Citroen Xsara 1998 vs Renault Scenic 2003
| Body: | Coupe | Minivan / MPV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 90 HP | 115 HP | |
| Torque: | 135 NM | 152 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.1 seconds | 12.5 seconds | |
|
Renault Scenic is a more dynamic driving. Citroen Xsara engine produces 25 HP less power than Renault Scenic, whereas torque is 17 NM less than Renault Scenic. Due to the lower power, Citroen Xsara reaches 100 km/h speed 0.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.7 | 7.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.8 l/100km | 8.2 l/100km | |
|
By specification Citroen Xsara consumes 0.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Renault Scenic, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Citroen Xsara could require 75 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Citroen Xsara consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Renault Scenic. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 54 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 700 km in combined cycle | 830 km in combined cycle | |
| 870 km on highway | 1000 km on highway | ||
| 690 km with real consumption | 730 km with real consumption | ||
| Renault Scenic 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: | 420'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 27 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Peugeot 206, Peugeot 306, Citroen Xsara Picasso, Peugeot 106 | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including Renault Laguna, 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. Renault Scenic might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Renault Scenic 2003 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 Scenic 2003 1.6 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.17 m | 4.26 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.40 m | 1.62 m | |
|
Citroen Xsara is smaller. Citroen Xsara is 9 cm shorter than the Renault Scenic, 10 cm narrower, while the height of Citroen Xsara is 22 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 430 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1840 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.7 meters | 10.7 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`100 | 1`915 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | below average | |
| Renault Scenic has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Citroen Xsara has serious deffects in 150 percent more cases than Renault Scenic, so Renault Scenic quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Citroen Xsara has
|
Renault Scenic has
| |