Citroen Xsara 1998 vs Volvo S40 1997
Body: | Coupe | Sedan | |
---|---|---|---|
Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
Power: | 90 HP | 105 HP | |
Torque: | 135 NM | 143 NM | |
Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.1 seconds | 13 seconds | |
Citroen Xsara engine produces 15 HP less power than Volvo S40, whereas torque is 8 NM less than Volvo S40. Due to the lower power, Citroen Xsara reaches 100 km/h speed 0.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.7 | 8.5 | |
Real fuel consumption: | 7.8 l/100km | 8.9 l/100km | |
The Citroen Xsara is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Citroen Xsara consumes 0.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S40, which means that by driving the Citroen Xsara over 15,000 km in a year you can save 120 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Citroen Xsara consumes 1.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S40. | |||
Fuel tank capacity: | 54 litres | 60 litres | |
Full fuel tank distance: | 700 km in combined cycle | 700 km in combined cycle | |
870 km on highway | 920 km on highway | ||
690 km with real consumption | 670 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 420'000 km | |
Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
Engine production duration: | 8 years | 4 years | |
Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Peugeot 206, Peugeot 306, Citroen Xsara Picasso, Peugeot 106 | Used only for this car | |
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. | |||
Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
The Volvo S40 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: | 4.17 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`750 | |
Safety: | no data | ||
Quality: | below average | below average | |
Volvo S40 has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Citroen Xsara, so Volvo S40 quality could be a bit better. | |||
Average price (€): | 800 | 600 | |
Pros and Cons: |
Citroen Xsara has
|
Volvo S40 has
| |