Added: 3 years ago
From: nathanbyrnefucking
Views: 12,175
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (28)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • I heard that the wheel wells rust out on saxos, then the run over their own spare? :P

    I know someone hit a central reservation at 80mph in a Metro and the car was fine and he walked away. I had a Saxo VTR as a courtesy car when my car was in garage and it was awful. I'm sorry, it was quick- to me, I'm used to a 1.1, but only 100bhp from a 1.6? Rovers get 105 from a 1.4, hence why the mpi Metro GTi was and STILL IS in 2011 the fastest nasp 1.4 ever. ;)

  • Rover 100 owns the Saxo all day long. End of story. :D

  • @theothertrainee not really...

  • a clear win by the metro

  • i love rover aswell but you all make fair comments i have a rover metro gta vvc i didnt like the rover 100 as much cause they rounded it off an more the often it was the old couples first choice lol ive put some gruelling hours into my metro to get it as strong as it should be i.e the rust factor but as great as they r they amount to nothin more than a damn good weekend car or somethin to scare ya mates with lol.. p.s im not a fan of saxo's either after 3 gear boxes 2 clutches an a leaky sunroof

  • my metro vvc ran 14s all day and all that had was a 1.4 gearbox a de-cat and an induction kit but as for sayin that metros are safer than vts is horseshit ther both as bad as each other i allmost died when i hit a lampost and two gaurd rales in my metro safe to say tho the metro did die ripped three wheels clean off dont buy either

  • fuck off

  • fuck your mom you fuckin prick

  • You would have got more BHP out of it if you didn't de-Cat it, the K-Series needs back pressure !!!

  • my vvc metro was 160 bhp my mate had a normal 1.8 k series with kent cams and straight through exhaust and that was 171 bhp but they where both as fast as each other if anythink mine was quiker

  • Better driver mate lol !!!

  • iv got a 1.6 metro and it is slightly quicker than a remaped vts, and i know the 1.8 vvc are a lot quicker. so my moneys on the metro all the way.

  • i have owned both a vts and a vvc metro and the metro was a next level it run 14s all day so if this is a vvc its fuckin shit

  • 16.26 @ 88.26 Metro non-VVC

    now a VVC :- 15.57 @ 94.05 (quickest 15 secs dead) - you picked that much up with your manifold and remap? That was WITHOUT JUMPING THE GREEN LIGHT

  • nah saxo didnt jump lights, if the vts gets a re-map, he will smoke you next time aswell VTS ENGINES RULE.

  • I happen to like the TU engines and think they are great but with just a remap a saxo isnt going to pull away from a metro vvc

  • OH how wrong you are....

  • A Ax VTS will kill any standard v.v.c IN A RETRO as rover are dog shit, hey listen my car rev lads , oh shit i blew my head gasket. ha ha

  • Haha, stereotypes gotta love em, i've ran well over 100k miles on a k-series and NEVER had a headgasket problem because im not a mindless yobbo that doesnt look after his car, which cant be said for the things that go wrong with those shitty french deathtraps. Someone i knew had a crash at about 50mph into a fence in a VTR, he is now in a coma. Saxos are just about the WORST built cars ever made, unreliable, tacky pieces of dogshit and a rover engine is a 100x better. Uneducated cock.

  • fair comment that, cant really come back on that as my missis has a metro(hence why i ended up on this vid) and not ad a fault on that because a look after it for her, ask for the saxo, i fucking hate them, they are the chaviest piece of shite ever, thats why i got a mint ax and stuck the vts engine in it as my toy,

  • Hey look, dont get me wrong, im not trying to be a dick or anything it's just i hate it when people bad mouth rover engines without any real understanding. AX with a VTS engine, sounds deadly :) Good fun? How hard was the conversion? Which chassis is the AX, GT?

  • im a dedicated rover fan and all i can say is your wrong. the rover 100 failed on several levels. 1 of those was the fact it suffered so badly in the euro n-cap that rover slowley withdrew it from sale due to public fears. it was well justified aswell. the saxo vtr and vts are good cars and based on the old 106 was a good move as that was a good little hot hatch. i love rovers and always will but i think you should get your facts right before calling people uneducated.

  • @Weepiest i agree, Rover 100's where pretty awful cars but seriously seriously quick in VVC form. My only argument was that the rover has FAR superior engine to the one in the French car. Both cars are badly built tacky and cheap but if it was my choice, i'd have the Rover engine with the 106GTi/ Saxo VTS shell for looks and handling, and neither for build quality but saying that, i imagine the rovers would of been slightly better.

  • @RSTdave88 lets not forget the build quality of the Saxos vs the Rover. Shudders, my GF had a 1.1 Y-Reg Saxo Desire and it was so tinny, I have expected the door to snap off when I closed it. Her 52-plate Polo is so much more solid. (Yes I own a Rover)

  • @RSTdave88 K series engines are badly engineered shite (I should know, I've owned plenty), HGF is unavoidable, 1.6 and 1.8s being the most prone... Saxos are actually decent little cars, reliable and certainly better built, a hell of a lot less rust prone than any shitty Metro rot box... Don't get me wrong, I am a Rover/MG fan but I'm not blind to their many faults...

  • Sorry to disapoint fella - you jumped the lights and 'fouled' Metro 15.79 secs @ 86 Saxo 16.26 @ 88.26. 1800 non VVC by the way - 120'ish BHP (see 'Metropower' website for the timing slip) See you next time - it is a full fat VVC now

  • which 1 won ????

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more