Citroen Xsara 2000 vs Mazda 2 2010
| Body: | Coupe | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.4 Petrol | 1.3 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: | 75 HP | 75 HP | |
| Torque: | 120 NM | 119 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.7 seconds | 14.9 seconds | |
|
Citroen Xsara is more dynamic to drive. Citroen Xsara and Mazda 2 have the same engine power, but Citroen Xsara torque is 1 NM more than Mazda 2. Citroen Xsara reaches 100 km/h speed 2.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.7 | 5.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.7 l/100km | 6.0 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 2 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Citroen Xsara consumes 1.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 2, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Citroen Xsara could require 240 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Citroen Xsara consumes 0.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 2. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 54 litres | 43 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 800 km in combined cycle | 840 km in combined cycle | |
| 1000 km on highway | 1000 km on highway | ||
| 800 km with real consumption | 710 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 280'000 km | 330'000 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 Mazda 2 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 13 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Peugeot 307, Citroen C3, Peugeot 206, Citroen Berlingo | Used also on Mazda 3 | |
| 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. | |||
| Mazda 2 2010 1.3 engine: The engine is generally robust, but the use of poor-quality fuel can lead to increased burn formation. Idling speeds tend to be unstable. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.19 m | 3.92 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.40 m | 1.48 m | |
|
Citroen Xsara is larger, but lower. Citroen Xsara is 27 cm longer than the Mazda 2, width is practically the same , while the height of Citroen Xsara is 8 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 250 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 787 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 Mazda 2, which means Citroen Xsara can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`100 | 1`485 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | high | |
| Mazda 2 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Citroen Xsara has serious deffects in 510 percent more cases than Mazda 2, so Mazda 2 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 3600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Citroen Xsara has
|
Mazda 2 has
| |