Xsara VTS v Clio 172

[TW]Fox;15983756 said:
The thing I'm having trouble working out is how valid Xsara-hate is.

Do people hate Xsaras because they once drove one and found it didnt handle and was slow?
Click to expand...

Regarding the handling in the limited chances I got to test this it was just a fwd hatch. It may well come alive punted at high speed. I've thrashed a friends 1.4? xsara and that was fun in a low grip understeery fwd kind of way.
 
Skeeter said:
Very true. But you know better than anyone that nobody buys a car without any consideration of the image, so suggestin people ignore the image isn't somethin that works in the real world. Image is a factor worth as much as performance when makin a personal decision.
Click to expand...

I agree. I'd have the Clio, not the Xsara. And a lot of that would come down to the fact the Clio just looks better and isn't so utterly obscure.

But I'd always wondered if I was paying the extra purely for that perception rather than any extra technical ability. Personally I enjoyed the Clio more than the VTS but that might be because I had the 182 to myself for the afternoon yet the VTS was an accompanied test drive for 15 minutes.
 
I would/will choose the Clio over the Xsara purely because the Xsara looks so damn ugly. Whether thats worth the extra money is totally down to preference.
 
If I was buying, I would probably go with the Xsara and save some money, the regular Xsara was a decent enough car in it's day, I drove a 1.4 a few times and it was alright for what it was, might seem a bit naff today but then you can buy them for next to nothing so considering that, not bad at all.

I will say though, I have never driven the Clio 172 or the Xsara VTS, I am basing this more on a regular Clio and a regular Xsara, so weather this is remotely valid or not I don't really know. I suspect the performance versions are quite different animals, especially the clio from what I hear.
 
Last edited:
Having not driven a Xsara, I'm struggling to comprehend how a car of its size can handle as well as a 172? The 172 is a real go kart and can fly round corners, surely the Xsara is like a boat in comparison? Not having a go, just genuinely interested as have never been in one.
 
It isnt a particularly big car? It's the same wheelbase as a 306 GTi-6?

If size was as important as you seem to think I presume a Fiat Seicento outhandles a 172?
 
thecremeegg said:
Having not driven a Xsara, I'm struggling to comprehend how a car of its size can handle as well as a 172? The 172 is a real go kart and can fly round corners, surely the Xsara is like a boat in comparison? Not having a go, just genuinely interested as have never been in one.
Click to expand...

I'd be happy to demonstrate how a car even bigger than a Xsara VTS can easily keep up with a 172 in the corners ;)
 
Clio everytime, if your going to put up with useless french electrics, it may as well look nice broken down at the side of the road.
 
I had this choice 5 years ago although it was more like the same price for either a phase 1 172 or a phase 2/facelifted Xsara VTS.

The Xsara drove nicely and was nice enough inside, if I hadn't found a Clio to go look at I'd have probably bought it. Main dealer, low mileage, one owner, and they were falling over themselves to knock money off.

But then I drove the Clio. Well I drove a Clio, went up to Bournemouth for it, got there and they didn't say in the ad it had been ruined suspension wise an had huuuuge wheels on it. That said I knew then that's what I wanted, albeit a standard one.

That night got home, found another in Southampton. Drove up the next day (so 2 trips from Torquay in as many days), and 5 years and 65k on it's still with me.

It's cheap to run and good fun, everything a hot hatch should be :p

At those prices tough choice, I'd be tempted to go Xsara purely to save 2 grand as I'm tight (hence I still have the Clio, cost to change to something better is relatively high) :p

And Fox was that you in the Torquay drive through on Sunday, were you taking your lady out for a Valentines lunch like I was? :)
 
Too many people are giving looks as the reason for choosing the 172, yet the original question was something along the lines of "if image wasn't an issue", was it not?
 
Ev0 said:
And Fox was that you in the Torquay drive through on Sunday, were you taking your lady out for a Valentines lunch like I was? :)
Click to expand...

Nope I was in Bristol on Sunday! What did you see? :p I did have a romantic Burger King in The Galleries though :p
 
Besides the fact that the Clio 172 does absoultely nothing for me in the desirability stakes, I'd still have the Xsara all day long.

I'm a great fan of cars that punch well above their price tag and general expectations, and the Xsara does this absoultely perfectly. It is worth next to nothing because it is regarded as being an ugly 306 GTI-6, without the Six speed box. I ask why is that such a bad thing? The GTI-6 is regarded by many as one of the best handling cars ever made! No, the Xsara is not as good handling as the GTI-6, but it will upset 97% of cars you'll meet on your local winding B Road. And more importantly than that, I'm certain that it'll put a smile on your face, the No.1 job for ANY Hot Hatchback.

The 16V engine in the Xsara is an absolute gem. Below 3500RPM it'll potter around with as much manners as a Micra, with still enough low RPM 'poke' to keep you moving, wind it past 3,500RPM and it wakes up, pulling hard and fast to about 6,500RPM and then the power noticeably begins to trail off... The good news is all you have to do is dip the clutch, wiggle the gear lever a bit and you're right back in the power band, screaming towards the redline again :D. I know that the engine doesn't necessary 'make' a Hot-Hatch, but I'm sure as proven with Type-R Hondas, it certainly helps!.

Apart from image, I cannot think of a single downside for a VTS. No, seriously:
Cheap - You'll struggle to find a car of similar age and performance for the money
Reliable - If it has had it's cambelt changed that the correct intervals they are damn near bullet proof as you'd expect from a circa £1000 car.
Spacious - It's a 'family sized' hatchback, as opposed to the clio which I could see getting rather cramped
Quick - 150BHP per tonne isn't going to set the world on fire, but you could do worse.
Economical - I've heard as much as 35MPG on a run in a VTS (although the economy does suffer a tad if you do a lot of short journeys :o)

The 'image' problem with the Xsara is why it is so attractive, If they were the same price as a 306 GTI-6 in a similar condition I'd run for the hills. Yes, it is ugly, the interior combos are hideous and the GTI-6 is a better handling car, but because of the image the VTS has (which people are doing a great job explaining for me in this thread so far) they are worth next to nothing for something that is fundamentally a great car.
 
Moeks said:
One thing the Xsara actually has going for over the 306 GTI-6 other than price, a better interior.
Click to expand...

Realy? It's a long while since I've been in a 306 and it was fairly new at the time but I remember it being ok. The Xsara I remember as being poorly built crap.
 
MikeHiow said:
Too many people are giving looks as the reason for choosing the 172, yet the original question was something along the lines of "if image wasn't an issue", was it not?
Click to expand...

See what your saying but, as stated, image is always a big factor in buying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom