Steel springs or an upgrade?

[Mandrake]

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 hydro-pneumatic.

I would strongly disagree that a GS is a complex car - by today's standards with complex computer systems, electronic fuel injected engines, complex emissions control systems and so on, a GS with its air cooled carburetted engine, no computers and barely any electrical systems is positively primitive. Except not primitive in a bad way, more primitive in an elegantly simple and minimalist way.

Even the hydro-pneumatic system is pared down to its barest essentials, and is the simplest version of the system on any Citroen. (I know the GS inside out and backwards as it was my first car and we had 3 in the family)

You still miss the point though - your argument is to try to explain the demise of hydro-pneumatic suspension, when in fact it hasn't disappeared yet, it has just been tuned firmer and firmer to meet market expectations for handling and body roll. If anything, tuning the ride to be more and more like a steel sprung car gives even less reason for it to exist, not some perceived complexity and cost that puts off buyers.

Lets be honest - is hydro-pneumatic suspension in the C5 really that unreliable ? As much as I prefer the older green blooded systems some of the key weaknesses are addressed in the LDS systems - multilayer diaphragms all round mean spheres last 10+ years now with no degradation in ride quality, instead of dropping low enough to ride like a horse and cart after 3-5 years. Potentially two sets of spheres - the originals and one replacement set can see out the entire 20 year plus working life of the car, and require less servicing than the clutch on a manual gearbox. How many green blooded Citroen's are driving around on knackered spheres ? Lots. How many C5's ? Not many. LDS is fully synthetic and easily outlasts LHM+.

Height corrector linkages seizing up are a major problem on salt infested UK roads - and maintenance, reconditioning and adjustment of a height corrector is a bit beyond a non-specialist garage unless they're open minded and willing to learn. Just look at how many Xantia's there are on the road with the rear suspension jacked up because the height corrector has seized. I drove past one just on the weekend - the only Xantia I've passed in more than a year and the suspension clearly wasn't working properly. I bet the spheres were knackered too.

A height sensor on a C5 is a potentiometer style sensor that any garage with a scan tool can diagnose and replace without difficulty - it works just like any one of a myriad of other sensors on a modern car.

The technology of the suspension the latest C5's is great and has great potential - the problem entirely comes down to Citroen tuning the suspension firm for the perceived market.

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

Well given that a 1983 Merc 230 is a barge that weighs 1625Kg (according to wikipedia) compared to the 980Kg GS, it's hardly a fair test. It's easy to make a heavy car ride well, much harder to make such a light car ride well as unsprung weight, coulomb friction in the suspension and ride height variations with load are working against you much more than a heavy car.

Show me a 980Kg Merc that rides as well as a GS regardless of load and still handles well and then we'll talk. Or compare it to a Series 1 CX - does it ride as well as that ? No I didn't think so. Apples and Oranges.

[vborovic]

IMHO the hydro-pneumatic suspension, regardless of its stiffness (which I haven't tried on the X7 yet), still has some advantages over its steel-sprung counterpart ... when required, you can lift the car and drive off (say, you've hooked the front bumper on the higher curb, and you don't want it to come off while reversing; or are in high snow; or you can lower the car while washing it) ... the tourer has the trick where the rear end can be lowered by the press of the button ... any, probably my favorite, regardless of the weight in the car, the hydro-pneumatic is always on the same ride height ,compared to steel-sprung where the wheels could grind the inner wheel arches if you're driving something heavier ... I think these are all only pluses for it to still exist on the market ...

[qprdude]

Not sure if the comments are from guys with the hydractive 3+ X7 or not, but if you can' tell the diffence between them and steel sprung, I reckon there is something wrong with your suspension. It's like chalk and cheese. Struggling with the comment about "normal" hydractive being the same as steel and "sport" being different. Surely it"s the other way round?

[Mandrake]

Not sure if the comments are from guys with the hydractive 3+ X7 or not, but if you can' tell the diffence between them and steel sprung, I reckon there is something wrong with your suspension. It's like chalk and cheese. Struggling with the comment about "normal" hydractive being the same as steel and "sport" being different. Surely it"s the other way round?

