Xsara VTS v Clio 172

[Skeeter]

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?

But thats not a real world opinion anyone holds. If image didnt matter Fox would own an Audi...

You cannot simply remove a variable because it messes with your argument? Its like saying "is an M3 really better than a 320i Sport, ignoring power and performance?"

 

[Ev0]

Nope I was in Bristol on Sunday! What did you see? I did have a romantic Burger King in The Galleries though

An E39 530 that looked so much like yours, had a private plate and couldn't remember what yours was.

It was Y5 Mksomething maybe?

 

[[TW]Fox]

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.

The Xsara interior is a tad more modern by virtue of the fact it was released 5 years later than the 306, so obviously, has an interior that reflects that.

 

[Joshy]

150bhp? It's 167

Quick reader .

I meant per tonne (edited). It would be a bit embarrassing if as a 'petrolhead' I didn't know how much power the engine in my car produced!

 

[Moeks]

The Xsara at least looks like a '90s car inside, very '90s actually ...weather that's good or bad is upto you, but the 306 looks more '80s inside if anything.

 

[[TW]Fox]

But thats not a real world opinion anyone holds. If image didnt matter Fox would own an Audi...

The reason I don't fancy any Audi I can afford isn't the image I'd have an RS4 tommorrow if they were in budget

You cannot simply remove a variable because it messes with your argument? Its like saying "is an M3 really better than a 320i Sport, ignoring power and performance?"

Well you can remove variables - for example in answer to your question, higher spec levels aside no, an M3 is no better than a 320i Sport if you ignore power and performance. Which can be a useful opinion because it can do things like tell us that Mrs Average has no need for an M3 and can get the same level of 'enjoyment' from a 320i Sport..

 

[Tute]

Probably the Xsara, but i'd cry myself to sleep at night if I owned either.

 

[MikeHiow]

So perhaps if you asked the question

If you had the choice of spending either £1000 on a VTS or £3000 on a 172 for a cheap but able track car........

 

[Gribs]

The Xsara interior is a tad more modern by virtue of the fact it was released 5 years later than the 306, so obviously, has an interior that reflects that.

It's the quality of the materials more than the design. The Xaras felt low quality and hadn't worn well.

 

[fonzee]

think everything has been covered!

and the GTI-6 is a better handling car

your spot on bar that one little statement there xsara is practically identical in handling department (especially PH1), VTS has a thicker rear torsion too! not to mention the steering rack/turn in advantages of the xsara...

It's the quality of the materials more than the design. The Xaras felt low quality and hadn't worn well.

its going to be no BMW. the VTS interior without a doubt is superior than that of the '6 and the 172. 172 dashboard anyone?! hello?!

 

[Skeeter]

So perhaps if you asked the question

If you had the choice of spending either £1000 on a VTS or £3000 on a 172 for a cheap but able track car........

I did ask the question. I asked the most fun you could have for £3k, and got quite an extensive thread, with the common theme of 172 popping up from lots of past or current owners. The VTS was never ever mentioned.

 

[Joshy]

See what your saying but, as stated, image is always a big factor in buying.

I wonder how many other people think that image (I.E, what other people think when they see your car) is so important that'll spend £2,000+ more of your own money on a product that is arguably not much better?

I can't say that 'image' has EVER crossed my mind with cars Then again, I'm one of those who would buy a Xsara VTS tomorrow If I needed such a car .

 

[fonzee]

The VTS was never ever mentioned.

apologies, I must have not been online that day

 

[Skeeter]

apologies, I must have not been online that day

Fox was... he never mentioned it either...

I fully understand the logic however. The Xsara may be a better car when purely looking at performance for money, but I dont 'want' one, and at the end of the day the human brain isnt logical, its emotional, so a 'want' is worth more than logic.

However, its likely entirely academic as Im failing to see how fitting my 6'4" frame into either is going to be that comfortable, expecially with a helmet on my head...

 

[excaliborg]

I had a 2001 Xsara VTS for a few years from when I was 19-22. It was a great car, 100% reliable and felt very fast at the time! It was great fun driving day to day, especially as people in their VW and Audi diesels underestimated the car and looked bemused why I was able to pull away from them.

Eventually swapped it for a 1.6 MX5 early last year I do miss the power, but the MX5 is a lot more fun to drive, and the seating position feels a lot more sporty.

In terms of the handling of the VTS vs GTI6, I understant the differences are limited, with the VTS having a stiffer rear anti-roll bar. Aside from that most parts were interchangeable.

I would definitely consider having another should the need for a cheap hot-hatch arise.

 

[MikeHiow]

I did ask the question. I asked the most fun you could have for £3k, and got quite an extensive thread, with the common theme of 172 popping up from lots of past or current owners. The VTS was never ever mentioned.

I remember it, but if you want a cheap, no-hassle hot hatch, and image isn't an issue, you can't say that the 172 is £2k better?

 

[Sparky]

I wonder how many other people think that image (I.E, what other people think when they see your car) is so important that'll spend £2,000+ more of your own money on a product that is arguably not much better?

I can't say that 'image' has EVER crossed my mind with cars Then again, I'm one of those who would buy a Xsara VTS tomorrow If I needed such a car .

Image isnt important yet you have your car as a sig pic......

 

[MikeHiow]

The fact he drives an XU10'd 205 speaks volume about his opinions of performance/fun vs. image imo.

 

[Joshy]

I did ask the question. I asked the most fun you could have for £3k, and got quite an extensive thread, with the common theme of 172 popping up from lots of past or current owners. The VTS was never ever mentioned.

The issue is that £3,000 will put you in the driver's seat of some very special cars if your after pure driving enjoyment, machines that are certainly more 'special' than the 306 GTI-6s ugly sister. Even with a limit of FWD only I'd vote a 205 GTI with a 16V conversion for sheer out and out lols behind the wheel.

Where the VTS shines is as an all rounder.

 

[Pete19s]

The Clio would be awfully tempting if I was looking to drive it hard everytime I got in it, which I wouldnt. The average halfwit in a barrywagon would also feel the need to race me in the Clio, which I dont want. Add in fact 3 that im fairly tight so the lower purchase cost and cheaper insurance (for me atleast) on the Xsara are a bonus. The looks are not an issue for me, its not an offensive car to look at and it doesnt draw attention to itself as a quick car either.

To sum up I would purchase neither, save some money and do what I did afew years ago and buy Megane 16v again. Perfectly sensible choice, a mere feather weight @ 1090kg. Couple that with the engine from the Sport Spider and it will happily pull itself along at a reasonable pace.

Actually scrap that, I wouldn't buy another Megane. As much as a bargain they are I am drawn to the Xsara over the Clio. I dont know what it is about them but ever since seeing Fonzee's (I think?) red Xsara in post your motors I have had an unusal urge to own a VTS. I dont think its quite the car the 172 is but on the road I doubt I would be able to push the Clio to find that difference.