Citroen Xsara 1999 vs Volvo S40 1995
| Body: | Coupe | Sedan | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 90 HP | 105 HP | |
| Torque: | 135 NM | 143 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 14.5 seconds | 13 seconds | |
|
Volvo S40 is a more dynamic driving. 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 1.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.8 | 8.5 | |
|
The Citroen Xsara is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Citroen Xsara consumes 0.7 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 105 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 54 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 690 km in combined cycle | 700 km in combined cycle | |
| 900 km on highway | 900 km on highway | ||
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 | 415 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
| |