Citroen Xsara 1999 vs Volvo S70 1999
| Body: | Hatchback | Sedan | |
|---|---|---|---|
| The hatchback generally has more luggage space thanks to a larger trunk door opening and the ability to convert the rear of the passenger compartment into luggage space. Sedans tend to be quieter than hatchbacks, due to a more isolated rear area. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.5 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 90 HP | 140 HP | |
| Torque: | 205 NM | 290 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.8 seconds | 9.9 seconds | |
|
Volvo S70 is a more dynamic driving. Citroen Xsara engine produces 50 HP less power than Volvo S70, whereas torque is 85 NM less than Volvo S70. Due to the lower power, Citroen Xsara reaches 100 km/h speed 2.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.2 | 6.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.0 l/100km | 6.5 l/100km | |
|
The Citroen Xsara is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Citroen Xsara consumes 1.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S70, which means that by driving the Citroen Xsara over 15,000 km in a year you can save 165 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Citroen Xsara consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S70. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 54 litres | 68 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1030 km in combined cycle | 1070 km in combined cycle | |
| 1250 km on highway | 1360 km on highway | ||
| 900 km with real consumption | 1040 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including Peugeot 307, Peugeot 206, Citroen C5, Peugeot 306 | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Volvo V70, Volvo S80, Volvo 850 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Citroen Xsara might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.17 m | 4.72 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.40 m | 1.39 m | |
|
Citroen Xsara is smaller, but slightly higher. Citroen Xsara is 55 cm shorter than the Volvo S70, 6 cm narrower, while the height of Citroen Xsara is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 470 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.7 meters | 10.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Citroen Xsara is 0.5 metres more than that of the Volvo S70, which means Citroen Xsara can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`100 | 1`960 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | below average | low | |
| Citroen Xsara has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Volvo S70, so Citroen Xsara quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 600 | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Citroen Xsara has
|
Volvo S70 has
| |