C5 2.2 exclusive se

[Peter.N.]

Could be.

[cjuk81]

all mk1s have hydractive suspension, its down to the engine though that dictates if they get 3 or 3+. so the top petrol (2.0) and the top derv (2.2) get the 3+ which has the extra spheres and the sport button. The rest of them just get hydractive 3 system, a sphere on each corner i think.

Only the top of the range Mk2s get the hydractive suspension though, the rest get steel springs, which for me, doesnt make sense, but im sure its all down to money. imo, having been in a mk2 with steel springs, its not as nice as a current Mondeo that ive also been in, just my opinion

[Ben82]

Perhaps it's just the 2.2 and v6 engines then?

2.2HDi
3L V6
2.0 Petrol (not sure this one came to the UK)
2.0 HPi (which should be avoided like the plague)

[cjuk81]

Perhaps it's just the 2.2 and v6 engines then?

2.2HDi
3L V6
2.0 Petrol (not sure this one came to the UK)
2.0 HPi (which should be avoided like the plague)

I forgot about the 3L V6, as for the 2.0l Petrols, I think the UK got both, but I think the 2.0 HPI wasnt sold for very long, thats what i heard, and yes, it seems like even citroen cant fix the problems with it, id never buy one

[Peter.N.]

How is it hydractive if it only has four spheres?

Peter

[myglaren]

How is it hydractive if it only has four spheres?

Peter

That is Citroen's terminology.
My SX is 'Hydractive 3' with only four spheres. Proper hydractive is now 'Hydractive 3+'

[cjuk81]

I've seen in here that some people say they can tell the difference between 3 and 3+

[Peter.N.]

I think my 2.2 gave a better ride than the 2.0. and that has new spheres, they are both harder than the XM, they pitch sideways on uneven roads, I think the anti roll bars are to stiff.

Peter

[mooseshaver]

I think my 2.2 gave a better ride than the 2.0. and that has new spheres, they are both harder than the XM, they pitch sideways on uneven roads, I think the anti roll bars are to stiff.

Peter

Not tried an xm but I believe my 2.2 sx rode better than my 1.6 vtr. A friend when he first traveled in the vtr said it didn't float like the old one.

[WillyR]

Ah right, well this car has the 136bhp version in it, its a prefacelift car so no twin turbo there, and its a manual too

Just to muddy the water (sorry, Derv) a little... I have a (bought new) 51-plate Mk1 2.2 HDi Auto SX (hatch) which is just about to turn over 162,000 so it's almost run in.

It started life with 136 (or 138) neddies under the bonnet, and I Superchipped it to 172 at a little over 50,000 miles. That turned it into the sweetest diesel I have ever driven. Made absolutely ZERO difference to the fuel consumption, although I suppose it did, because on the odd occasion when I cane it on the motorway - recent trip from Normandy back to Calais at steady 85-90mph with 4-up and luggage gave me 45mpg for the 280-odd mile run. And a darned big grin on my face all the way. I have always been puzzled over the fuel consumtion though. To buy the C5 I exchanged a MkII Xantia 2.0 HDi 110 which did 48-52mpg over 90,000 miles summer or winter. My C5 drops to as little as 30mpg when the temperature drops below 5C. Most winters I am lucky to average 38-39mpg with about 50-50 town / motorway driving. A hot summer on the same cycle returns 42-44mpg.

I still have it because STUPID Citroen took the Hatch out of the 2008 model. I have driven the new C5 and it is wonderful - but it hasn't got a hatch any more...!! That turned the C5 into the biggest White Elephant in Citroen's Stable. Just check the French Motorways... There are very few new C5s on them. The French aren't stupid - they want their hatch back too..!!

Sorry... I got carried away for a moment there. This is not a town car - it eats Motorways (been to The South of France several times just for a 4-day weekend, and the drive!), although it is so smooth I tend to use it everywhere instead of the wife's very economical Fiesta (...Ugh..!!) which is great in town.

Sadly, my faithful C5 is just about to retire , as I recently drove the NEW C4 Picasso , which is probably as near as I'm ever going to get to another new C5 with a hatch.

One point on fuel - don't waste your money on SUPER Diesel. It made less than 1mpg difference over three tanks. This engine LURVES DERV. Any brand, although I have always used French Supermarket fuel due to a lucky situation job-wise.

[cjuk81]

i wouldnt use it really in town much, mainly just for going to work with most of that journey on the motoway, only the last mile or 2 is on the outskirts of sheffield, not going through the town center or anything like that

[Monkeyfeet]

I get 42.2 average on the readout, just got back from France today and on the clear roads there it increased, so far up to 44.2. Admittedly it doesn't like town stop go work and I'm lightish on the throttle. Best ever was 50.5 coming back from Durham to Luton. If it needs a new dpf then factor that into the bargaining. When you get home just smash it out. But read all the emails about the subject first!
Italian tune up- fully agree.
60? Wow! Is hypermiling being super gentle on the throttle and coasting rather than braking ever etc?

[patrickcrm]

With that mileage you are looking at problems with the diesel particulate filter almost certainly, and the suspension system could start to play up as well. I have experienced both these problems with my 2.2 hdi exclusive and spent quite a lot of money fixing them. I got it with 92000 on the clock. You might be better off with a petrol engine for your commuting needs

[Peter.N.]

I don't think there is much you can do about the economy, I tried everything with mine but couldn't get much more than 40 mpg average, my 2.0. replacement has averaged over 57 mpg for the last 4000 miles, it did 61.1 mpg going to Scotland and back.

The 2.2 is a much smoother and more powerful engine but it doesn't seem to reward you for driving it gently which is why I changed it. The engine was in good condition and used no oil it had done about 150k when I bought it, my present 2.0. has done nearly 200k. I even fitted a tuning chip which gave it real poke but didn't improve the consumption at all.

406 2.2 owners also complain of poor consumption, occaisionally someone claims 50 + mpg but very few. As I rarely drive over 60 mph or 2000 rpm the 2.0. is quite adequate for me. In fact my 406 has been running in limp home mode for some time but I only noticed it when I went to overtake something as it wouldn't rev but it hasn't bothered me since.

Peter

[cjuk81]

I'm going to test my mondeo mpg in the morning, it had seemed skit better since I topped the oil up as it had got a bit low for some reason. It's strange isn't it that for alot of people the engine struggles to get 40mpg when the 2.0 seems capable of 50mpg plus. I have seen some high mileage 2.2 for sale around near me, but if the mpg is only slightly better than the mondeo there's not much point.I'm not too bothered about the dpf as I could get this removed