Citroen C5 2004 vs Nissan X-Trail 2003
| Body: | Estate car / wagon | Crossover / SUV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crossovers and SUVs have better off-road capabilities (higher ground clearance, can have 4x4 drive), they are preferable for driving on unpaved roads and rural areas. Also, the driver's seating position is higher in a crossover or SUVs, which provides better visibility also in city. This usually comes at the cost of higher fuel consumption, increased weight and higher maintenance costs. | |||
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 2.9 Petrol | 2.5 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 210 HP | 165 HP | |
| Torque: | 285 NM | 230 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.7 seconds | 11.1 seconds | |
|
Citroen C5 is more dynamic to drive. Citroen C5 engine produces 45 HP more power than Nissan X-Trail, whereas torque is 55 NM more than Nissan X-Trail. Thanks to more power Citroen C5 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.0 | 9.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.9 l/100km | 11.5 l/100km | |
|
The Citroen C5 is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Citroen C5 consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Nissan X-Trail, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Citroen C5 could require 60 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Citroen C5 consumes 1.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Nissan X-Trail. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 66 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 660 km in combined cycle | 620 km in combined cycle | |
| 910 km on highway | 750 km on highway | ||
| 660 km with real consumption | 520 km with real consumption | ||
| Citroen C5 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
|
Nissan X-Trail 2003: It has selectable four-wheel drive with Auto, 2WD and Lock modes. In Auto mode, it has front-wheel drive under normal conditions, the rear axle engages when the front wheels start to slip, and power is distributed variably up to 50:50 front to rear. In 2WD mode, the transfer clutch is permanently unlocked, but the electronic control unit can engage the rear wheels occasionally, for example during hard acceleration. In Lock mode, the transfer clutch is permanently locked, providing a constant 50:50 power distribution. When vehicle speed increases above 30 km/h (20 mph), it switches to Auto mode, but when speed decreases, it switches back to Lock mode. The system also switches to 2WD mode in the event of overheating. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.76 m | 4.51 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.52 m | 1.68 m | |
|
Citroen C5 is larger, but lower. Citroen C5 is 25 cm longer than the Nissan X-Trail, 1 cm wider, while the height of Citroen C5 is 16 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 410 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1841 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 12.5 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Citroen C5 is 1.9 metres more than that of the Nissan X-Trail, which means Citroen C5 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`600 | 2`000 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | average | |
| Nissan X-Trail has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Citroen C5 has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Nissan X-Trail, so Nissan X-Trail quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1400 | 2600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Citroen C5 has
|
Nissan X-Trail has
| |