DETAILED CAR COMPARISON

1996 Ford Aerostar vs 1996 Citroen XM Comparison

Compare technical specifications, scores and everyday-use differences side by side.

VS
WINNER

Ford Aerostar

Leads the overall E-Kıyasla score by 0.75 points.

65.25–64.5
SPECIFICATION GROUPS

Every difference between the two cars

Basic Specifications

FordMakeCitroen
AerostarModelXM
1996Model year1996
MinivanBody typeHatchback
5Seats5
4Doors5

Performance

—0–100 km/h9,7 s
160 km/hTop speed222 km/h
2979 ccEngine displacement2963 cc
147 HPPower167 HP
224 NmTorque235 Nm
6Cylinders6

Fuel & Consumption

PetrolFuel typePetrol
79 ltFuel tank80 lt
16 ltUrban consumption—
11 ltExtra-urban consumption—
—Average consumption10,8 lt

Transmission & Chassis

Rear-wheel driveDrivetrainFront-wheel drive
5Gears5
205/75 R14Tyre size205/60 R15
YesABSYes

Dimensions

4440 mmLength4708 mm
1820 mmWidth1794 mm
1850 mmHeight1389 mm
1530 KgWeight1470 Kg
3020 mmWheelbase2850 mm

E-Kıyasla Editor’s Note

1996 Ford Aerostar and 1996 Citroen XM approach the same decision from different angles. We compare the exact versions so changes in engine, transmission, dimensions and equipment are not hidden behind the model names.

Overall, Ford Aerostar leads the E-Kıyasla score by 0.75 points. The score provides a consistent summary, while the best choice can still change with priorities such as urban efficiency, luggage space, performance or equipment.

SIMILAR COMPARISONS

Similar comparisons

Explore related comparisons featuring cars from this matchup.

Comments are loading…