I'm curious what earlier hydro-pneumatic Citroen's you've driven for any length of time as a frame of reference, or are you only comparing the Steel and H3+ versions of the C5 X7 ?

The difference in ride quality between modern Citroen's and older ones (especially Series 1 CX, SM and DS) is quite startling, those three in particular have a fabulous ride. I was lucky enough to ride in a DS a few times and even an SM once as a child, but don't remember them as an actual driver, but I did own a CX for a few years (and GS) so have a good idea of how well they ride, and the CX rides far better than a GS or any modern Citroen for that matter. (A fully isolated front to rear suspension sub-chassis mounted on rubber bushings is one of the key ingredients to the excellent ride as road rumble is almost entirely eliminated without affecting handling - the GS did suffer from transmission of road rumble)

Every Citroen after the CX has been a steady decline in ride quality but handling and body roll has improved. A CX could get around corners well but boy did it roll! Throwing it around tight corners would give most modern drivers the willies, even though it was perfectly safe. Modern versions of Hydro-pneumatic (Hydractive etc) are all about improving handling and reducing body roll, but the trade-off is the ride has got steadily worse.

I actually think they reached quite a good trade off with the Hydractive 2 Xantia - it doesn't ride as well as a CX but a well sorted one still rides pretty darn well, and the cornering/body roll far out performs a CX. After the Xantia the ride seems to have continued to get firmer and firmer with little if any further improvement in handling. I've been in a couple of early C5's and the ride doesn't compare to a good Xantia.

On paper the C5 X7 should be great - especially due to going back to double wishbones instead of the horrid McPherson struts, but only if they tuned it a bit more towards ride comfort instead of trying to compete one on one with back breaking german executive cars...

[lexi]

But the C5 X7 isn't McPherson struts

Yes, I have been walkies under a few now on the ramps. I was refering to the superiority of double wishbone steel and how much closer it can get to hydro.
Even the Honda have suffered in going to Macs-rut. McPherson Strut and Big Mac............throwaway cheap rubbish !!!

The point is that cars are complex enough.
A GS or CX suspension with the added and compulsory complexity of abs egr maf dpf dmf 7computers steering sensors, yaw angle, etc etc.
Every Joe Bloggs gets worried about hydro and gets rid before or at the first hint of trouble. It is Joe Bloggs who buys the cars

EDIT: one of my most comfortable vehicles. LWB Nissan Patrol. Live coil sprung axles back and front. Huge tyres and wheelbase. The body sat on 12 rubbers like DS. What potholes?

[Jodyone]

Not sure if the comments are from guys with the hydractive 3+ X7 or not, but if you can' tell the diffence between them and steel sprung, I reckon there is something wrong with your suspension. It's like chalk and cheese. Struggling with the comment about "normal" hydractive being the same as steel and "sport" being different. Surely it"s the other way round?

Well, you own one so have spent a lot more time in them, I'm just calling it as I found it! In the last week I've driven 4 big citroens: my C6 (hydro, 100K miles); another C6 (hydro, 17K miles); a C5 X7 VTR (steel, 50K miles); and a C5 X7 Exclusive (hydro, 29K miles).

I found the 6's identical to drive. Both C5's were entirely different from the 6's, but practically identical to each other, I thought. If you blind tested me I think I'd probably choose the hydro car right reliably- I've spent enough time with hydro to recognise its quirks. It certainly wasn't "chalk and cheese", though! On the lumpy commuter roads in bucks that I drove the hydro C5, the sport mode was noticeably harder riding than any other configuration, I thought. At least a couple of reviews I've read thought that the steel C5 is if anything softer than the hydro, which I concur with.

[Mandrake]

But the C5 X7 isn't McPherson struts

Yes, I have been walkies under a few now on the ramps. I was refering to the superiority of double wishbone steel and how much closer it can get to hydro.
Even the Honda have suffered in going to Macs-rut. McPherson Strut and Big Mac............throwaway cheap rubbish !!!

