Citroen Xsara 2000 vs Suzuki Baleno 1995
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 110 HP | 96 HP | |
| Torque: | 147 NM | 134 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.9 seconds | 11.2 seconds | |
|
Citroen Xsara is more dynamic to drive. Citroen Xsara engine produces 14 HP more power than Suzuki Baleno, whereas torque is 13 NM more than Suzuki Baleno. Thanks to more power Citroen Xsara reaches 100 km/h speed 1.3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.9 | 7.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.4 l/100km | 7.4 l/100km | |
|
The Citroen Xsara is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Citroen Xsara consumes 0.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Suzuki Baleno, which means that by driving the Citroen Xsara over 15,000 km in a year you can save 90 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 54 litres | 51 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 780 km in combined cycle | 680 km in combined cycle | |
| 980 km on highway | 820 km on highway | ||
| 720 km with real consumption | 680 km with real consumption | ||
| Citroen Xsara gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 15 years | 15 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 10 other car models, including Peugeot 307, Citroen C3, Peugeot 206, Peugeot 207 | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Suzuki Grand Vitara, Suzuki Vitara | |
| 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. | |||
| 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 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 | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.37 m | 4.38 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.69 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.46 m | |
| Citroen Xsara is 1 cm shorter than the Suzuki Baleno, 1 cm wider, while the height of Citroen Xsara is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 375 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 Suzuki Baleno, which means Citroen Xsara can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`100 | 1`200 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | high | |
| Suzuki Baleno has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Citroen Xsara has serious deffects in 55 percent more cases than Suzuki Baleno, so Suzuki Baleno quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 800 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.4/10 | 7.0/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Citroen Xsara has
|
Suzuki Baleno has
| |