Citroen Xsara Picasso 2000 vs Renault Scenic 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 90 HP | 115 HP | |
| Torque: | 205 NM | 152 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 14.5 seconds | 12.5 seconds | |
|
Renault Scenic is a more dynamic driving. Citroen Xsara Picasso engine produces 25 HP less power than Renault Scenic, but torque is 53 NM more than Renault Scenic. Due to the lower power, Citroen Xsara Picasso reaches 100 km/h speed 2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.5 | 7.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.0 l/100km | 8.2 l/100km | |
|
The Citroen Xsara Picasso is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Citroen Xsara Picasso consumes 1.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Renault Scenic, which means that by driving the Citroen Xsara Picasso over 15,000 km in a year you can save 255 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Citroen Xsara Picasso consumes 2.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Renault Scenic. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1090 km in combined cycle | 830 km in combined cycle | |
| 1300 km on highway | 1000 km on highway | ||
| 1000 km with real consumption | 730 km with real consumption | ||
| Citroen Xsara Picasso gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 years | 26 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including Peugeot 307, Citroen Xsara, Peugeot 206, Citroen C5, Peugeot 306 | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including Renault Laguna, Renault Clio, Dacia Duster | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Renault Scenic might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Citroen Xsara Picasso 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. | |||
| Renault Scenic 2003 1.6 engine: The engine is very robust and long-lived, up to half a million kilometres, and can suffer minor damage, but overall it is quite reliable. Fuel consumption is relatively high for these engines, but they are not ... More about Renault Scenic 2003 1.6 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.28 m | 4.26 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.64 m | 1.62 m | |
| Citroen Xsara Picasso is 2 cm longer than the Renault Scenic, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Citroen Xsara Picasso is 2 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 550 litres | 430 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1840 litres | |
|
Citroen Xsara Picasso has more luggage capacity. Citroen Xsara Picasso has 120 litres more trunk space than the Renault Scenic. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.5 meters | 10.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Citroen Xsara Picasso is 0.8 metres more than that of the Renault Scenic, which means Citroen Xsara Picasso can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`850 | 1`915 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | below average | |
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1200 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 6.0/10 | 5.4/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Citroen Xsara Picasso has
|
Renault Scenic has
| |