Yep, I noticed Honda recently abandoned double wishbones. Don't tell anyone, but I owned a 1988 Honda Accord for a few years, and I have to admit the ride was pretty good for a steel sprung car especially of that era, and I would say the double wishbones had a lot to do with it.

The point is that cars are complex enough.
A GS or CX suspension with the added and compulsory complexity of abs egr maf dpf dmf 7computers steering sensors, yaw angle, etc etc.
Every Joe Bloggs gets worried about hydro and gets rid before or at the first hint of trouble. It is Joe Bloggs who buys the cars

I get your point but the irony is that while Citroen suspension was a somewhat complex additional piece of equipment in a car in the days before mass adoption of ECU's etc, (late 80's and before) these days the Hydractive system has been simplified and refined, (integrated control in the BSI, electric pump, electronic height sensors) with most of the maintenance issues (spheres, height correctors etc) resolved, while at the same time the other systems in modern cars have got massively more complex and interconnected.

On a brand new car the complexity of Hydractive has been outpaced by the increasing complexity of all the other systems and is now probably one of the simpler and more reliable systems!

Another thing is that various forms of active suspension are becoming more common with other marquees in the last decade, not the fully suspended approach of Citroen maybe, but you have electronically controlled variable damping on a lot of high end cars these days, there are also vehicles (more typically delivery vehicles and people carriers admittedly) with forms of ride height control using pneumatics etc... so there must be sufficient market acceptance of active suspension for other marquees to approach it at all.

It may just be the case that the Citroen system has been unfairly stigmatised in the public collective conciousness due to the early faults and maintenance issues which have long since been resolved, but it takes a long time for people to forget and give them another chance.

Let's just hope that Citroen, as pioneer and long time stalwart of mass produced active suspension don't abandon the market entirely to other marquees and end up as a forgotten footnote...

[isisalar]

The general car buying public have very long memories and perceived problems in the dim and distant past still colour their judgement decades later. Hence, most people to this day are convinced Fiat's rust badly, Fords are cheap to repair, Japanese cars never go wrong etc. etc..
The perception of Citroens is that they all have very complicated suspension which costs a fortune to repair and they're not very reliable. This is partly why the depreciation, especially on hydraulic models, is so severe. Good news if you're buying, not so good if you're selling.
I'm sure everyone would agree that fuel injection is far more efficient and reliable way of getting fuel into an engine than carburettors. I was selling new cars at the time when fuel injection was gradually being introduced. At first it was virtually impossible to sell injected cars due to peoples experiences with the fuel injected Triumphs of the 60/70's. Many many people had vowed never ever to have any other car with injection due to their bad experience. This was mainly due to the ignorance and ineptitude of the British Leyland agents at the time, but it took about 25 years for injection to be a selling point, rather than a negative feature.
From a business point of view the steel sprung Citroens can only be good for the company, in that over time, the perception of the weird unreliable system will fade. Personally I would like them to continue developing hydraulic, especially with the wishbone system, for at least the top range models or as an option. If they made the cars strikingly different(softer) than the competition that would give them a unique selling point. Probably not that difficult to have a normal or soft setting option these days. One of my customers took delivery of a new Audi last week, even this has various suspension settings.
I'm suspecting that when the Xantia finally bites the dust I'll be going for one of those hydraulic X7's judging by the depreciation so far. I see there's a V6 diesel auto available!!!
Cheers
Paul

[Richard_C]

I am a little disappointed not to have proper suspension on my C5 (I too have a VTR+) but like you I couldn't find a good second hand Exclusive. BUT - the steel spring one rides pretty well and is on the comfortable side of the ride/handling compromise. I have always enjoyed big soft barges, in most traffic conditions and real world driving what you need is an armchair with a good radio. Sad to see the demise of hydropneumatic, all the reasons mentioned here are doubtless contributory. Motoring journalists have a lot to answer for as well - they praise all the wrong things and often the launch road tests are conducted in non UK conditions on selected smooth roads. One of the best cars I had was my SAAB 9-5 but if you read the journalists reviews is was a floppy un-steerable thing way behind anything with a German badge.

