Citroen Xsara 1998 vs Renault Megane 2000
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 90 HP | 107 HP | |
| Torque: | 135 NM | 148 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.1 seconds | 9.6 seconds | |
|
Renault Megane is a more dynamic driving. Citroen Xsara engine produces 17 HP less power than Renault Megane, whereas torque is 13 NM less than Renault Megane. Due to the lower power, Citroen Xsara reaches 100 km/h speed 3.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.7 | 6.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.8 l/100km | 7.2 l/100km | |
|
The Renault Megane is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Citroen Xsara consumes 0.8 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 120 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Citroen Xsara consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Renault Megane. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 54 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 700 km in combined cycle | 860 km in combined cycle | |
| 870 km on highway | 1070 km on highway | ||
| 690 km with real consumption | 830 km with real consumption | ||
| Renault Megane 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 | 560'000 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 Renault Megane engine could be longer. | |||
| 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 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. Renault Megane might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| 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 particularly demanding on fuel quality.
The most critical ... More about Renault Megane 2000 1.6 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.17 m | 3.97 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.40 m | 1.37 m | |
| Citroen Xsara is 20 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: | 1`100 kg | 1`505 kg | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | average | |
| Renault Megane has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Citroen Xsara has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Renault Megane, so Renault Megane quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Citroen Xsara has
|
Renault Megane has
| |