C5 2.2Hdi performance

[Peter.N.]

My son drove the C5 yesterday and says it has no power at low revs, I can't say I had noticed as I drive for economy so rarely put my foot down hard, could this be related to my poor fuel consumption?

Thanks Peter

[Lighty]

Depends what you call poor, most 2.2's seem to just manage 40 mpg, or more often 35

[citroenxm]

Ive driven a 2.2 and found it a bit Crap at low revs too... I drove an R reg 1997 Pug 406 2.1 TD manual with lucas epic, and it was impressive. Just as good as the XM SED 2.1 with manual box. The 2.2 doesnt impress me what so ever. Even the XM can do 45mpg...

[Lighty]

Ive driven a 2.2 and found it a bit Crap at low revs too... I drove an R reg 1997 Pug 406 2.1 TD manual with lucas epic, and it was impressive. Just as good as the XM SED 2.1 with manual box. The 2.2 doesnt impress me what so ever. Even the XM can do 45mpg...

I would agree with all of that, can't see the point in the 2.2's at all .

[citroenxm]

Ahhh Lighty, Just left your neck of the woods today.. Been to Matlock Bath, and all over the Peaks today and yesterday!

Just got home...

[Lighty]

Weather has been appalling today, never stopped raining at all yet

[citroenxm]

Yea we know! And my Xantia wipers are soooo dodgy.. The ball joint on the motor spindle AND drivers wiper arm keep popping off!!

[Peter.N.]

Fuel consumption 49.6 at a steady 60 mph up the M5 to bristol driving like a grandad, the 406 will do an easy 60 mpg on the same trip.

Peter

[Dippy]

Ive driven a 2.2 and found it a bit Crap at low revs too... I drove an R reg 1997 Pug 406 2.1 TD manual with lucas epic, and it was impressive. Just as good as the XM SED 2.1 with manual box. The 2.2 doesnt impress me what so ever. Even the XM can do 45mpg...

Our 2.1 SD estate Auto ( Epic) only averaged 27 - 28 in mixed driving - is that normal ?
406 Estate 2.1 ( Epic) manual was over 10 mpg better overall .

[citroenxm]

Yes.. Two reasons... Firstly the auto Does knock a lot off the MPG in start stop, and secondly the estate is bigger and heavier.. so stop start sounds about right.. Manual XM TDs do a lot more MPG...

[Citroenmad]

Im sure your C5 2.2 should feel even slightly lively Peter, this could be a tell tale sign of your economy. Im sure you have found by now that there are some 2.2 136 owners on here who can get more MPG than you have from yours.

I find the MAF is very sensitive on the 2.0HDi 110, it its dirty or getting old it seems to have a knock on effect on performance and so economy too. I give the MAFs on ours a cleaning with electrical contact cleaner on every service and also spray air intake cleaner through the pipework with some revs. Ive always done this and it can make a good impact on the car. Our current 2.0HDi 8v got quite slow and heavy on fuel and replaicng the MAF sorted it. Despite it not showing as a warning on the car it was stored as a fault log on the Lexia.

You will read more reports about the 2.2 not being as quick as you might expect and also not as economical as you would think, so it might well be a trait of the engine. Some people have gone to the 1.6HDi C5 and found it quicker and obviosuly more economical.

[cachaciero]

If the swirl valves are stuck open low end performance will be sluggish and fuel consumption will suffer. Quick check, disconnect the ball joint and wire the arm fully forward (valves closed) then drive it and see if it's any different.
I would be the first to agree that the 2.2 fuel consumption is not as good as it could / should be. However by comparison with my previous drive an XM 2.1 auto, the fuel consumption on many give and take routes is little different, maybe 1-2 mpg worse, on long haul Motorway work the XM returned low 40's this at 70 / 80 the C5 on a good day will give me 38 - 41.
On balance the XM was slightly better BUT the C5 has far more go, accelerates considerably better, even better if sport mode is selected on the box but this can have a highly negative effect on fuel consumption. The XM was a lighter car and I suspect aerodynamically superior a not unimportant consideration which probably compensated for the lower power. Worth noting that reducing the speed to 56 mph on motorways will push the fuel consumption on the C5 up to 45, can't comment on the XM at that speed as I never had occasion to check fuel consumption at that speed, but I suspect that it would have improved the consumption by a fair bit.

cachaciero

[Peter.N.]

Hi Chris

I had not noticed the lack of performance because as I said I drive very gently but I have noticed that it pulls better up hills than the 406 so there is extra power there. I have read a lot of reports about poor economy but I have also seen a couple of others showing 50 - 60 mpg obviously being driven like I drive but driving under the same conditions and speed as the 406 its about 20% up on consumption, theorectically it should be better, bigger engine = higher gearing and a weaker mixture which should increase efficiency, its shown in the 2.1 XUD over the 1.9, at least a 10% improvement.

When I get my Lexia working I will see if I can find anything amiss, if not I will do as you say and try the MAF. I don't intend keeping the car, I'm going to put some Eolys in so I don't get any warnings and hopefully it will work properly. I will probably run it until the MOT runs out in August then put a new one on and sell it, providing nothing nasty has happened in the meantime, then look for a nice 2.0L. I like the car apart from the fuel consumption so we shall probably do our north of Scotland trip in it next month and see how it goes.

Peter

[Peter.N.]

Cachaciero

I have heard mention of these flaps I will have a look. I find the consumption marginally worse than the 2.1 in the XM that will do 50 mpg+ on most journeys but I'm struggling to get 50 from the 2.2 at a steady 60 mpg or less, I normally drive in the slow lane with the lorries. 50 mph road work limits work wonders for fuel consumption.

Peter

[Citroenmad]

Im sure there is truth in your engine size theory, especially as the larger engine has more torque and power so needs working less than a smaller engine.

However apply that to other cars and it doesn't always stand true. The Xm for example, in 2.1TD guise is much more efficient than the 2.5TD. Book figures for the 2.0 and 2.2 C5s suggests atbout 6-8mpg lower for the 2.2, as a guide.