Which Citroen Saxo Version Should You Buy?
The Citroen Saxo catalogue contains one generation, produced from March 1996 to December 2004 as a Mini 5-doors model. The data lists 17 modifications, with 12 shown here.
The Citroen Saxo catalogue contains one generation, produced from March 1996 to December 2004 as a Mini 5-doors model. The data lists 17 modifications, with 12 shown here. Because there is no second generation to compare, the buying decision is between engines and transmissions: the 1.0 MT prioritizes low weight and modest consumption, the 1.1 MT and 1.4 MT provide progressively stronger performance, the 1.5 MT Diesel records the lowest fuel figures, and the 118 hp 1.6 MT is the quickest and most powerful choice.
Citroen Saxo generations and versions
The 1 generation ran from March 1996 through December 2004. It used the Mini 5-doors body and contained 17 modifications. All versions considered below therefore share the same generation; the supplied data does not identify a separate restyling or another body type.
Several names occur more than once, so power and other specifications are needed to distinguish them. There are two 1.0 MT entries, two 1.1 MT entries, two 1.4 AT entries, and three 1.6 MT entries in the supplied selection.
Citroen Saxo engine specs and horsepower
Every listed engine has 4 Inline cylinders, a Front, transverse installation and No boost. Every version is FWD. Engine capacity extends from 954 cc in the 1.0 MT to 1587 cc in the 1.6 versions.
| Version | Power | Torque | Displacement | Fuel | Cylinders and layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.0 MT (805 kg) | 45 hp | 74 Nm | 954 cc | Gasoline | 4, Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| 1.6 MT (98 hp) | 98 hp | 135 Nm | 1587 cc | Gasoline | 4, Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| 1.6 MT (118 hp) | 118 hp | 145 Nm | 1587 cc | Gasoline | 4, Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| 1.1 MT (54 hp) | 54 hp | 88 Nm | 1124 cc | Gasoline | 4, Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| 1.6 AT | 88 hp | 135 Nm | 1587 cc | Gasoline | 4, Inline | No | 3-speed Automatic | FWD |
| 1.6 MT (88 hp) | 88 hp | 135 Nm | 1587 cc | Gasoline | 4, Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| 1.1 MT (60 hp) | 60 hp | 94 Nm | 1124 cc | Gasoline | 4, Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| 1.4 AT (1361 cc) | 75 hp | 111 Nm | 1361 cc | Gasoline | 4, Inline | No | 3-speed Automatic | FWD |
| 1.4 MT | 75 hp | 111 Nm | 1361 cc | Gasoline | 4, Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| 1.5 MT | 57 hp | 95 Nm | 1527 cc | Diesel | 4, Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| 1.0 MT (880 kg) | 45 hp | 74 Nm | 954 cc | Gasoline | 4, Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| 1.4 AT (1360 cc) | 75 hp | 111 Nm | 1360 cc | Gasoline | 4, Inline | No | 4-speed Automatic | FWD |
The 118 hp 1.6 MT produces about 74.4 hp per litre, the highest specific output here. The 98 hp 1.6 MT delivers about 61.8 hp per litre, while the 88 hp 1.6 MT and 1.6 AT each produce about 55.5 hp per litre. The 60 hp 1.1 MT reaches about 53.4 hp per litre, ahead of the 54 hp 1.1 MT at about 48.0 hp per litre. Both 75 hp 1.4 engines are close to 55.1 hp per litre. The 1.5 MT Diesel produces about 37.3 hp per litre, while each 45 hp 1.0 MT produces about 47.2 hp per litre.
Citroen Saxo performance and fuel economy
| Version | 0–100 km/h | Top speed | City | Highway | Combined |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.0 MT (805 kg) | 19.1 s | 149 km/h | 8.3 L/100 km | 5.1 L/100 km | 6.0 L/100 km |
| 1.6 MT (98 hp) | 10.5 s | 193 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 1.6 MT (118 hp) | 8.7 s | 205 km/h | 11.4 L/100 km | 6.3 L/100 km | 7.4 L/100 km |
| 1.1 MT (54 hp) | 15.3 s | 162 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 1.6 AT | 17.0 s | 166 km/h | 10.5 L/100 km | 6.4 L/100 km | 7.9 L/100 km |
| 1.6 MT (88 hp) | 11.6 s | 187 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 1.1 MT (60 hp) | 14.9 s | 162 km/h | 8.6 L/100 km | 5.3 L/100 km | 6.7 L/100 km |
| 1.4 AT (1361 cc) | 17.0 s | 166 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 1.4 MT | 12.9 s | 175 km/h | 8.8 L/100 km | 5.2 L/100 km | 6.9 L/100 km |
| 1.5 MT | 18.3 s | 158 km/h | 6.9 L/100 km | 4.3 L/100 km | 5.3 L/100 km |
| 1.0 MT (880 kg) | 19.1 s | 149 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 1.4 AT (1360 cc) | 17.0 s | 175 km/h | 9.5 L/100 km | 5.3 L/100 km | 6.9 L/100 km |
The 118 hp 1.6 MT is the clear performance choice: it reaches 100 km/h 1.8 seconds sooner and has a top speed 12 km/h higher than the 98 hp 1.6 MT. Against the 88 hp 1.6 MT, it is 2.9 seconds quicker to 100 km/h and 18 km/h faster at the top end.
Transmission makes a substantial difference among the 88 hp 1.6 versions. The 5-speed Manual reaches 100 km/h in 11.6 seconds, whereas the 3-speed Automatic requires 17.0 seconds, a difference of 5.4 seconds. Their top speeds are 187 and 166 km/h respectively, a difference of 21 km/h.
