2001 Citroen C5 vs. 2009 Mazda RX-8
To start off, 2009 Mazda RX-8 is newer by 8 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2001 Citroen C5. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2001 Citroen C5 would be higher. At 1,997 cc (4 cylinders), 2001 Citroen C5 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Mazda RX-8 (232 HP @ 8500 RPM) has 173 more horse power than 2001 Citroen C5. (59 HP @ 6000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2009 Mazda RX-8 should accelerate faster than 2001 Citroen C5.
Because 2009 Mazda RX-8 is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 2009 Mazda RX-8. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2001 Citroen C5, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. 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, 2009 Mazda RX-8 (216 Nm @ 5500 RPM) has 99 more torque (in Nm) than 2001 Citroen C5. (117 Nm @ 4100 RPM). This means 2009 Mazda RX-8 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2001 Citroen C5.
Compare all specifications:
2001 Citroen C5 | 2009 Mazda RX-8 | |
Make | Citroen | Mazda |
Model | C5 | RX-8 |
Year Released | 2001 | 2009 |
Body Type | Station Wagon | Coupe |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1997 cc | 1306 cc |
Engine Type | in-line | dual-disk rotary |
Horse Power | 59 HP | 232 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 8500 RPM |
Torque | 117 Nm | 216 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4100 RPM | 5500 RPM |
Drive Type | Front | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 4 seats |
Number of Doors | 5 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4760 mm | 4470 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1780 mm | 1780 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1520 mm | 1350 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2760 mm | 2710 mm |
Fuel Consumption | 6.4 L/100km | 10.7 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 11.9 L/100km | 14.7 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 8.4 L/100km | 13.1 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 66 L | 64 L |