Xsara or C5 2.0HDI

[3ps]

Hi,

I am thinking of getting rid of my AX 1.5D
I bought it on a whim from somebody I know because a) I never owned an AX and b) it does 75mpg.

But TBH I don't feel safe in it. Yesterday I was chatting to a friend about that and he said a Saxo just crashed into his wifes car and showed me a pic... the Saxo had bent in half at the B pillar, so that made my mind up.

Anyway, I have sortof narrowed it down to a choice between

2002 Xsara 2.0HDI 5 door hatch
120k miles with aircon

2004 C5 2.0HDI 5 door
170k miles, but it is lsted as having new tyres, services, TB done, and clutch done.

I'm not sure how to choose. In my mind I am thinking that the Xsara might need a clutch or TB done soon, but it is 500 cheaper. It is also a dodgy green.
The C5 is roomier, but I have a feeling that it will be plagued with faults.

Is the Xsara considered a much more reliable car?

I am a bit tired of owning bangers but needs must at the moment, so I would nearly be prepared to get the Xsara for less problems in general, and do a clutch or whatever when needs be.

Any thoughts?

[RichardW]

I don't think there's significant difference in relability between the two. Xsara might be a 90 or 110, but most likely a 90 as most were. No real reliabilty problems, but watch out for clonks from the rear end - the trailing arm bearings fail, but are not easy to change like a Xantia, so new sub frame is easier solution. C5 might be a 110 8V or 138 16V at that age - 16V is a different beast, DPF equipped, so might be best avoided. They can have various electrical maladies, and the rear arm bearings also seem to give troble.... At this end of the market you can only buy on condition, and which you like, 170k careful use may well be much better than 120k abuse - I am surprised at £500 difference - unless the Xsara is at scrap money I'd be reluctant to give much more than £750 for the C5.

[411514]

If you are buying a car purely as a work horse you might do well to consider the 1.4 petrol xsara. Whilst it may be a bit low on power in terms of miles per £ it beats the diesel, the engine and running gear is extremely simple to repair and parts cost peanuts.
I had one and managed to change the clutch and gearbox for the princely sum of £80.
The c5 is obvisouly slightly roomier and more sophisticated but it will be more expensive to run when you take account of tyres and maintenance, although in my experience it has proved a very reliable car with few major problems. In terms of cheapness to run why not try a 1.1 litre peugeot 206, very cheap insurance and very easy to fix.
Whilst the hdi has proven itself a reliable lump those sort of mileages would put me off as you may find it to be a long list of snags come mot time, sam

[3ps]

Well the Xsara is a 1 owner car, and they are getting me the service history from the garage where it was always brought. I like that type of car, tends to be spotless inside and any work that needed doing was done.

The C5, it turns out the dealer is selling for a friend. He bought it last year and had to throw money at it. I suspect it needs further work. Forgot about the DPF that would put me off alright.

I do not want a petrol really or a smaller car.

My head is telling me Xsara. It's cheap enough and if the clutch goes or the TB I guess it's a couple hundred each and then a few more years pain free.

[bxzx16v]

I'd go for the xsara myself , one owner & history . If the condition is nice too go for it .

Mark

[oneday]

watch the rear end on the xsara its 350 quid if it needs doing. ive found the xsara a very reliable car i sold mine with 160000 on the clock still going strong. very small boot and not a lot of inside room. clutch went at about 130000 so that one wont be far off.

[Peter.N.]

People like myself buy the C5 for its ride comfort and space, if its an 8 valve 2.0L that's the best engine to have in anything, it really depends on your priorities. There are some very cheap C5s about, I bought a 2.2 Hdi for £300.00 and its a nice car but thirsty, my 2.0. I paid £550.00 for, driven carefully it will do over 60 mpg and averages 50 mpg. They can be problematic as can any modern car but you are unlikely to have a problem with the 2.0. 8 valve engine.

Peter

[JohnD]

2002 Xsara 2.0HDI 5 door hatch
120k miles with aircon?

Have a look at my fleet of cars. I keep the Saxo just as a runabout. It's 14 years old, 13 years with me and it's been fault free. Very easy to work on and fairly cheap parts. The Xsara is my daughters which she's had from new. It's been very reliable and again fairly easy to work with. Her's is on 110k miles and just recently needed a recon rear beam axle. Look closely at yours between the top inside edges of the tyres and the wheel arches. If they are close when the weight is on the car, be sure that new bearings will be required.

[3ps]

Well I have decided to take the advice and am now looking at 1.4 Xsara's. There is a pretty good choice.

I assume the same rear beam issue to watch out for?

[411514]

Yes rear beam issue still applies, however im not sure its quite as bad as you may have heard. I've had two xsara's into well over 100k without such trouble. Besides if you are looking at the 1.4 you will get a much lower mileage one than the diesel so should avoid the problem. For much less than £1000 you should be able to find a pretty mint low mileage 1.4, sam

[3ps]

Thanks.

I'm actually in Dublin and some of our motor costs are punitive so my decisions might be made for differing reasons to the U.K.!
For example, my annual road tax on the 1.4 (after yet another austerity budget yesterday) is EUR385 but the 2.0HDI would be EUR660.

Another quick Q.

I have always preferred the styling of the Xsara estate and I can see one for sale. The ad listing is old so I suspect it is gone, but it is a 1.6. Are there any reasons not to choose a 1.6 over the 1.4?

[JohnD]

Are there any reasons not to choose a 1.6 over the 1.4?

When I agreed the purchase of my Saxo from a Citroen dealer, I couldn't drive it away on the arranged day so he lent me a 1.4 Xsara. I was very disappointed with it's performance. If you're tempted by one, try it well before purchase. IMO the 1.6 would be better.

[3ps]

I understand but I have no need for any performance. i am sitting on a busyish motorway for 99% of my commute.

[citroenxm]

1.6 will have usefull extra go, if Taxing is not an issue then go for the 1.6 The other thing to check on the TU engines is for an oil leak on the cam belt side (front left) from the head gasket, thats also a common weakness, though the car will run fine, it will weep oil and get messy.. 1.4's the same too..

Other then that the TU is a nice simple multi point injection engine..

Estate rear subframes will be different to Hatch's so if there is a Rear wheel leaning issue, it may be harder to get a replacment.. Check for leaning rear wheels, they will scrub the inner arch if its bad..

which ever, hatch or estate they all can suffer the same issue..

[3ps]

Here is the pic that made up my mind.

Avensis was stopped with wheels on verge of narrow road.
Saxo owner was fiddling with radio.