Steel springs or an upgrade?

[Bluediamond]

Can somebody smack some sense into me please?

After the tragic end of my much loved Xantia last month, I had to get a replacement, and fast (2.5 hour bus journey each way to work otherwise). I couldn't find a C5 with hydraulic suspension in budget. I spent a good bit of money on what I thought was the next best thing, a steel-sprung C5 VTR+. Low mileage, good price, lovely car.

My (probably quite annoying, first world) problem is that I can't love it. However much I want to, I just can't get past that suspension. It's...wrong. (Sorry - if you have and enjoy a steel sprung C5, feel free to tell me I'm being ridiculous.) I know this is probably just going to come down to preference, but would I be barking mad to trade it in after two weeks? I still can't find a hydraulic version nearby to test drive, so I'd have to buy one unseen from a few hundred miles away (there are now two possible candidates, while of course, when I was in urgent need of a car, there were none to be found).

My main hesitation is that it's just in my head, and that I have a perfectly fine car, won't notice a huge difference if I change. I drove the Xantia for nearly 14 years, so that's my only real comparison (apart from my Series III Landrover). Perhaps I should (as my spouse has gently suggested, a few times now) just get over this already and enjoy the really very nice car. Could be right, but...

Has anyone had / driven both? Is it worth going ahead and spending a bit more to get the hydractive C5, do you think? If I do, I'd be keeping it for the foreseeable future, ten or so years. Any thoughts or perspective on this would be really helpful.

[vborovic]

I'm guessing you're talking about the latest C5 (X7), right, model from 2008 till now? If so, I have an Estate, also steel sprung, my comparison is with my dad's C5 II, hydractive, of course the hydractive is THE best suspension available, but I recently drove a guy who owns a C5 X7 Saloon, with hydractive suspension (he had it for 2 years, drives it everyday), and when we talked about the cars while I was driving him, I told him mine is a steel-sprung, he was honestly surprised, said he didn't notice any difference (regular, average roads mind you) ... so, this is something to get you thinking ... as you've said, matter of preference ... I don't regret buying one pre-owned without the hydractive suspension, because if it had one, the car would be too perfect ...

[Bluediamond]

Thank you, and yes, it's a 2010 model. I'm interested that he didn't notice the difference - that's what makes me think it's probably a mindset problem for me, rather than a car problem

If this car had hydraulics, it would be too perfect - I know exactly what you mean. I'm pretty sure if I borrowed any one of 90% of the other cars out there, I'd realise that the steel springs are actually quite impressive. I strongly suspect the stress and expense of a trade-in now would be a bit futile. I just need to get this out of my head (I really, really loved my hydraulic Xantia).

You have made me re-think it a little bit though. Thank you.

[Peter.N.]

It depends a lot on your blood sugar level at the time, their have been occasions when I though the XM ride was poor

Peter

[Jodyone]

I've been helping my parents find a C5 recently, and I've driven both kinds. We were actually looking for a VTR by preference, because my mum finds my C6 a bit sickly as a passenger! Eventually, however, they went for an Exclusive, because everything else was right (panoramic roof, auto)- it's delivered next week!

I honestly don't think I could tell the difference between steel and hydro on my - admittedly limited - test drives. The hydro C5 was quite unlike my C6 to drive- less"hydropneumatic" feeling. The sport button made the ride a bit harder, but in normal mode it was practically indistinguishable from the steel car, I thought. Both were lovely to drive! If you like your car otherwise I'd keep it.

[lexi]

McPherson Strut hydro is a bit overated. My Rover P6 was easily as comfortable. The long wheelbase on the bigger cars like XM are a comfort aid in itself.
A good double wishbone spring type car can sometimes match it. Where the hydro suspension comes into it's own is towing .
Also the ability to raise the suspension if going over rough ground. That was my main reason for having them.

[Mandrake]

McPherson Strut hydro is a bit overated. My Rover P6 was easily as comfortable. The long wheelbase on the bigger cars like XM are a comfort aid in itself.
A good double wishbone spring type car can sometimes match it. Where the hydro suspension comes into it's own is towing .
Also the ability to raise the suspension if going over rough ground. That was my main reason for having them.

But the C5 X7 isn't McPherson struts - both the Hydropneumatic and steel sprung versions returned to double wishbones for the first time since the CX. (C6 excluded, which is also double wishbones)

I think it's just a sad continuation of the trend that each generation from Xantia onwards have been tuned for tighter and tighter handling and less and less body roll at the expense of ride comfort, until the point where the hydropneumatic system doesn't ride that much better than steel springs. (But does cope far better with changes in load)

Buyers don't demand or expect good ride quality any more - they want tight handling with little body roll so that's what car makers (including Citroen) give them.

