Compare Volvo XC40 vs Citroen C5 Aircross
Variants
T4 Recharge
T5 Recharge
T2 MT
T2
T3 MT
T3 Euro6d MT
T3
D3 MT
D3
D3 AWD MT
D3 AWD
D4 AWD
T4
T4 AWD
T5 AWD
Recharge Pure Electric Single Motor
Recharge Pure Electric AWD Twin Motor
1.2 PureTech 130 AT
1.2 PureTech 130
1.5 BlueHDi 130 AT
1.5 BlueHDi 130
1.6 PureTech 180 AT
2.0 BlueHDi 180 AT
Capacity
Passengers
5
Chassis
Brakes | Front
Ventilated discs
Brakes | Rear
Disc
Offroad | Approach Angle
20.0 deg
Offroad | Departure Angle
27.0 deg
Power Steering
Electric Steering
Suspension | Front
MacPherson strut
MacPherson strut
Suspension | Rear
Semi-independent, coil spring
Turning Circle
10.7 m / 35.1 ft
Water Fording
450 mm / 17.7 in
Construction
Battery | Capacity
13.2 kWh (gross)
Dimensions
Ground Clearance
230 mm / 9.1 in
Wheelbase
2730 mm / 107.5 in
Performance
Electric Range
50.0 km / 31.1 mi
Powertrain
Drivetrain Layout
Front-engine (transverse), Front-wheel drive
Engine | Compression Ratio
10.5:1
Reviews
Neofiliac score
32%
15%
Pros
- Up to 414km electric range
- Low fuel consumption
- Decent engine reliability
Cons
- Only available with small engines
- Stuck with MacPherson struts in the front
- Poor performance
- Ugly
- No powerful engine options
- Only available with small engines
- Poor suspension setup
Remove
Remove
Related Products
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.