Citroen Xsara 2003 vs Volkswagen Golf 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 110 HP | 116 HP | |
| Torque: | 147 NM | 155 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.7 seconds | 10.8 seconds | |
| Citroen Xsara engine produces 6 HP less power than Volkswagen Golf, whereas torque is 8 NM less than Volkswagen Golf. Despite less power, Citroen Xsara reaches 100 km/h speed 1.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.9 | 6.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.3 l/100km | 7.3 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Golf is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Citroen Xsara consumes 0.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Golf, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Citroen Xsara could require 75 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 54 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 780 km in combined cycle | 850 km in combined cycle | |
| 980 km on highway | 1030 km on highway | ||
| 730 km with real consumption | 750 km with real consumption | ||
| Volkswagen Golf gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 15 years | 4 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 Volkswagen Passat, Skoda Octavia, Audi A3 | |
| 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. | |||
| 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 Volkswagen Golf 2003 1.6 engine: Owners of vehicles with this engine often report difficulties starting in cold weather. Carbon buildup tends to cause sticking in the intake valves, throttle body, and EGR valve, leading to performance ... More about Volkswagen Golf 2003 1.6 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.19 m | 4.20 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.40 m | 1.48 m | |
|
Citroen Xsara is smaller. Citroen Xsara is 1 cm shorter than the Volkswagen Golf, 6 cm narrower, while the height of Citroen Xsara is 8 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 350 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1305 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.7 meters | 10.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Citroen Xsara is 0.2 metres less than that of the Volkswagen Golf. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`100 | 1`810 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | above average | |
| Volkswagen Golf has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Citroen Xsara has serious deffects in 10 percent more cases than Volkswagen Golf, so Volkswagen Golf quality is probably slightly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 1800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Citroen Xsara has
|
Volkswagen Golf has
| |