HomeArticlesProductsKeywordsCompanies

Compare Citroen DS4 vs Citroen C3 II vs Citroen C4 II

Variants
1.2 130
1.6 BlueHDi 120 AT
1.6 BlueHDi 120
1.6 e-HDi 112
1.6 e-HDi 112 AT
1.6 e-HDi 115
1.6 e-HDi 115 AT
1.6 HDi 112
1.6 HDi 92
1.6 THP 156
1.6 THP 163 AT
1.6 THP 165 AT
1.6 THP 200
1.6 VTi 120
2.0 BlueHDi 150
2.0 BlueHDi 181 AT
2.0 HDi 163
2.0 HDi 163 AT
1.0 68
1.1 60
1.2 110
1.2 82
1.2 82 AT
1.4 95
1.4 95 AT
1.4 95 AT
1.4 e-HDi 68 AT
1.4 HDi 68
1.4 HDi 68 2013+
1.4i 73
1.6 120
1.6 120 2013+
1.6 120 AT
1.6 120 AT 2013+
1.6 BlueHDi 75
1.6 BlueHDI 99
1.6 e-HDI 114 AT
1.6 e-HDi 92
1.6 e-HDI 92 2013+
1.6 e-HDi 92 AT
1.6 e-HDI 92 AT 2013+
1.6 HDi 112
1.6 HDi 90
1.6 HDi 92
1.2 PureTech 110
1.2 PureTech 130
1.2 PureTech 130 AT
1.4 VTi 95
1.6 BlueHDi 120
1.6 BlueHDi 120 AT
1.6 BlueHDi 99
1.6 e-HDI 112
1.6 e-HDi 112 AT
1.6 e-HDI 114
1.6 e-HDI 114 AT
1.6 HDi 112
1.6 HDI 114
1.6 HDi 92
1.6 THP 156 AT
1.6 VTi 120
1.6 VTi 120 AT
2.0 BlueHDi 150
2.0 HDi 150

Capacity

Cargo Capacity
385 L / 13.6 cu-ft ~ 1021 L / 36.1 cu-ft
Fuel Capacity
60.0 L / 15.9 gal
60.0 L / 15.9 gal
Passengers
5
5
5

Chassis

Brakes | Front
Ventilated discs
Ventilated discs
Ventilated discs
Brakes | Rear
Disc
Disc
Power Steering
Electric Steering
Suspension | Front
MacPherson strut
MacPherson strut
MacPherson strut
Suspension | Rear
Semi-independent, coil spring
Semi-independent, coil spring
Semi-independent, coil spring
Turning Circle
10.7 m / 35.1 ft

Construction

Body Style
5-door Hatchback
5-door Hatchback
5-door Hatchback

Dimensions

Size | Height
1533 mm / 60.4 in
Size | Length
4275 mm / 168.3 in
3941 mm / 155.2 in
4329 mm / 170.4 in
Size | Width
1789 mm / 70.4 in | 2050 mm / 80.7 in (mirror unfolded)
Track Width | Front
1531.0 mm / 60.3 in
1522.0 mm / 59.9 in
Track Width | Rear
1525.0 mm / 60.0 in
1515.0 mm / 59.6 in
Wheelbase
2612 mm / 102.8 in
2466 mm / 97.1 in
2608 mm / 102.7 in

Performance

Coefficient Of Drag
0.30

Powertrain

Drivetrain Layout
Front-engine (transverse), Front-wheel drive
Front-engine (transverse), Front-wheel drive
Front-engine (transverse), Front-wheel drive

Reviews

Neofiliac score
18%
13%
13%
Pros
  • Low official fuel consumption
  • Good 0.29 drag coefficient
  • Low fuel consumption
  • Small turning circle
  • Low official fuel consumption
  • Slightly better automatic transmission
Cons
  • Bad 0-100kph time
  • Only available with small engines
  • No independent rear suspensions
  • Bad 0-100kph time
  • Can't even reach 200km/h
  • Miserably low engine output
  • Only available with tiny engines
  • No independent rear suspensions
  • Bug ugly
  • Bad 0-100kph time
  • No powerful engine options
  • Only available with tiny or small engines
  • No independent rear suspension
  • Ugly

Price

Offers (incl. referral links)
Remove
Remove
Remove
Add up to 4 products to the comparison using the search bar above
Information on this page is provided on an as-is basis. No warranty on accuracy is implied. This page may contain affiliate links to third-party merchants such as Amazon and eBay. If you make a purchase using the supplied link, we may receive a commission. Neofiliac places the utmost respect for your privacy. We use no cookie whatsoever beyond that needed for the proper functioning of the website.