Citroen C2 VTS

I would advise against buying one, they are crap

Most of the reasons have already been stated. But to sum up, nasty, cheap plasticy, 'probably' unreliable, uninspiring to drive, tiny wheezy little engine, looks stupid, sort of like a roller skate with alloys. Just no, no, no and no, truly horrible car. Oh and the wheelie-bin plastic interior is foul, did I mention the plastic? …awful nasty cheap, brittle, scratchy, horrid cheapness supreme.
 
Last edited:
Moeks said:
Most of the reasons have already been stated. But to sum up, nasty, cheap plasticy, 'probably' unreliable, uninspiring to drive, tiny wheezy little engine, looks stupid, sort of like a roller skate with alloys. Just no, no, no and no, truly horrible car. Oh and the wheelie-bin plastic interior is foul, did I mention the plastic? …awful nasty cheap, brittle, scratchy, horrid cheapness supreme.
Click to expand...

:D 'probably unreliable' just about sums up the worthiness of your input on this car ;)

[TW]Fox;15707595 said:
Why is why it sucks. The Saxo VTS was not a Group 8 car.
Click to expand...

exactly. nigh on same functionality and performance as the Saxo platform yet considerably cheaper to insure. if anything it strengthens its appeal.
 
Last edited:
fonzee said:
:D 'probably unreliable' just about sums up the worthiness of your input on this car ;)



exactly. nigh on same functionality and performance as the Saxo platform yet considering cheaper to insure. if anything it strengthens its appeal.
Click to expand...

And your smileys do an awful job of disguising the pot shot you just fired at me with that comment. Which makes you look more of a fool than I.

Because, as it happens everything I said is quite accurate, the degree to which though does depend to some extent on what kind of a yard stick you use to measure my assertions I suppose, but even when compared to a like car, such as a Clio, Honda Jazz or any number of others it's still coming up very short in most respects.

And yes of course I said it'll 'probably' be unreliable, as I can't know weather it will or not for certain. But if statistical data is anything to go by, it's quite likely to throw up some issues.

Look at it like this, all three of the French mass market manufacturers are in the bottom 7 of the brands looked at in the 2008 JD Power Survey, of those Citroen is the least reliable of the three French manufactures, placing 5th from bottom, of all the individual models listed from these French manufactures the Citroen C2 is the least reliable of all, and to add to that it places 96 out of 100 vehicles in total, this is really quite bad indeed, even by the poor standards of the French marques. The Honda Jazz meanwhile, was 2nd on the entire list of 100.

Bear in mind, the C2 is not an old car, it isn’t as if we are talking about cars that are 10 plus years old here.
 
Last edited:
The C2 IMO is a nice little car the only thing is, is the reliablity. A friend of a friend owned a C2 GT and it was always breaking.
If your looking for a nippy town car you should really get a Clio.
The C2 VTS is a good car and you will enjoy it just keep your eye on the repair bills.
 
Moeks said:
Because, as it happens everything I said is quite accurate
Click to expand...

except it wasn't, was it? just the usual ramble from you based on pure assumptions. uninspiring to drive? where did you get that peach from? there isn't a hope in hell you've ever driven one given your sheer ignorance over any vehicles from the 'lesser brands'. i quote from evo:

...C2 has a fantastic chassis. It thrives on the small, tight backwaters where even a larger hot hatch would be treading gingerly. You can feel the short wheelbase underneath you and there’s a stiffness and sharpness to the way it tackles corners. Lift off and it’s alert and instantly reactive.
Click to expand...

wheezy little engine? 125bhp in something that weighs little more than a tonne sounds perfectly suitable to me, it wouldn't suit the nature of the car to have anything of significant power. i remember your misguided and cringeworthy outburst on the S2K so all this does not surprise.

statistical data is hardly that reliable in itself as i'm sure we'll all agree. i personally have never heard of any horror stories on the reliability of these. i know a few of the lads from the C2OC and sure, some have gone wrong but nothing out of the ordinary from the usual lack of servicing/maintainance. the 2009 JD survey actually highlights 'above-average' reliability for these anyway.

if Jaguar build quality is anything to go by, why is the manufacturer just one place ahead of Citroen in the 2009 whatcar reliability tables?
 
Last edited:
I am with Fonzee on this one, It is about as close to a Saxo VTS as you can get with todays standards of Driver safety NCAP 4 rating and a group 8 insurance rating.

I drove one as a loan car and thought it was a great fun car.
 
Dr Who said:
I am with Fonzee on this one, It is about as close to a Saxo VTS as you can get with todays standards of Driver safety NCAP 4 rating and a group 8 insurance rating.

I drove one as a loan car and thought it was a great fun car.
Click to expand...

Its closer to a VTR than a VTS. The VTS was a genuine hot hatch. This is not.
 
Seems like this threads managed to annoy a few folk. Why is it as soon as people mention a French car it's immediately slagged? Yes they don't have the best build quality and reputation, but they are small, cheap to run/insure which is exactly what I'm looking for. Would be nice to get a bit of input from somebody that actually owns a C2 because it seems the majority of people on here are passing judgment on a car they haven't owned or driven.
 
[TW]Fox;15708727 said:
Its closer to a VTR than a VTS. The VTS was a genuine hot hatch. This is not.
Click to expand...

Hogwash, it is a hot hatch for younger drivers who cannot afford huge insurance. Sure it is only mildly hot, Madras to a Saxo's Vindaloo, but it is a hot hatch nevertheless.
 
It really is a bad, bad car. Especially the ones with the flappy paddle gearboxes, makes me cringe thinking about driving it.

The Clio is better built, has far superior handling and is faster. Don't see what else there is to talk about...
 
Dr Who said:
Hogwash, it is a hot hatch for younger drivers who cannot afford huge insurance. Sure it is only mildly hot, Madras to a Saxo's Vindaloo, but it is a hot hatch nevertheless.
Click to expand...

No, it really isn't. It's not a hot hatch at all. It's warm, at best. A diesel Mondeo would probably outdrag it!
 
Ive been in a C2 not a VTS and I liked it. It was a rental for my mother. The car was nippy and seemed solid enough. Only problem was that it is a little small. The boot thing is good also, how you can open just the top or bottom. Overall the car was a nice run around for my mother. She took it to Walse and back without a problem.

Not all french cars are bad. Just some are terrible just like any car really.
 
Personally if you are set on the C2.... I'd get something like the furio. Similar looks and cheap on the old insurane front. Hopelessly slow but the VTS won't be worth the extra expenses.

The C2 VTS just seems to me like a complete waste of money. Its not quick enough to warrant the extra in price and insurance. How anybody is calling this a hot hatch I really don't get.



Or just get something else instead ;)

Clio 172 and stick the savings towards the extra insurance.
http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/1357877.htm
 
Last edited:
A friend of mine has one of these and it looks very nice. Not sure why though. :p

He hasn't had anything bad to say about it and seems to like it a lot. I'll get a photo of it if footie isn't called off tonight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom