2000 • Ford
Contour
Ford Contour 2.0i 16V (132 Hp) 2000Overall Score63.25/100
2000 Ford Contour vs 2000 Citroen XM Comparison
Compare technical specifications, scores and everyday-use differences side by side.
2000 • Citroen
XM
Citroen XM 2.0 Turbo (147 Hp) 2000Overall Score62.5/100
WINNER
Ford Contour
Leads the overall E-Kıyasla score by 0.75 points.
63.25–62.5
SPECIFICATION GROUPS
Every difference between the two cars
Basic Specifications
Ford ContourSpecificationCitroen XM
FordMakeCitroen
ContourModelXM
2000Model year2000
SedanBody typeHatchback
5Seats5
4Doors5
Performance
Ford ContourSpecificationCitroen XM
—0–100 km/h9,3 s
180 km/hTop speed215 km/h
1988 ccEngine displacement1998 cc
132 HPPower147 HP
174 NmTorque235 Nm
4Cylinders4
Fuel & Consumption
Ford ContourSpecificationCitroen XM
PetrolFuel typePetrol
61 ltFuel tank80 lt
—Urban consumption14,5 lt
—Extra-urban consumption8,0 lt
8,3 ltAverage consumption—
Transmission & Chassis
Ford ContourSpecificationCitroen XM
Front-wheel driveDrivetrainFront-wheel drive
5Gears5
185/70 R14 VTyre size205/60 R15
—ABSYes
Dimensions
Ford ContourSpecificationCitroen XM
4658 mmLength4708 mm
1749 mmWidth1794 mm
1374 mmHeight1394 mm
1320 KgWeight1401 Kg
2704 mmWheelbase2850 mm
E-Kıyasla Editor’s Note
2000 Ford Contour and 2000 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 Contour 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.
VS
VS
VS
VSComments are loading…