For measured economy, the 1.5 MT Diesel leads with 6.9 L/100 km city, 4.3 L/100 km highway and 5.3 L/100 km combined. Compared with the 60 hp 1.1 MT, it uses 1.7 L/100 km less in the city, 1.0 L/100 km less on the highway and 1.4 L/100 km less combined, although its 18.3-second acceleration time is 3.4 seconds slower.
The 1.4 MT and 1360 cc 1.4 AT both record 6.9 L/100 km combined. The Manual is much quicker to 100 km/h—12.9 rather than 17.0 seconds—while both reach 175 km/h. The 1361 cc 1.4 AT also takes 17.0 seconds but has a lower 166 km/h top speed; its consumption is not measured.
Citroen Saxo weight, ground clearance and tank size
| Version | Kerb weight | Gross weight | Ground clearance | Tank | Wheel sizes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.0 MT (805 kg) | 805 kg | 1220 kg | 120 mm | 45 L | not measured |
| 1.6 MT (98 hp) | 920 kg | 1360 kg | 120 mm | 45 L | not measured |
| 1.6 MT (118 hp) | 935 kg | 1380 kg | 120 mm | 45 L | not measured |
| 1.1 MT (54 hp) | 805 kg | 1310 kg | 120 mm | 45 L | not measured |
| 1.6 AT | 920 kg | 1360 kg | 120 mm | 45 L | not measured |
| 1.6 MT (88 hp) | 920 kg | 1360 kg | 120 mm | 45 L | not measured |
| 1.1 MT (60 hp) | 810 kg | 1310 kg | 120 mm | 45 L | not measured |
| 1.4 AT (1361 cc) | not measured | 1320 kg | 120 mm | 45 L | not measured |
| 1.4 MT | 840 kg | 1320 kg | 120 mm | 45 L | not measured |
| 1.5 MT | 890 kg | 1370 kg | 120 mm | 45 L | not measured |
| 1.0 MT (880 kg) | 880 kg | 1220 kg | 119 mm | 45 L | not measured |
| 1.4 AT (1360 cc) | 915 kg | 1320 kg | 119 mm | 45 L | not measured |
The lightest measured kerb weight is 805 kg, shared by the first 1.0 MT and the 54 hp 1.1 MT. The heaviest is the 935 kg 1.6 MT with 118 hp, a difference of 130 kg. Despite that extra mass, its power-to-weight result is strongest: about 7.9 kg per hp. The 98 hp 1.6 MT follows at about 9.4 kg per hp, while the 88 hp 1.6 MT and 1.6 AT each carry about 10.5 kg per hp.
Among the smaller engines, the 60 hp 1.1 MT carries 13.5 kg per hp, compared with about 14.9 kg per hp for the 54 hp 1.1 MT. The 840 kg 1.4 MT records 11.2 kg per hp. The two 45 hp 1.0 MT versions differ by 75 kg: the 805 kg car carries about 17.9 kg per hp, while the 880 kg car carries about 19.6 kg per hp.
Ground clearance is 120 mm for most entries and 119 mm for the 880 kg 1.0 MT and the 1360 cc 1.4 AT. Every version has a 45 L tank. Wheel sizes are not measured for every listed version. Overall exterior dimensions are also not measured in the supplied data.
Which Citroen Saxo version should you buy?
Choose the 118 hp 1.6 MT if performance is the priority. Its 8.7-second acceleration, 205 km/h top speed and approximately 7.9 kg-per-hp ratio are the best figures in this selection. The trade-off is the highest measured city consumption, 11.4 L/100 km, and the highest kerb weight, 935 kg.
Choose the 98 hp 1.6 MT for a less extreme performance option. It gives away 20 hp and 10 Nm to the 118 hp version but remains only 1.8 seconds slower to 100 km/h. Its fuel consumption is not measured, so an economy comparison cannot be made from these data.
Choose the 1.4 MT for the strongest numerical compromise among the measured Gasoline manuals. It has 75 hp, reaches 100 km/h in 12.9 seconds and records 6.9 L/100 km combined. Compared with the 60 hp 1.1 MT, it adds 15 hp and 17 Nm, cuts acceleration time by 2.0 seconds and increases top speed by 13 km/h, while using only 0.2 L/100 km more combined.
Choose the 60 hp 1.1 MT over the 54 hp 1.1 MT when their published performance matters. The extra 6 hp and 6 Nm reduce the 0–100 km/h time by 0.4 seconds, although both have a 162 km/h top speed. Only the 60 hp version has measured consumption: 8.6 L/100 km city, 5.3 L/100 km highway and 6.7 L/100 km combined.
Choose the 1.5 MT when measured fuel consumption takes precedence over acceleration. Its 5.3 L/100 km combined result is the lowest supplied figure, but its 18.3-second run to 100 km/h places it close to the 1.0 MT versions rather than the Gasoline 1.4 and 1.6 manuals.
Choose an Automatic only if that transmission is itself the requirement. The 1360 cc 1.4 AT is the stronger numerical Automatic choice: it matches the other Automatic entries at 17.0 seconds to 100 km/h, reaches 175 km/h and has measured combined consumption of 6.9 L/100 km. The 1.6 AT provides 13 hp and 24 Nm more, yet its top speed is 166 km/h and combined consumption is 7.9 L/100 km. The 1361 cc 1.4 AT also tops out at 166 km/h, while its economy and kerb weight are not measured.