Citroen Xsara 1998 vs Volvo S40 1999
Body: | Coupe | Sedan | |
---|---|---|---|
Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
Engine: | 1.9 Diesel | 1.9 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
Power: | 90 HP | 95 HP | |
Torque: | 196 NM | 190 NM | |
Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.8 seconds | 12 seconds | |
Volvo S40 is a more dynamic driving. Citroen Xsara engine produces 5 HP less power than Volvo S40, but torque is 6 NM more than Volvo S40. Due to the lower power, Citroen Xsara reaches 100 km/h speed 0.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.6 | 5.6 | |
The Volvo S40 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Citroen Xsara consumes 1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S40, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Citroen Xsara could require 150 litres more fuel. | |||
Fuel tank capacity: | 54 litres | 60 litres | |
Full fuel tank distance: | 810 km in combined cycle | 1070 km in combined cycle | |
1030 km on highway | 1300 km on highway | ||
Volvo S40 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
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`770 | |
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: |
|
Volvo S40 has
| |