Citroen Xsara 1998 vs Nissan 200 SX 1997
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 167 HP | 200 HP | |
| Torque: | 193 NM | 265 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.7 seconds | 7.5 seconds | |
|
Nissan 200 SX is a more dynamic driving. Citroen Xsara engine produces 33 HP less power than Nissan 200 SX, whereas torque is 72 NM less than Nissan 200 SX. Due to the lower power, Citroen Xsara reaches 100 km/h speed 1.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.4 | 8.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.1 l/100km | 10.8 l/100km | |
|
The Citroen Xsara is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Citroen Xsara consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Nissan 200 SX, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Citroen Xsara could require 90 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Citroen Xsara consumes 1.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Nissan 200 SX. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 54 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 570 km in combined cycle | 730 km in combined cycle | |
| 760 km on highway | 940 km on highway | ||
| 590 km with real consumption | 600 km with real consumption | ||
| Nissan 200 SX gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Citroen Xsara) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (Nissan 200 SX) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.17 m | 4.52 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.73 m | |
| Height: | 1.36 m | 1.30 m | |
|
Citroen Xsara is smaller, but higher. Citroen Xsara is 35 cm shorter than the Nissan 200 SX, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Citroen Xsara is 6 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 307 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.7 meters | 9.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Citroen Xsara is 1.1 metres more than that of the Nissan 200 SX, which means Citroen Xsara can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`100 | 1`780 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 800 | no data | |
| Pros and Cons: |
|
Nissan 200 SX has
| |