2.2HDi's opinions please

[KP]

Out of this likely lot below which one is likely to result in the best motor after some minor work?

Replacing a turbo isn't a biggy for me as i've done some of the worse ones ever designed!
Auto box's worry me, not only for the MPG drop but for the fact in anything but the fatty i like to stir the porridge as it were

Ideally im looking at an estate and it has to have a decent amount of tax and test on it. Exclusive trim at least as well as i can stick in leather at any point easily enough now.
Grubby im not bother about as long as panels aren't holed they can be scraped or scuffed and even better if not cleaned

Ideally not wanting to spend more than £500 as well!

Candidates are...
http://www.gumtree.com/p/cars-vans-moto ... 1013297457" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.gumtree.com/p/cars-vans-moto ... em-full-10" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(needs turbo by sounds of it)

http://www.gumtree.com/p/cars-vans-moto ... 1012671390" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(sounds like dash is FUBAR)

Looked on the bay but doesn't seem much there but i could be using the wrong search terms i guess.
Or has anyone got anything better??

[citroenxm]

None of them are a decent bet... Some but very few 2.2 are reliable.. Avoid the 2.2 best you can...

Fap filters give trouble if they have not been looked after..
Injectors rarely come out of the inlet which needs to come off for a head off job if the gasket goes and they do
They struggle to give anything more then 40mpg unless you drive like peter n and stay under 50 mph and don't go over 2500rpm

Early 2.2 engines were trouble some.. Best bet a 2.0 8v with a tuning box.. The 8v is well proven in the xantia and there's no Fap filter system etc to go wrong and Injectors do come out but don't need to come out for a head off job if needed..

Personally I won't touch the 2.2 and there's pleanty of 2.2 talk on here.. Some do love them.. A lot don't.

[daviemck2006]

I never had any trouble with my 2.2, but then I had it from 50k to 105k. Serviced regularly during that time, including Eolys and dpf at about 70k which cost over £500. However the guy that bought it from me started having problems within 6 months, and after about a year or so and only another 10k, had loads of sensors replaced at quite a bit of cost then had turbo failure. He did post on this forum about it, as far as I know he did get a goodwill payment from Citroen, but still would have cost more than the car was worth. Personally I loved that car, but if ever buying a C5 again it would be a 2.0. I used to just crack 40mpg in it, but that was like driving with eggs between my feet and the pedals. It was bought for towing though, and that it did admirably.

[KP]

Thats the thing, the one i've given my dad has already had the FAP/DPF deleted and guts bashed out so is quite sprightly and i know with a tuning box they can touch 165-180bhp and around 400nm of torque if not more as it depends on the engine more than anything

Thing is its a big step up from his 90 and he is loving it so far. He will be upgrading to a VTR+ or suchlike at some point in the next year or two so fingers crossed it will get past that point

[spider]

Hoping to not get trodden on but...

From reading on here, although I've yet to own any HDi (serviced plenty of the first generation 2.0 units mostly 90's but not really repaired them) I'd not personally never have a 2.2 due to the excess electrickery and 'difficult to remove' injectors. I seem to recall these have some odd swirl valve fitted as well in the intake pipework, could be wrong. I also hear mpg is not what it should (could?) be either which seems odd. Then there's the regen fluids and particle filter business too, I know these can be done away with and either a tweak to the ECU or perhaps the 'cheat' with a port in the pipework to trick the ECU but that's a bit of work I think, then again cheaper than a Eolys refill probably.

Having my arm twisted I'd plump for a 2.0 110 with eight valves not a 16v unit simply as the 8v seems about as durable and long lasting as the older XUD with the addition of some electrical workings.

Each to their own though. And the above is just my personal thoughts nothing more.

[KevMayer]

I've had my C5 Hatchback 2.2 Hdi now for 7 years and I love it.

It pulls very well but it's not the most economic diesel.

