Citroen C3 Picasso 2009 vs Ford Fusion 2005
| Body: | Minivan / MPV | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 120 HP | 100 HP | |
| Torque: | 160 NM | 146 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.7 seconds | 10.9 seconds | |
| Citroen C3 Picasso engine produces 20 HP more power than Ford Fusion, whereas torque is 14 NM more than Ford Fusion. Despite the higher power, Citroen C3 Picasso reaches 100 km/h speed 0.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.4 | 6.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.8 l/100km | 6.9 l/100km | |
|
The Ford Fusion is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Citroen C3 Picasso consumes 0.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Fusion, which means that by driving the Citroen C3 Picasso over 15,000 km in a year you can save 30 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Citroen C3 Picasso consumes 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Fusion. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 780 km in combined cycle | 680 km in combined cycle | |
| 1020 km on highway | 840 km on highway | ||
| 640 km with real consumption | 650 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 9 years | 11 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 9 other car models, including Citroen C5, Citroen C4 Picasso, Peugeot 3008, Peugeot 2008, Citroen C4 | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Ford C-Max, Ford Fiesta | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Citroen C3 Picasso might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Citroen C3 Picasso engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.08 m | 4.02 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.72 m | |
| Height: | 1.67 m | 1.53 m | |
|
Citroen C3 Picasso is larger. Citroen C3 Picasso is 6 cm longer than the Ford Fusion, 5 cm wider, while the height of Citroen C3 Picasso is 14 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 385 litres | 337 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1506 litres | 1175 litres | |
|
Citroen C3 Picasso has more luggage capacity. Citroen C3 Picasso has 48 litres more trunk space than the Ford Fusion. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Citroen C3 Picasso (by 331 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Citroen C3 Picasso is 0.3 metres more than that of the Ford Fusion. | |||
| Power steering: | Electric power steering | Hydraulic power steering | |
| Electric power steering is simpler, quieter, more fuel-efficient, more configurable and provides additional features such as auto-steering for lane assist and parking. The disadvantages of electric power steering are possible overheating under prolonged load conditions and insufficient feedback (feeling) during steering. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`753 | 1`605 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | above average | |
| Ford Fusion has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Citroen C3 Picasso has serious deffects in 45 percent more cases than Ford Fusion, so Ford Fusion quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 3800 | 3000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Citroen C3 Picasso has
|
Ford Fusion has
| |