Citroen Xsara 2001 vs Renault Megane 2000
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 110 HP | 107 HP | |
| Torque: | 147 NM | 148 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | 11.9 seconds | |
| Citroen Xsara engine produces 3 HP more power than Renault Megane, but torque is 1 NM less than Renault Megane. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.6 | 7.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.2 l/100km | 8.4 l/100km | |
|
The Renault Megane is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Citroen Xsara consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Renault Megane, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Citroen Xsara could require 90 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Citroen Xsara consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Renault Megane. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 54 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 710 km in combined cycle | 850 km in combined cycle | |
| 960 km on highway | 1090 km on highway | ||
| 580 km with real consumption | 710 km with real consumption | ||
| Renault Megane gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 15 years | 26 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 10 other car models, including Peugeot 307, Citroen C3, Peugeot 206, Peugeot 207 | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Renault Clio, Dacia Duster | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| 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 Renault Megane 2000 1.6 engine: The engine is very robust and long-lived, up to half a million kilometres, and can suffer minor damage, but overall it is quite reliable. Fuel consumption is relatively high for these engines, but they are not ... More about Renault Megane 2000 1.6 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.19 m | 3.97 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.40 m | 1.37 m | |
| Citroen Xsara is 22 cm longer than the Renault Megane, width is practically the same , while the height of Citroen Xsara is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 288 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.7 meters | 10.5 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Citroen Xsara is 0.2 metres more than that of the Renault Megane. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`100 | 1`540 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | low | |
| Citroen Xsara has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Renault Megane has serious deffects in 35 percent more cases than Citroen Xsara, so Citroen Xsara quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Citroen Xsara has
|
Renault Megane has
| |