When I worked for a biggish company we sometimes got "demonstrators" - I recall we had a new Ford Focus fast petrol low profile thing, not the comfy cooking model, so I left my Granada barge in the car park and set off for a site 100 miles or so away. At first the focus was really impressive, excellent turn in, no roll, firm seats, felt quick. After good few miles I felt tired, and by the time I got home I was irritated by all the things that had impressed to start with. Now, most people buy on the basis of a round the block demo drive, no real chance to experience real life, so that 'initial appeal' is the deal maker. As an example the excellent Xantia felt quite strange coming from a Sierra/Cavalier, so I guess people who got through the showroom doors were put off by that first few minutes behind the wheel because it was different, not because it was worse.

Back to the original question. If you want to run a reasonably recent car you will have to get used to no hydropneumatic as it will end when the current range goes. So why not start getting used to it today rather than throw money at a change of car so soon. You can still really enjoy the C5 - even with steel springs it is a superbly comfortable long distance machine and if bought second hand astonishingly good value. I have just booked a very late ski holiday which will involve 4 of us driving from Cambridge to Grand Massif (700 miles) in one day, and the same coming back. Neither I nor my family have any qualms about this, that's what C5s (even steel sprung ones) are for.

[falling-out-with-my-car]

BlueDiamond,

if your still not happy go back to a Xantia there are quite a few HDi's about still and the service intervals are huge compared to the older Xantias. Unfortunately for medical reasons I cannot comfortably drive a steel sprung car except to say for my little 2cv which has unbelievable ride comfort shame about the acceleration and top speed really.
Have you tried adding a 25kg load to the boot of your C5 adding weight to the boot often improves ride comfort in many vehicle's including a 2cv unfortunately this saps acceleration.

I am sure they won't mind on the CCC but this has recently been posted that PSa are scrapping the Hydraulic suspension system on Citroens.

Citroen drops hydraulics...... ..... The English version is further down the page........

I've just discovered that Citroen will not be making hydraulic cars any more! There is a petition you can sign here http://www.mesopinions.com/petition/aut ... roen/11030" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; but somehow I suspect that it's a done deal. If they do drop it, then they'll lose me as a customer of over 20 years and I suspect that I won't be the only one.......

regards.

Nigel

[qprdude]

Not sure if the comments are from guys with the hydractive 3+ X7 or not, but if you can' tell the diffence between them and steel sprung, I reckon there is something wrong with your suspension. It's like chalk and cheese. Struggling with the comment about "normal" hydractive being the same as steel and "sport" being different. Surely it"s the other way round?

I'm curious what earlier hydro-pneumatic Citroen's you've driven for any length of time as a frame of reference, or are you only comparing the Steel and H3+ versions of the C5 X7 ?

The difference in ride quality between modern Citroen's and older ones (especially Series 1 CX, SM and DS) is quite startling, those three in particular have a fabulous ride. I was lucky enough to ride in a DS a few times and even an SM once as a child, but don't remember them as an actual driver, but I did own a CX for a few years (and GS) so have a good idea of how well they ride, and the CX rides far better than a GS or any modern Citroen for that matter. (A fully isolated front to rear suspension sub-chassis mounted on rubber bushings is one of the key ingredients to the excellent ride as road rumble is almost entirely eliminated without affecting handling - the GS did suffer from transmission of road rumble)

Every Citroen after the CX has been a steady decline in ride quality but handling and body roll has improved. A CX could get around corners well but boy did it roll! Throwing it around tight corners would give most modern drivers the willies, even though it was perfectly safe. Modern versions of Hydro-pneumatic (Hydractive etc) are all about improving handling and reducing body roll, but the trade-off is the ride has got steadily worse.

I actually think they reached quite a good trade off with the Hydractive 2 Xantia - it doesn't ride as well as a CX but a well sorted one still rides pretty darn well, and the cornering/body roll far out performs a CX. After the Xantia the ride seems to have continued to get firmer and firmer with little if any further improvement in handling. I've been in a couple of early C5's and the ride doesn't compare to a good Xantia.

