C2 VTS

ash_scotland88 · 5 Jun 2011 at 19:58

Anybody have any thoughts or imput into these?
I know they get described as "go karts."

Basically looking for a smallish "city" car with sportiness, and been thinking about these or a 172.
But a 172 doesn't seem to come into price bracket very often. It's also more expensive on tax and £750 on insurance compared to £500.
As far as I can tell daily running costs are also tad cheaper on the VTS.

I think I would prefer the clio, but something tell me that I shouldn't just write off this car due to preference. Test driving isn't an option due to only having fleet insurance through work and no current car of my own, so £30 for day insurance adds up!

edit: wrong forum, please move,

Jono8 · 5 Jun 2011 at 20:02

Both very different cars.

K.C. Leblanc · 5 Jun 2011 at 20:04

ash_scotland88 said:
Test driving isn't an option due to only having fleet insurance through work and no current car of my own, so £30 for day insurance adds up!

Go and try some at a dealers, they should have their own insurance.

ash_scotland88 · 5 Jun 2011 at 20:05

K.C. Leblanc said:
Go and try some at a dealers, they should have their own insurance.

I thought typically you had to pay for them.

K.C. Leblanc · 5 Jun 2011 at 20:06

ash_scotland88 said:
I thought typically you had to pay for them.

They should let you try before you buy.

EDIT: Just make sure you give the impression you're sententiously interested.

ash_scotland88 · 5 Jun 2011 at 20:10

K.C. Leblanc said:
They should let you try before you buy.

I suppose it is a thought.
First of all need to make sure all finances are there. Been dreaming for so long now, and made so many posts about various cars even I am getting sick of it.
Just give me the moneys and let me get on with it! :mad:

Even now, after deciding that money earned this summer will be put towards a car I am still thinking about dropping back down to my originial lower budget and getting a 306 for a few years, and obvious something less 172 and more 1.2

Peerzy · 5 Jun 2011 at 20:36

Walk into a dealer, talk the talk and walk the walk and you'll get a test drive in anything.

Obviously only do this if you are actually serious in the make and model you are testing as they'll soon catch on if you want to drive a Golf R32, Polo Blumotion and a 5 litre 4x4!

lordrobs · 5 Jun 2011 at 20:46

I often drive a C2 VTR when our Punto is having various bits glued back on or whatever the hell they do to it to bodge it through another month before it has to go back because something else has broken.

Anyway... I think I can honestly say it is one of the worst cars I've ever driven but it is painfully economical if the trip computer can be believed. 54mpg over the last 600+ miles on the last one I had, not bad for a courtesy hack.

I imagine the VTS being just as crap but slightly quicker and less economical.

ash_scotland88 · 5 Jun 2011 at 20:47

lordrobs said:
I often drive a C2 VTR when our Punto is having various bits glued back on or whatever the hell they do to it to bodge it through another month before it has to go back because something else has broken.

Anyway... I think I can honestly say it is one of the worst cars I've ever driven but it is painfully economical if the trip computer can be believed. 54mpg over the last 600+ miles on the last one I had, not bad for a courtesy hack.

I imagine the VTS being just as crap but slightly quicker and less economical.

Cheers for the input.
Even wee things like this help me.

brightside_ · 5 Jun 2011 at 21:09

One of the lads at work said these were a complete fly-by-wire job, and can sometimes have issues with it. All heresay I'm afraid, but I do know the lad has had one.

Scrutinize · 6 Jun 2011 at 15:56

ash_scotland88 said:
Anybody have any thoughts or imput into these?
I know they get described as "go karts."

Basically looking for a smallish "city" car with sportiness, and been thinking about these or a 172.
But a 172 doesn't seem to come into price bracket very often. It's also more expensive on tax and £750 on insurance compared to £500.
As far as I can tell daily running costs are also tad cheaper on the VTS.

I think I would prefer the clio, but something tell me that I shouldn't just write off this car due to preference. Test driving isn't an option due to only having fleet insurance through work and no current car of my own, so £30 for day insurance adds up!

edit: wrong forum, please move,

I went from a Saxo VTS (2003 end of run model) to a C2 GT. The GT had the 1.6 16v engine and manual box but only 110bhp. Nippy enough, handled well and ok on the motorway as I commuted 60+ miles per day in it. Great fuel economy as well.

The c2 was a great little car for what it was. I have never driven the C2 VTS but I imagine it is somewhere between my Saxo VTS and C2 GT. The VTS needs revving hard to get the performance, great fun on the right road but tiresome in real world driving.

For the right price, I would have a C2 VTS. Small, cheap to run but still nippy enough to be fun.

I went from the C2 GT to a Clio 172 (full fat). The 172 was so much quicker in real world driving than my Saxo VTS was, mainly due to in gear acceleration. The C2 VTS would feel quite slow compared to a 172. Handling on the 172 is better (harsh though on a bumpy road). Running costs on the 172 aren’t that bad and I used to get 35-40mpg combined, but insurance and tax is higher. I would say the C2 had a more comfortable driver space /position though.

Also a slight curve ball, I went from the 172 to a Vauxhall Corsa 1.8 SRI (2005) which I actually preferred to my 172 for a number of reasons and performance was pretty good. Easier to live with on a day to day basis, quick, cheap to run and insure and looked ok. Certainly better than a C2 imo but finding a good one now with all the revisions may be harder, mine was an ex demo so like new and these were no longer made after 05. Cheap to buy second hand if you can find a good one. Anyway I digress so...

Have a pic of my 172 to persuade you as the 172 makes sense.

Django x2 · 6 Jun 2011 at 17:16

Lol Halfords

Blue160 · 6 Jun 2011 at 19:35

My wife's got a C2 VTS.

Nice little car. Tidy handling, good fun, and well put together (for a French car

). Really good standard equipment too.

Bad points are it's not that quick, the gear change is dreadful (we tried a few and they're all like that), and it's hugely noisy if you take it on the motorway.

It's good for what we use it for. It's purely a town runaround and never gets used on long motorway trips. I think it would get tiring as an only car though.

scratch · 6 Jun 2011 at 21:27

Blue160 said:
My wife's got a C2 VTS.

Nice little car. Tidy handling, good fun, and well put together (for a French car ). Really good standard equipment too.

Bad points are it's not that quick, the gear change is dreadful (we tried a few and they're all like that), and it's hugely noisy if you take it on the motorway.

It's good for what we use it for. It's purely a town runaround and never gets used on long motorway trips. I think it would get tiring as an only car though.

He's hit the nail on the head here!

I bought one in December last year and sold it a few months later; it's the shortest amount of time I've ever owned a car.

I was looking for an equivalent to my old 106GTi but unfortunately it didn't live up to expectations. I loved the styling and it did handle well but rattles everywhere, a gearchange likened to stirring treacle with a big wooden spoon and most of all needing to rev the nuts off it to get anywhere quickly soon became tiresome. As Blue160 says, it really doesn't like the motorway either as it's geared for driving around town.

Even though I'm not a fan of the 172s looks, I think you'll find it a much more complete package.

alexisonfire · 6 Jun 2011 at 21:50

I had one of these for a short period of time, but did pretty heavy mileage in it for the first few months. It was perfect for what i needed at the time, it was cheap tax, reliable, economical, could easily get 40-45mpg. The handling was very good, and the brakes were excellent, the gearbox/clutch however were utterly terrible. It had enough power to make b road blasts fun, but the gear ratio wasn't very good on motorway driving. It sits at something silly like 4.5k-5k rpm at 70 in 5th iirc. It was a good little car, but can't even be compared to something like the 172/182 (which i own now). They are leagues apart.