1998 Citroen Xsara vs. 2002 Volvo XC90
To start off, 2002 Volvo XC90 is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1998 Citroen Xsara. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1998 Citroen Xsara would be higher. At 2,435 cc (5 cylinders), 2002 Volvo XC90 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1998 Citroen Xsara (165 HP @ 6500 RPM) has 5 more horse power than 2002 Volvo XC90. (160 HP @ 4000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1998 Citroen Xsara should accelerate faster than 2002 Volvo XC90. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2002 Volvo XC90 weights approximately 914 kg more than 1998 Citroen Xsara.
Because 2002 Volvo XC90 is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 1998 Citroen Xsara. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2002 Volvo XC90 will offer significantly more control. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control. Let's talk about torque, 2002 Volvo XC90 (351 Nm @ 1750 RPM) has 158 more torque (in Nm) than 1998 Citroen Xsara. (193 Nm @ 5500 RPM). This means 2002 Volvo XC90 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1998 Citroen Xsara.
Compare all specifications:
1998 Citroen Xsara | 2002 Volvo XC90 | |
Make | Citroen | Volvo |
Model | Xsara | XC90 |
Year Released | 1998 | 2002 |
Body Type | Coupe | SUV |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1998 cc | 2435 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 5 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 165 HP | 160 HP |
Engine RPM | 6500 RPM | 4000 RPM |
Torque | 193 Nm | 351 Nm |
Torque RPM | 5500 RPM | 1750 RPM |
Drive Type | Front | 4WD |
Vehicle Weight | 1200 kg | 2114 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4180 mm | 4800 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1710 mm | 1900 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1400 mm | 1790 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2550 mm | 2800 mm |