Citroen Xsara 1999 vs Renault Scenic 2006
| Body: | Coupe | Minivan / MPV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
| 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: | 90 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 205 NM | 340 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.9 seconds | 9.4 seconds | |
|
Renault Scenic is a more dynamic driving. Citroen Xsara engine produces 60 HP less power than Renault Scenic, whereas torque is 135 NM less than Renault Scenic. Due to the lower power, Citroen Xsara reaches 100 km/h speed 3.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.2 | 5.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.0 l/100km | 6.8 l/100km | |
|
The Citroen Xsara is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Citroen Xsara consumes 0.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Renault Scenic, which means that by driving the Citroen Xsara over 15,000 km in a year you can save 90 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Citroen Xsara consumes 0.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Renault Scenic. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 54 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1030 km in combined cycle | 1030 km in combined cycle | |
| 1250 km on highway | 1200 km on highway | ||
| 900 km with real consumption | 880 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 years | 14 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including Peugeot 307, Peugeot 206, Citroen C5, Peugeot 306 | Installed on at least 10 other car models, including Nissan X-Trail, Nissan Qashqai, Renault Laguna, Opel Vivaro | |
| 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 2006 2.0 engine: The engine has a good power to fuel consumption ratio and, with careful maintenance, a long service life. The most common problems with these engines are with the fuel injection system and lubrication. | |||
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 | 2`025 | |
| 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
| |