Citroen Xsara 2000 vs Volkswagen Polo 2001
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.4 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 110 HP | 75 HP | |
| Torque: | 147 NM | 126 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | 15.3 seconds | |
| Citroen Xsara engine produces 35 HP more power than Volkswagen Polo, whereas torque is 21 NM more than Volkswagen Polo. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.6 | 7.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.2 l/100km | 8.1 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Polo is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Citroen Xsara consumes 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Polo, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Citroen Xsara could require 30 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Citroen Xsara consumes 1.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Polo. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 54 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 710 km in combined cycle | 600 km in combined cycle | |
| 960 km on highway | 770 km on highway | ||
| 580 km with real consumption | 550 km with real consumption | ||
| Citroen Xsara gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
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 8 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Skoda Octavia, Skoda Fabia, Audi A2 | |
| 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 2000 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 2000 1.6 engine Volkswagen Polo 2001 1.4 engine: Engine is known for its simplicity, compact design, and overall reliability. Many complaints from owners are related to power loss or fluctuating idle, often caused by issues with the throttle body, EGR valve, or air leaks ... More about Volkswagen Polo 2001 1.4 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.19 m | 3.90 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.65 m | |
| Height: | 1.40 m | 1.46 m | |
|
Citroen Xsara is larger, but lower. Citroen Xsara is 29 cm longer than the Volkswagen Polo, 5 cm wider, while the height of Citroen Xsara is 6 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 245 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 975 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.7 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Citroen Xsara is 0.1 metres more than that of the Volkswagen Polo. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`000 | 1`490 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | below average | |
| Citroen Xsara has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volkswagen Polo has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Citroen Xsara, so Citroen Xsara quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 1400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Citroen Xsara has
|
| |