Citroen Xsara 2003 vs Renault Megane 2002
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 110 HP | 115 HP | |
| Torque: | 147 NM | 152 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.7 seconds | 10.9 seconds | |
| Citroen Xsara engine produces 5 HP less power than Renault Megane, whereas torque is 5 NM less than Renault Megane. Despite less power, Citroen Xsara reaches 100 km/h speed 1.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.9 | 6.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.3 l/100km | 7.6 l/100km | |
|
By specification Citroen Xsara consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Renault Megane, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Citroen Xsara could require 15 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Citroen Xsara consumes 0.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Renault Megane. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 54 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 780 km in combined cycle | 880 km in combined cycle | |
| 980 km on highway | 1050 km on highway | ||
| 730 km with real consumption | 780 km with real consumption | ||
| Renault Megane gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 15 years | 26 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 10 other car models, including Peugeot 307, Citroen C3, Peugeot 206, Peugeot 207 | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, 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. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Citroen Xsara 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. | |||
| Citroen Xsara 2003 1.6 engine: Relatively reliable engine, the main problems tend to be with the engine control electronics. The engine is demanding on fuel quality and fuel consumption is relatively high. It is highly recommended to ... More about Citroen Xsara 2003 1.6 engine Renault Megane 2002 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 Megane 2002 1.6 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.19 m | 4.21 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.40 m | 1.46 m | |
|
Citroen Xsara is smaller. Citroen Xsara is 2 cm shorter than the Renault Megane, 8 cm narrower, while the height of Citroen Xsara is 6 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 330 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1190 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.7 meters | 10.5 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Citroen Xsara is 0.2 metres more than that of the Renault Megane. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`100 | 1`725 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | low | |
| Citroen Xsara has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Renault Megane has serious deffects in 30 percent more cases than Citroen Xsara, so Citroen Xsara quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Citroen Xsara has
|
Renault Megane has
| |