Citroen Xsara 2000 vs BMW 3 series 2003
Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
---|---|---|---|
Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 2.0 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: | 110 HP | 143 HP | |
Torque: | 147 NM | 200 NM | |
Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.7 seconds | 9.3 seconds | |
BMW 3 series is a more dynamic driving. Citroen Xsara engine produces 33 HP less power than BMW 3 series, whereas torque is 53 NM less than BMW 3 series. Due to the lower power, Citroen Xsara reaches 100 km/h speed 0.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.9 | 7.4 | |
Real fuel consumption: | 7.4 l/100km | 8.3 l/100km | |
The Citroen Xsara is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Citroen Xsara consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the BMW 3 series, which means that by driving the Citroen Xsara over 15,000 km in a year you can save 75 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Citroen Xsara consumes 0.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the BMW 3 series. | |||
Fuel tank capacity: | 54 litres | 63 litres | |
Full fuel tank distance: | 780 km in combined cycle | 850 km in combined cycle | |
980 km on highway | 1100 km on highway | ||
720 km with real consumption | 750 km with real consumption | ||
BMW 3 series gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
Front-wheel drive cars (Citroen Xsara) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (BMW 3 series) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
Engine production duration: | 15 years | 6 years | |
Engine spread: | Installed on at least 10 other car models, including Peugeot 307, Citroen C3, Peugeot 206, Peugeot 207 | Used only for this car | |
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 | |||
Dimensions | |||
Length: | 4.19 m | 4.49 m | |
Width: | 1.70 m | 1.76 m | |
Height: | 1.40 m | 1.37 m | |
Citroen Xsara is smaller, but slightly higher. Citroen Xsara is 30 cm shorter than the BMW 3 series, 6 cm narrower, while the height of Citroen Xsara is 3 cm higher. | |||
Trunk capacity: | no data | 410 litres | |
Turning diameter: | 10.7 meters | 10 meters | |
The turning circle of the Citroen Xsara is 0.7 metres more than that of the BMW 3 series, which means Citroen Xsara can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
Gross weight (kg): | 1`100 | 1`820 | |
Safety: | no data | ||
Quality: | average | below average | |
Citroen Xsara has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data BMW 3 series has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Citroen Xsara, so Citroen Xsara quality is probably better | |||
Average price (€): | 1000 | 4200 | |
Rating in user reviews: | 8.4/10 | 8.2/10 | |
Pros and Cons: |
Citroen Xsara has
|
BMW 3 sērija has
| |