BMW 3 series 1999 vs Citroen Xsara 2000
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.8 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 193 HP | 110 HP | |
| Torque: | 280 NM | 147 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7 seconds | 9.7 seconds | |
|
BMW 3 series is more dynamic to drive. BMW 3 series engine produces 83 HP more power than Citroen Xsara, whereas torque is 133 NM more than Citroen Xsara. Thanks to more power BMW 3 series reaches 100 km/h speed 2.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.1 | 6.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.8 l/100km | 7.4 l/100km | |
|
The Citroen Xsara is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification BMW 3 series consumes 2.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Citroen Xsara, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the BMW 3 series could require 330 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, BMW 3 series consumes 2.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Citroen Xsara. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 63 litres | 54 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 690 km in combined cycle | 780 km in combined cycle | |
| 900 km on highway | 980 km on highway | ||
| 640 km with real consumption | 720 km with real consumption | ||
| Citroen Xsara gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Citroen Xsara) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (BMW 3 series) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 years | 15 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including BMW 5 sērija, BMW 7 sērija, BMW Z3 | Installed on at least 10 other car models, including Peugeot 307, Citroen C3, Peugeot 207, Peugeot 206 | |
| 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: | 4.49 m | 4.19 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.37 m | 1.40 m | |
|
BMW 3 series is larger, but slightly lower. BMW 3 series is 30 cm longer than the Citroen Xsara, 6 cm wider, while the height of BMW 3 series is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 410 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 10.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the BMW 3 series is 0.7 metres less than that of the Citroen Xsara, which means BMW 3 series can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`895 | 1`100 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | below average | |
| Citroen Xsara has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for BMW 3 series, so Citroen Xsara quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 2800 | 1000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.7/10 | 8.4/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW 3 sērija has
|
Citroen Xsara has
| |