Citroen Xsara 2001 vs Volvo V40 2000
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 1.9 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 110 HP | 115 HP | |
| Torque: | 250 NM | 265 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.8 seconds | 10.5 seconds | |
|
Volvo V40 is a more dynamic driving. Citroen Xsara engine produces 5 HP less power than Volvo V40, whereas torque is 15 NM less than Volvo V40. Due to the lower power, Citroen Xsara reaches 100 km/h speed 1.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.3 | 5.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.8 l/100km | 6.1 l/100km | |
|
The Citroen Xsara is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Citroen Xsara consumes 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V40, which means that by driving the Citroen Xsara over 15,000 km in a year you can save 15 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Citroen Xsara consumes 0.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V40. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 54 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1010 km in combined cycle | 1110 km in combined cycle | |
| 1250 km on highway | 1420 km on highway | ||
| 930 km with real consumption | 980 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo V40 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 560'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Citroen Xsara engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Peugeot 307, Suzuki Grand Vitara, Citroen C5, Peugeot 607 | Installed on at least 11 other car models, including Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Volvo S40, Mitsubishi Carisma | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volvo V40 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. | |||
| Volvo V40 2000 1.9 engine: Long-lasting and fuel-efficient engine. Maintaining oil change and maintenance intervals is essential for a long engine life, as poor or untimely oil changes can result in turbine and oil pump damage, followed ... More about Volvo V40 2000 1.9 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.37 m | 4.48 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.72 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.41 m | |
|
Citroen Xsara is smaller, but slightly higher. Citroen Xsara is 11 cm shorter than the Volvo V40, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Citroen Xsara is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 413 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1420 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 Volvo V40. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`100 | 1`800 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | below average | |
| Citroen Xsara has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volvo V40 has serious deffects in 25 percent more cases than Citroen Xsara, so Citroen Xsara quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.4/10 | 8.2/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Citroen Xsara has
|
Volvo V40 has
| |