Citroen Xsara 1999 vs Volvo S40 1999
| Body: | Coupe | Sedan | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 1.9 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 90 HP | 95 HP | |
| Torque: | 205 NM | 190 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.9 seconds | 12 seconds | |
|
Volvo S40 is a more dynamic driving. Citroen Xsara engine produces 5 HP less power than Volvo S40, but torque is 15 NM more than Volvo S40. Due to the lower power, Citroen Xsara reaches 100 km/h speed 0.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.2 | 5.6 | |
|
The Citroen Xsara is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Citroen Xsara consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S40, which means that by driving the Citroen Xsara over 15,000 km in a year you can save 60 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 54 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1030 km in combined cycle | 1070 km in combined cycle | |
| 1250 km on highway | 1300 km on highway | ||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.17 m | 4.48 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.72 m | |
| Height: | 1.40 m | 1.41 m | |
|
Citroen Xsara is smaller. Citroen Xsara is 31 cm shorter than the Volvo S40, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Citroen Xsara is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 471 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 853 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.7 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Citroen Xsara is 0.3 metres less than that of the Volvo S40. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`100 | 1`770 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | below average | |
| Volvo S40 has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Citroen Xsara, so Volvo S40 quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Citroen Xsara has
|
Volvo S40 has
| |