PureTech 1.2 NA (EB2) vs XU10 2.0

Side-by-side reliability comparison

Higher reliability score
XU10 2.0 ACCEPTABLE 74/100
+2 points over PureTech 1.2 NA (EB2)
0 / 100
ACCEPTABLE PureTech 1.2 NA (EB2) PSA
0 / 100
ACCEPTABLE XU10 2.0 PSA

Specifications

PureTech 1.2 NA (EB2)
XU10 2.0
Brand
PSA
PSA
Verdict
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
Reliability
72
74
Years
2012--present
1992--2002
Displacement
1199 cc
1998 cc
Layout
I3
I4
Type
Petrol Na
Petrol Na
Power
68--82 hp
132--167 hp
Known Issues
0
1
Total Risk Cost
€0--€0
€250--€500

Character

PureTech 1.2 NA (EB2)

"Non-turbo version. Simpler, fewer issues than turbo. 208/C3 base engine. Adequate city car."

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 1.2 NA (EB2) 0

No documented issues.

XU10 2.0 1

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

Models

PureTech 1.2 NA (EB2) 12

C3 A51 2012--2016 C1 B4 2014--2022 108 — 2014--2021 208 P21 2019--present 208 A9 2012--2019 108 — 2014--2021 2008 A94 2013--2019 208 CA/CC 2012--2019 106 1A/1C 1996--2003 206 T1 1998--2012 C3 FC 2002--2009 206 2A/C 1998--2006

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 1.2 NA (EB2) Report Full XU10 2.0 Report