Volvo S40 1998 vs Citroen Xsara 1998
| Body: | Sedan | Coupe | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 125 HP | 112 HP | |
| Torque: | 174 NM | 155 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10 seconds | 10.7 seconds | |
|
Volvo S40 is more dynamic to drive. Volvo S40 engine produces 13 HP more power than Citroen Xsara, whereas torque is 19 NM more than Citroen Xsara. Thanks to more power Volvo S40 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.9 | 8.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.9 l/100km | 8.1 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo S40 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo S40 consumes 1.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Citroen Xsara, which means that by driving the Volvo S40 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 210 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo S40 consumes 0.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Citroen Xsara. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 54 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 860 km in combined cycle | 650 km in combined cycle | |
| 1050 km on highway | 850 km on highway | ||
| 750 km with real consumption | 660 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo S40 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: | 350'000 km | 420'000 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 Citroen Xsara engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 23 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Volvo V40, Mitsubishi Carisma, Mitsubishi Galant | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Peugeot 306, Citroen Xantia | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volvo S40 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.48 m | 4.17 m | |
| Width: | 1.72 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.41 m | 1.40 m | |
|
Volvo S40 is larger. Volvo S40 is 31 cm longer than the Citroen Xsara, 2 cm wider, while the height of Volvo S40 is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 471 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
853 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 10.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo S40 is 0.3 metres more than that of the Citroen Xsara. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`750 | 1`100 | |
| 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 (€): | 600 | 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo S40 has
|
Citroen Xsara has
| |