Citroen Xsara 2000 vs Renault Kangoo 2003
| Body: | Hatchback | Minivan / MPV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.9 Diesel | 1.9 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 71 HP | 80 HP | |
| Torque: | 125 NM | 160 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 15.8 seconds | 14.1 seconds | |
|
Renault Kangoo is a more dynamic driving. Citroen Xsara engine produces 9 HP less power than Renault Kangoo, whereas torque is 35 NM less than Renault Kangoo. Due to the lower power, Citroen Xsara reaches 100 km/h speed 1.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.2 | 5.7 | |
|
The Renault Kangoo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Citroen Xsara consumes 0.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Renault Kangoo, 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 | 50 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 870 km in combined cycle | 870 km in combined cycle | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.19 m | 4.00 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.66 m | |
| Height: | 1.40 m | 1.83 m | |
|
Citroen Xsara is larger, but lower. Citroen Xsara is 19 cm longer than the Renault Kangoo, 4 cm wider, while the height of Citroen Xsara is 43 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 650 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 2600 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.7 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Citroen Xsara is 0.1 metres less than that of the Renault Kangoo. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`100 | 1`660 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | low | |
| Citroen Xsara has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Renault Kangoo has serious deffects in 30 percent more cases than Citroen Xsara, so Citroen Xsara quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Citroen Xsara has
|
Renault Kangoo has
| |