On paper the C5 X7 should be great - especially due to going back to double wishbones instead of the horrid McPherson struts, but only if they tuned it a bit more towards ride comfort instead of trying to compete one on one with back breaking german executive cars...[/quote



This is the car I'm comparing my X7 with. The phase 1 I owned for just over three years and drove every day, as I mostly do with my X7. There isn't, of course, a more modern Hydractive Citroen than the X7, so I have plenty of experience of both. I questioned the comments, because from the list of cars, it seemed that very few actually had an X7. IMHO, the Hydractive is totally different in ride quality to steel sprung, and the X7 is vastly different to the phase 1 that I owned. With sport mode engaged, the handling is very much improved over the twisty bits.

[Peter.N.]

In the days when I ran Morris Oxfords and the ilk on cross ply tyres the ride was better than practically anything you can buy today, no they wouldn't corner ay 60 mph but you could hardly feel a bump.

Peter

[qprdude]

Peter, this was mine. Pictured at St Austell, circa 1970. Very soft and comfy, but I prefer the X7 Hydractive 3+ for the sport mode. The old roads in Cornwall would have been a lot easier.

[Peter.N.]

Ahhh, we had a couple like that and two estates, one with wood on, very rare now, and the 'all metal' Mk 4 estate. The really comfortable ones were the Farina's, we had one for about 5 years. PGN53E.

Peter

[Bluediamond]

I am a little disappointed not to have proper suspension on my C5 (I too have a VTR+) but like you I couldn't find a good second hand Exclusive. BUT - the steel spring one rides pretty well and is on the comfortable side of the ride/handling compromise. I have always enjoyed big soft barges, in most traffic conditions and real world driving what you need is an armchair with a good radio. Sad to see the demise of hydropneumatic, all the reasons mentioned here are doubtless contributory. Motoring journalists have a lot to answer for as well - they praise all the wrong things and often the launch road tests are conducted in non UK conditions on selected smooth roads. One of the best cars I had was my SAAB 9-5 but if you read the journalists reviews is was a floppy un-steerable thing way behind anything with a German badge.


Back to the original question. If you want to run a reasonably recent car you will have to get used to no hydropneumatic as it will end when the current range goes. So why not start getting used to it today rather than throw money at a change of car so soon. You can still really enjoy the C5 - even with steel springs it is a superbly comfortable long distance machine and if bought second hand astonishingly good value. I have just booked a very late ski holiday which will involve 4 of us driving from Cambridge to Grand Massif (700 miles) in one day, and the same coming back. Neither I nor my family have any qualms about this, that's what C5s (even steel sprung ones) are for.

I'm quoting Richard here because you seem to have had the same sort of internal dialogue as I'm having now..

Thank you so much for the replies - I couldn't have asked for a better discussion to help me understand the issues. Really appreciate the time and thought and I've enjoyed reading your posts. Thank you very much.

Where I've (personally) got to with this is that yes, the car I have is very comfortable, it isn't too Germanic or too hard. I've driven a few hundred miles in it, and there is just nothing I can find to complain about. Armchair with a good radio is just exactly what I want (with a nice engine, I suppose). I don't want a sports car, or a German car, or a fashionable car or, or, or... I really had only two specifications (and of them, one is frivolous): a red car with hydraulic suspension. I don't care about it being a recent model, except that I plan to keep it for ten plus years, so at this point the newer or at least lower mileage the better. It's not like I'll be changing it every year for the latest version etc. though. I could have ten or so years of hydropneumatic and maybe, I don't know... wean myself off it then? Like with nicotine patches when I gave up smoking??

I've read all of the advice and information here very carefully, and it's coming down to this for me - damnit, I want the spheres. I spoke to a dealer and I won't lose anything on my current car if I trade. I have to work out if it's worth paying another £3k for, basically.

Thank you for the perspectives, and for your help. Nigel's suggestion of finding another Xantia isn't out of the question either. I never really considered it, because I wanted a new car, but well, I've got one now and I think I want my Xantia back.