Citroen Xsara 2000 vs Mazda 2 2010
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Body: | Coupe | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
| Engines: | 1.4 - 2.0 | 1.3 - 1.6 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 71 - 167 HP | 75 - 102 HP | |
| Torque: | 120 - 250 NM | 119 - 205 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8 - 15.8 seconds | 10.7 - 14.9 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.2 - 9.3 | 4.2 - 6.3 | |
|
Citroen Xsara petrol engines consumes on average 2.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than Mazda 2. On average, Citroen Xsara equipped with diesel engines consume 1.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 2. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.19 m | 3.92 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.40 m | 1.48 m | |
|
Citroen Xsara is larger, but lower. Citroen Xsara is 27 cm longer than the Mazda 2, width is practically the same , while the height of Citroen Xsara is 8 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 250 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 787 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.7 meters | 9.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Citroen Xsara is 0.9 metres more than that of the Mazda 2, which means Citroen Xsara can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 1`100 | ~ 1`499 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | high | |
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 3600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Citroen Xsara has
|
Mazda 2 has
| |