Compare Citroen Grand C4 Picasso vs Citroen C4 Grand SpaceTourer vs Citroen C3 Picasso
Variants
1.6 HDi 112 AT
1.6 HDi 109 6MT
1.6 HDi 109 5MT
1.6 HDi 109 AT
1.6 HDi 112
1.6 140 AT
1.6 150 AT
1.6 156 AT
1.6 120 Euro5
1.6 120
1.8 125
2.0 HDi 136 AT
2.0 HDi 150
2.0 HDi 150 AT
2.0 HDi 163 AT
2.0 140 4AT
2.0 140 6AT
1.2 PureTech 131
1.2 PureTech 131 AT
1.2 PureTech 131 AT
1.5 BlueHDi 131
1.5 BlueHDi 131 AT
1.6 BlueHDi 120 AT
1.6 BlueHDi 99
1.6 THP 165 AT
2.0 BlueHDi 150
2.0 BlueHDi 163 AT
1.4 VTi
1.4 VTi Euro5
1.4 VTi LPG
1.6 e-HDi
1.6 HDi 109PS
1.6 HDi 112PS
1.6 HDi 90PS
1.6 VTi 115PS
1.6 VTi 120PS
Capacity
Cargo Capacity
208 L / 7.3 cu-ft ~ 1951 L / 68.9 cu-ft
Fuel Capacity
60.0 L / 15.9 gal
Passengers
7
7
5
Chassis
Brakes | Front
Ventilated discs
Ventilated discs
Ventilated discs
Brakes | Rear
Disc
Disc
Disc
Power Steering
Electric 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
11.1 m / 36.4 ft
10.6 m / 34.8 ft
Construction
Body Style
5-door Minivan
5-door Minivan
5-door Station Wagon
Dimensions
Size | Height
1660 mm / 65.4 in
1638 mm / 64.5 in
1669 mm / 65.7 in
Size | Length
4590 mm / 180.7 in
4602 mm / 181.2 in
4078 mm / 160.6 in
Size | Width
1830 mm / 72.0 in | 2100 mm / 82.7 in (mirror unfolded)
1826 mm / 71.9 in | 2117 mm / 83.3 in (mirror unfolded) | 1971 mm / 77.6 in (mirror folded)
1766 mm / 69.5 in | 2050 mm / 80.7 in (mirror unfolded)
Track Width | Front
1505.0 mm / 59.3 in
1573.0 mm / 61.9 in
1466.0 mm / 57.7 in
Track Width | Rear
1539.0 mm / 60.6 in
1576.0 mm / 62.0 in
1465.0 mm / 57.7 in
Wheelbase
2728 mm / 107.4 in
2840 mm / 111.8 in
2540 mm / 100.0 in
Performance
Coefficient Of Drag
0.31
0.308
Powertrain
Drivetrain Layout
Front-engine (transverse), Front-wheel drive
Front-engine (transverse), Front-wheel drive
Front-engine (transverse), Front-wheel drive
Engine | Bore
75.0 mm / 3.0 in
Engine | Compression Ratio
10.5:1
Engine | Stroke
90.5 mm / 3.6 in
Reviews
Neofiliac score
24%
21%
2%
Pros
- More interior space than the Picasso
- Low fuel consumption
- Decent interior space
- Easy to fix
Cons
- Rather uglier than the Picasso
- Horrible 0-100kph time
- No powerful engine options
- Only available with small engines
- No independent rear suspension
- Poor performance
- No powerful engine options
- Only available with small engines
- Basic suspension setup
- Horrible 0-100kph time
- Can't even reach 200km/h
- Miserably low engine output
- Only available with small engines
- No independent rear suspensions
- Very ugly
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.