DETAILED CAR COMPARISON

2000 Mitsubishi Challenger vs 2000 Citroen XM Comparison

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

VS
WINNER

Mitsubishi Challenger

Leads the overall E-Kıyasla score by 0.75 points.

69.25–68.5
SPECIFICATION GROUPS

Every difference between the two cars

Basic Specifications

MitsubishiMakeCitroen
ChallengerModelXM
2000Model year2000
Off-road vehicleBody typeHatchback
5Seats5
5Doors5

Performance

—0–100 km/h8,6 s
170 km/hTop speed235 km/h
2972 ccEngine displacement2963 cc
185 HPPower200 HP
265 NmTorque260 Nm
6Cylinders6

Fuel & Consumption

PetrolFuel typePetrol
74 ltFuel tank80 lt
16 ltUrban consumption—
10 ltExtra-urban consumption—
—Average consumption11,4 lt

Transmission & Chassis

4x4DrivetrainFront-wheel drive
4Gears5
265/70 R15Tyre size205/60 R15
YesABSYes

Dimensions

4530 mmLength4708 mm
1775 mmWidth1794 mm
1730 mmHeight1389 mm
1830 KgWeight1500 Kg
2725 mmWheelbase2850 mm

E-Kıyasla Editor’s Note

2000 Mitsubishi Challenger 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, Mitsubishi Challenger 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…