C5 2.2 [173bhp] Fuel performance

Quackers · Post by **Quackers** » 14 Aug 2011, 15:08

Am i expecting too much from a big engine in terms of MPG?

I have an 07 2.2 C5, 173 BHP version, with the twin turbo

Over the last 3000 miles according to the trip computer i have averaged 28mpg.

If i am crusing at 70mph on the motorway,according to the instant readings i get 32/32mpg, if its even remotely upbank its drops to around 24mpg.

These are the kind of figures i would expect the 3.0V6 Pertol version to say, not the Diesel. Is somthing wrong with my engine or is this what i should get? A full tank gets me around 500 miles. I had it services a few days after getting it, and had air filters etc changed.

Maybe my expectations were just wrong, i was expecting late 38-39mpg crusing around 70-80mph, and the only time i get above that is perfect flat or downbank.

Post by **Peter.N.** » 14 Aug 2011, 16:21

Is yours an auto? If so that's part of the reason, if you drive hard and fast, that's another, even so I would have expected better. I have heard that the 2.2s are not very economical but I don't really know why. I have the 2.0 litre 8 valve engine in a 406 and it does 60+ mpg at 60 mph.

Peter

cachaciero · Post by **cachaciero** » 14 Aug 2011, 17:33

The 173 BHP has published fuel consumption figures which are very close to the 2.0L 138 engine and should be considerably better than that. Your figures are worse than the original 136BHP 2.2L which as Peter says wan't well renowned for it's fuel consumption.

You need to compare actual fuel used out of the tank, drive it till the low level light comes on, set the trip to zero put ten litres in and see what mileage you do until the low level light comes on again that should give you actual consumption within a couple of mpg.

The computer figure is based upon injection pulses which is usually extremely accurate unless you have an injector problem.

There is a difference auto to manual but that is only about 8mpg at the top end as I recall.

Would be interested to see where you go with this thread as the performance and consumption figures of the 2.2 173BHP have made me hanker after one.

cachaciero

KevMayer · Post by **KevMayer** » 14 Aug 2011, 18:25

Hello Quakers,

If your tank is 60 litres and you get 500 miles out of it that works out as 37.9 mpg.

If it's 65 litres then 500 miles works out at 34.9 mpg.

Check how much fuel your tank holds and work it out. Trip computers aren't always accurate.

How many miles are on the clock?

Quackers · Post by **Quackers** » 14 Aug 2011, 21:06

Thanks for the replys, it is the Auto version, and being 'light footed' does not seem to make any difference. I believe its the 66 Litre tank.

I reset trip computer 2 when i put the last full tank in so will see how this one goes, though it estimates 280 miles, hopefully that will turn out to be very wrong.

Its got 117,000 miles on the clock.

bxzx16v · Post by **bxzx16v** » 14 Aug 2011, 21:12

Bet the 2.2 Hdi 173 is a real beauty to drive , I had a 2.2 Hdi 136 that was great but juicy , is it a company vehicle with that mileage ?

Mark

Quackers · Post by **Quackers** » 14 Aug 2011, 21:22

bxzx16v wrote:Bet the 2.2 Hdi 173 is a real beauty to drive , I had a 2.2 Hdi 136 that was great but juicy , is it a company vehicle with that mileage ?

Mark

It has enough punch, and the twin turbo is nice. Really pulls between 50mph and 70mph when you floor it.

I guess it was a company vehicle doing motorway miles for it to have done so many since July 07. I paid £4500 for it few months ago, with service history, and dealer stamps in the book. 115,000 on the clock.

I could not decide between the 2.2 173 Diesel or the 3.0 V6 Petrol, so i just waited for the first one to come along that had the Navipack in exclusive, with either engine in my price range and took the dive. Diesel was preference if 2 came up as i was expecting better MPG for just .5 of second slower than the V6 0-60

Citroenmad · Post by **Citroenmad** » 14 Aug 2011, 21:27

What is your average trip reading saying? That is the one to take note of and not really the instant.

I know someone with a 2.2 173bhp C5 manual (im sure he will be along soon) and he gets close to 50MPG on average. An auto will be less, possibly 40ish.

bxzx16v · Post by **bxzx16v** » 14 Aug 2011, 21:32

Sounds like a nice C5 with a good spec , I know my C5 wasn't great on juice , my 2.0 ltr16v petrol Zx does 25+ if driven sensibly in town , years ago I had a 2.5 V6 Renault 25 Turbo (petrol) and that was very good on fuel and quick without even trying

Mark

Citroenmad · Post by **Citroenmad** » 14 Aug 2011, 21:48

I have not had an auto C5, though that might go half way to explaining your economy. Its an unusual spec yours, being a VTX+ 2.2HDi 173 auto, there are not many about for people to compare. However people who have a 2.2HDi 136bhp auto often say about its slightly poor economy for a diesel.

My 2.0HDi 138bhp manual does 50MPG, even with my lead foot - but with a good bit of motorway work. So C5s are generally very efficient, maybe not the autos...

Quackers · Post by **Quackers** » 14 Aug 2011, 22:05

Did not think the Auto would make so much difference with the modern 6 speed ones. Its an Exclusive with the Navipack extra, not a VTX+, which i think makes it eve more rare.

Citroenmad · Post by **Citroenmad** » 14 Aug 2011, 22:14

Quackers wrote:Did not think the Auto would make so much difference with the modern 6 speed ones. Its an Exclusive with the Navipack extra, not a VTX+, which i think makes it eve more rare.

It being a 173 Exclusive Auto it really is a rare car. 136s are much more common. In fact nearly all well equipped Exclusives are 2.2 136s and mostly autos in th S1 but all facelifted C5 2.2 136s are autos.

Sorry, just noticed you did state your average MPG, 28 from the last 3000 miles is shocking, a V6 would be cheaper to run!

Thats not right it should easily see 40MPG really. How does it perform? It should be quite a flyer with lots of torque. I would get it on a code reader and see if it has any stored, 28 MPG is not what you should be getting. Unless of course you do very short runs.

Post by **myglaren** » 15 Aug 2011, 06:33

You should really do a measurement of miles covered on a full tank, at least three times, to assess the true mpg of the car. The onboard estimator is not to be relied on. Some are quite accurate, others miles out (mine doesn't work at all).