayt

No you're right. My Dad's 1950 Dellow Mk1 with roughly 20bhp is just as fast as my 278bhp Nissan. He's a far better driver so that's all that matters.

A VTS is quicker, there's no argument. It's like saying that the 1.6 Mini one is just as fast as the Cooper S. It just isn't. It's like you have small man syndrome or something. "My Vtr is the fastest thing in the world and you guys won't prove me wrong".

Sad really.

Trust me I don't have small syndrome at all so no it isn't sad. What I'm trying to get across is that whenever this question pops up, almost everyone automatically jumps on the 16 valve bandwagon like it's the only engine that matters. That's what is the sad part of it all. Just because it has 30bhp more than the 8 valve, accelerates quicker to 60mph than the 8 valve and has a higher top speed than the 8 valve doesn't make a VTS any more or any less fun than a VTR on track. Speed and power isn't everything but it seems that a lot of people think it is all that matters.

I've had people ask me what would make a good motorbike for starting out on track days. It's always worth knowing what people have ridden, or in the case of car's driven, before advising them. I wouldn't advise someone moving up from an Aprilla RS250 to buy a Suzuki Hayabusa just because it accelerates quicker, has a higher top speed and more power. The same applies with cars and track days. You don't go and buy a car just because it has more power, more bhp and is faster on paper then spend most of your time wrestling it around a track on the edge of control. If you've never driven on a track day before then air on the side of caution, buy a lower powered car and build up your confidence while learning and understanding racing lines, braking points, apex's not to mention track etiquette and the relevant flags. And if people's logic is that power is everything and you want a fast track day car then stuff a VTS, why not re-mortgage the house and buy an Ariel Atom then? They're even quicker than a VTR and a VTS!

26th March 2015, 18:55

We're not discussing what's more fun though, that's the whole argument. We're telling him which is faster, like you just said the Vts has more power, accelerates quicker and has a higher top speed. So it's the quicker car.

Yep the vtr is a blast, but it's the slower of the Saxo range. That's all there is to it.

For the record, Id advise someone to jump on a honda hornet or a bandit after a 250. They can drop them all day long and the bike wouldn't break at all lol.

I've driven on track for a while now. I understand your points, but the Vtr / Vts argument is as old as the Saxo. There's no denying both are fun, But the 16v is the quicker car.

26th March 2015, 19:12

Motorbikes have a vastly different handling characteristic depending on the engine as its something like 90% of the weight of the bike, so its mass and weight distribution massively effect handling. I'm not totally convinced on circuit this would be as critical, but its certainly noticable on the road with cornering performance with smaller engined bikes cornering faster and are able to transition from one turn to the next; being so easy to manhandle...

Now the VTR and VTS are not massively dis-similar in weight. The 8v is lighter but not massively so. Handling is noticeably nicer, but I dont think its enough to give any real advantage on track - certainly not the VTR engines which are inferior to the Peugeot homologated ones. I've not driven the cars back to back, but i've driven rather a lot of small PSA cars and the higher rev limit and 30bhp increase is a massive difference in such a light car. I grew up on a dose of 205 1.9gti's and we converted so many to 16v with a similar power jump and it made a brisk car ballistic. Even the mk1 106's we converted to 16v never hit me as having significantly worse handling.

I've no doubt a VTR can be fast. I know how many of my customers are racing them and doing great laptimes on track but theres no mistake that with a 16v engine they will be faster on every circuit in this country. You've deviated onto whether the VTR is fun on track and I dont think anyone would disagree with that at all. I personally prefer the 106 Rallye over all the Saxo and 106 models due to its balance between power and handling as I focus more on intricate handling characteristics than overall pace.

27th March 2015, 21:49

That's all I was trying to state that a VTR can be a potent and enjoyable track day car just as much as VTS. I'm not trying to imply that the VTR is the best Saxo. I'm just trying to argue the point that you shouldn't rule one out as a potential track car, and that as much fun as having an extra 30bhp might be, that speed and power aren't the be all and end all of a good track car.

On the Facebook group I'm a member of, the 8 valve/16 valve debate has raged on for as long as I've been a member. And, as it stands, the 16 valve owners have yet to stick one on the 8 valve drivers. And interestingly the majority of the 16 valve owners are young lads, where as the majority of the 8 valve drivers are older like myself. And us older guys have proven on a number of occasions to the youth that it isn't the power of the car, it's the experience of the person controlling the power behind the wheel.

Through my time as a car enthusiast over the past 18 years, I've seen a lot of people chasing power enhancing modifications and neglect the control elements of the car. And as a result I've witnessed a lot of people, friends included, have some pretty bad accidents as a result. This was the other point I was trying to make of by saying that power isn't everything. If you buy or drive a quick car that is faster than anything you have driven previously, yes it will put a smile on your face. But it can also catch you off guard.

My case in point is when I worked at a rolling road specialist. I raced a mk2 Xr2 for a season back in my youth and on this particular day, a customer brought in a Nissan Skyline R33 GTR for some tuning work on the rollers. The car threw out nearly 500bhp on the rollers and I got to take it for a drive, which is were I put my foot down, the car launched at the horizon, my sense's couldn't keep up with how quick the car accelerated, and when I got back to the garage, I climbed out shaking like hell!! lol I thought, with racing, that I could handle a quicker car, and will hold my hands up and say I was wrong. That day taught me a valuable lesson not to punch above my weight