Having said that, I get 36mpg and that's when driving 'enthusiastically' shall we say. For a big car that's not bad. I get more if I drive slowly, but, I lose concentration when I drive slowly for any length of time. I'm sure it's more dangerous to drive slowly, especially on motorways.

The official combined figure for the C5 2.2 hdi manual is 44 mpg. A recent survey in the Sunday Times reported real life mpg for petrol and diesels and when you looked at diesels comparing real life to official combined then almost all examples showed that the real life mpg was 80% of the official combined. If I apply that to my C5 then 80% of 44 is 35.2mpg and so 36 mpg seems ok to me.

[citroenxm]

It makes me laugh really and really does.. This is why.. The 2.2 was a state of the art (apparently) common rail direct injection engine with efficient breathing 16v head and all mods cons and struggles 40mpg

The xm however in 1991 used PSA then state of the art 2.1 12v in direct idi engine with a single cam mechanical fuel system no fancy sensors and no cat either and even then would and still do over 45mpg.. Where did PSA go wrong.

For me it's the 2 litre 8v hdi or the mechanical 2.1 12v engines for economy least of problems long life toughness and best service... Hands down.

[waynedance]

I have a 2.2 and love it, really good power never had problems in 40k miles. Power from 40mph to 70mph is rapid or is for me and loads of torque up hills.

I did however drive through some water and knacker the engine so was replaced. Injectors removed in 5 mins from 90k engine, turbo easy to remove from fitted engine.

All in all been a great car but I must say I keep my cars well serviced oil every 5k, additive toppd up, dpf jet washed out bla bla bla go for it for more smiles or get slower 2.0 for better mpg.

[Peter.N.]

I sold my 2.2 estate about a week ago, it had about 6 months tax had MOT, new tyres and was in very good mechanical condition, I topped up the Eolys fluid last year. It has been a very good car for the year I have had it but could not live with the fuel consumption, It went for £600.00 on ebay which was about what I expected.

The 2.0. Hdi that replaced it has given me no end of grief, the latest being the rear suspension bearings, I was beginning to wonder if I had sold the right car but it was only doing about 40 mpg tops with my very gentle style of driving where as the 2.0. will do 60mpg + and I like the colour of the new one

Peter

[KP]

Seems strange as it didnt seem too much worse on fuel than the 90hdi is that im driving now!

Maybe the lack of DPF and ellyos fluid helps??

Does anyone know if these engine/car combo had a FBH or one of those glowplug things for quicker warm ups?
Also is the thermostat a pain to get to as i think the current one is sticking on it?

[qprdude]

Love my 2.2 . 173. Smooth power when needed. Excellent for overtaking and whisper quiet cruising. No slouch off the mark either. Currently showing 34.8 mpg, over 430 miles, all local so not too bad for a big comfy beast.
Nothing done since June last year except top up washer water.

[evoke]

Love my 2.2 . 173. Smooth power when needed. Excellent for overtaking and whisper quiet cruising. No slouch off the mark either. Currently showing 34.8 mpg, over 430 miles, all local so not too bad for a big comfy beast.
Nothing done since June last year except top up washer water.

I have to concur with this. It's one of the nicest cars i've driven in terms of supreme comfort and the right amount of torque and power. Economy is okay for me. Engine is a little agricultural-sounding from the outside but you wouldn't know you're in a diesel from inside the cabin. I've had a few issues that are being sorted out but love the car.

[citroenxm]

DONT be mistaken Guys... The Phase TWO 2.2 engines are a different breed to the early 2.2 engines.

I DO beleve the later engines are a damm sight better, with more power. It was tweeked nicely with far less to no issues.. Its the early 2.2 16v from 2000 to 2006 or so (dont know exactley) that are more troublesome..

[qprdude]

I did mean to mention that mine was a later engine. Sorry about that.

[Peter.N.]

I never had any problems with my early 2.2, it was a superbly smooth engine - just the fuel consumption...

Peter