PureTech 1.0 (EB0) vs XU10 2.0

Side-by-side reliability comparison

Higher reliability score
XU10 2.0 ACCEPTABLE 74/100
+12 points over PureTech 1.0 (EB0)
0 / 100
CAUTION PureTech 1.0 (EB0) PSA
0 / 100
ACCEPTABLE XU10 2.0 PSA

Specifications

PureTech 1.0 (EB0)
XU10 2.0
Brand
PSA
PSA
Verdict
CAUTION
ACCEPTABLE
Reliability
62
74
Years
2012--2020
1992--2002
Displacement
999 cc
1998 cc
Layout
I3
I4
Type
Petrol Na
Petrol Na
Power
68--72 hp
132--167 hp
Known Issues
1
1
Total Risk Cost
€2,500--€7,000
€250--€500

Character

PureTech 1.0 (EB0)

"108/C1/Aygo base engine. Oil overconsumption reported. Simple but not impressive. Adequate city only."

XU10 2.0

"405/406/Xantia. Older XU family — cast iron block. Turbo 16V version (RFS) in 405 T16. Timing belt. Head gasket on turbo variants. Simple, proven, cheap parts. RFS turbo is a classic."

Issues Comparison

PureTech 1.0 (EB0) 1

◆ CRITICAL
Wet timing belt disintegration — same as 1.2 €2,500--€7,000 40,000 km--100,000 km

XU10 2.0 1

▲ HIGH
Timing belt (interference) €250--€500 60,000 km--90,000 km

Models

PureTech 1.0 (EB0) 3

208 1.0 PureTech A9 2012--2018 Hatchback C3 1.0 PureTech SX 2016--2022 Hatchback Renegade 1.0 T3 BU LCI 2018--2024 SUV

XU10 2.0 5

206 T1 1999--2007 206 2A/C 1999--2006 406 — 1996--2004 306 N3/N5 1993--2002 306 N3/N5 1994--2002
Full PureTech 1.0 (EB0) Report Full XU10 2.0 Report