[Hell Razor5543]

Probably because buyers want sports car like handling, so the manufacturers go off to the Nurburgring to improve the handling. Unfortunately this means that comfort takes a back seat.

[Peter.N.]

I don't think its the buyers that want sports car handling, only a relatively small proportion of drivers do, I am sure most would prefer the comfort, I certainly would, its mostly the young that want cars with painted on tyres and concrete springs, if I drove one I would be constantly at the osteopath. I think this 'sport' mentality is driven by the manufacturers.

Peter

[Northern_Mike]

I disagree. Buyers want reasonable ride comfort without complicated hydraulics which will bankrupt you if they go wrong out of warranty. It's always been the case with hydropneumatic Citroëns. They don't appeal to "the masses" because of that.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

[Mandrake]

I disagree. Buyers want reasonable ride comfort without complicated hydraulics which will bankrupt you if they go wrong out of warranty. It's always been the case with hydropneumatic Citroëns. They don't appeal to "the masses" because of that.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

That doesn't answer the question of why each generation of Citroen from Xantia on (maybe even from the BX on) rides firmer than the previous generation up until the point where apparently the ride is not much softer than the steel sprung version on current models.

Material cost savings ? Citroen engineers have forgotten how to make good suspension ? Or market pressure for cars that corner well and without body roll to satisfy reviewers. You choose.

Would a modern buyer really buy a rollypolly GS or CX even if anyone still made one ? I doubt it. Acceptance of extreme body roll has gone the same way as demand for white wall tyres...

[vborovic]

My guess is that CItroen with the X7 wanted to make an impact on the traditional western european market (audi, bmw, mercedes), by bringing the car closer to their ride stiffness (hydro) ... remember the marketing, "Unmistakeably german"? Well, there you have it ... ...

[Jodyone]

But the C5 X7 isn't McPherson struts - both the Hydropneumatic and steel sprung versions returned to double wishbones for the first time since the CX. (C6 excluded, which is also double wishbones)

I think it's just a sad continuation of the trend that each generation from Xantia onwards have been tuned for tighter and tighter handling and less and less body roll at the expense of ride comfort, until the point where the hydropneumatic system doesn't ride that much better than steel springs. (But does cope far better with changes in load)

Buyers don't demand or expect good ride quality any more - they want tight handling with little body roll so that's what car makers (including Citroen) give them.

I agree. When I test-drove both C5's I found them on the "tight-handling" side of things, yet they're routinely derided as floppy, sloppy barges. My C6 seems to corner on rails and my old Mercedes C123 handles sharply and predictably to me. I must be so out of touch, having no interest in normal modern popular fast cars like Subarus, BMWs, Vauxhall whatevers and so on. I'm not a boy racer nor a track-competent enthusiast, but in practice I find I drive in general faster than most other people- I'm held up on the twisting roads where I live much more often than I see people queuing impatiently behind me.

Yet, I favour comfortable cars with pliant suspension, and everybody else seems to buy cars that look like they're entered for Touring Car races, and apparently drive likewise. I cannot believe that all these shopping trips are improved by 40-section tyres and fractional suspension travel, nor that the drivers really prefer it. I think the deal is done in the showroom where these cars look racy and dramatic, and in the media where on-the-limit handling is apparently terribly important to reviewers of family cars.

The general mistrust of Citroen hydropneumatique notwithstanding, I think people are buying cars for fashion, not for driving pleasure.

[Northern_Mike]

Would a modern buyer really buy a rollypolly GS or CX even if anyone still made one ? I doubt it. Acceptance of extreme body roll has gone the same way as demand for white wall tyres...

I think they'd buy one, yes, providing it didn't have a Citroën badge on it.

We laud the GS, CX and BX as technical marvels, which they were. However they were complex, the backstreet boys couldn't fix them or didn't want to, and therefore to the masses, they weren't a great attraction. That and the added complexities of later systems is what killed of hydropneumatic.

My dad's 1983 Merc 230 rode better than his missus GSA.



Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

[Mandrake]

I cannot believe that all these shopping trips are improved by 40-section tyres and fractional suspension travel, nor that the drivers really prefer it. I think the deal is done in the showroom where these cars look racy and dramatic, and in the media where on-the-limit handling is apparently terribly important to reviewers of family cars.

The general mistrust of Citroen hydropneumatique notwithstanding, I think people are buying cars for fashion, not for driving pleasure.

This.