Citroen Xsara 1998 vs Volvo S40 1995
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Body: | Coupe | Sedan | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
| Engines: | 1.4 - 2.0 | 1.6 - 1.9 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 68 - 167 HP | 90 - 200 HP | |
| Torque: | 112 - 205 NM | 143 - 300 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.7 - 17.2 seconds | 7.3 - 13 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.2 - 9.4 | 5.6 - 9.7 | |
|
Citroen Xsara petrol engines consumes on average 0.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than Volvo S40. On average, a Citroen Xsara with diesel engines consumes about the same amount of fuel per 100 km as a Volvo S40. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.17 m | 4.48 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.72 m | |
| Height: | 1.40 m | 1.41 m | |
|
Citroen Xsara is smaller. Citroen Xsara is 31 cm shorter than the Volvo S40, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Citroen Xsara is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 471 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 853 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.7 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Citroen Xsara is 0.3 metres less than that of the Volvo S40. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 1`100 | ~ 1`756 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | average | |
| Average price (€): | 800 | 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Citroen Xsara has
|
Volvo S40 has
| |