Citroen Xsara 2001 vs Mazda 2 2010
| Body: | Coupe | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.5 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 | 102 HP | |
| Torque: | 147 NM | 133 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | 11.9 seconds | |
| Citroen Xsara engine produces 8 HP more power than Mazda 2, whereas torque is 14 NM more than Mazda 2. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.6 | 6.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.2 l/100km | 7.4 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 2 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Citroen Xsara consumes 1.3 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 195 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Citroen Xsara consumes 1.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 2. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 54 litres | 43 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 710 km in combined cycle | 680 km in combined cycle | |
| 960 km on highway | 810 km on highway | ||
| 580 km with real consumption | 580 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 15 years | 13 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. | |||
| 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 2001 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 2001 1.6 engine | |||
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`495 | |
| 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
| |