C5 2.0 - 138 bhp or 160 bhp?

[Dublin Tony]

My beloved xsara 2.0 hdi is in need of a new bsi. She's done over 300,000 miles and is starting to be a bit like Trigger's brush with all the bits I've replaced over the years. Citroen aren't going to be able to deliver a bsi for ages so I've been talked into buying a replacement. I fancy a new shape C5.
I have a 55 mile each way commute, so a diesel is a must. I'm thinking that the 2.0 will be tougher than the 1.6 and there doesn't seem to be much difference in their mpg figures.
I've narrowed it down to two cars:

2009 2.0hdi 138bhp 6 speed. 120,000 miles fsh vtr+. €7500 ish.
2010 2.0hdi 160bhp 6 speed. 105,000 miles fsh vtr+ nav €8,800 ish.

What to do?

Any help from someone who knows about these things would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

[vborovic]

I have a 160 (163 PS) engine, and I can say so far so good (78,000 miles), stable and quiet (as a diesel can be), but packs quite a punch once you step on the gas ... I think the only notable difference between the two was regarding the CO2 emissions, but I'm not that tech-eloquent to talk about subtle mechanical differences which make a better engine than the other ...

[citroenxm]

the 1.6 even though 110 in the First C5 model from 2005 is bad enough compared to the 8v 110 engine...

So Id of thought the 1.6 in the X7 C5 would be like having a 1.0 in a BMW!! God damm stupid.

Id agree with above go 160bhp DW family engine.. far better then DV family of engines.

Mums just bought a 2.0 138bhp X7 C5 and its adequte enough I must say..

[bobins]

I've got the 138bhp variant and I've never once thought "Gosh, I wish I had another 20bhp" but then I'm no Carlos Fandango driver - the vast majority of my driving is cruising along motorways/autoroutes/autobahns. Having said that, if I had the 160bhp version I'd probably be thinking "Gosh, this is nice"
Whichever one you opt for, if you haven't already got (or got access to) a Lexia/Diagbox and you plan to do your own servicing and repairs, then I'd strongly advise you get one along with one of the versions of the Citroen DocBackup workshop manuals/parts index that can be installed on your computer. Doing your own maintenance and repairs on the C5 X7 isn't that difficult, but realistically you need the documentation to make life more reassuring !

[Dublin Tony]

Thanks for the replies guys. I'm leaning towards the 160. I'm told the economy with both cars is excellent especially with the 6 speed 'box.
The 138 is 4 hours away in Northern Ireland and there's a whole rigmarole involved in importing a car into the Republic. My decision must be made by the weekend as I'm driving a mate's Focus (1.8tdci) and he wants it back! Until then, keep your thoughts coming. Knowledge is power, they say!

Thanks again.

[Fenderblender]

I bought a 160 VTR+ NAV last November to replace my old Xantia 1.8i 16V and I have never regretted it. I purposely sought out the 160 for it's better fuel economy and although I had to travel to Warwick from Scotland to buy it, it was the best decision I ever made in car buying. Every day on my 50 mile commute I marvel at how wonderful it is to drive and what a refined, smooth ride it has, equally happy on Motorways or country lanes the car is fabulous!

Oh and the Sat Nag that comes as standard has proved a Godsend too, do yourself a favour and get the 160 you won't regret it!

[vborovic]

You wrote 6 speed for both cars, but are they manual or auto? I couldn't imagine driving a manual C5, because the auto box is just so smooth ... true, it's not a race car as bobins said, and the sequential shifting is a bit laggy (doesn't change as fast as you'd expect if it was a manual gearbox), but on the auto mode, it get's the job done, and for just cruising, it's a rather nice ship on wheels (mine doesn't have hydractive suspension mind you) ...

[DickieG]

Whilst my C5 is a 2.2 so I can't really comment too much on the 138/160 issue I'd have thought that the 160 offered the better balance as a C5 isn't exactly a small/light car, overall I thoroughly enjoy my C5 which having driven it as a daily for for over 2 years is unusual for me as I tend to get itchy feet before now.

[Dublin Tony]

They're both manual cars. I've nothing against automatics, but I think the economy suffers. I'm mostly on the motorway, so manual suits me fine. Would I be right in thinking there'd be less to go wrong?

[Stickyfinger]

Personally I would choose with other priorities.

I would decide on ...............2.0ltr (no question), Exclusive with Hydromatic (no question) Condition, Warranty (always makes the best option), history, miles, engine power.

I would ONLY choose an Exclusive version with full hydraulics as they WILL soon be rare and sought after by those "in the know". I would take an older car for this option ( and did )

That said, I have the 2.o Ex 160.

[vborovic]

I agree with DickieG, the C5 is definitely not a light car, and any extra BHP comes in handy, if you don't have to sacrifice too much on the fuel consumption ... if you're thinking there's less to go wrong with a manual compared to the automatic gearbox, it's hard to say ... I don't want to go into debating, but look at this this way, if the automatic gearbox wouldn't be stable and durable, the USA cars wouldn't have them in 3/4 of their car's population, right? ... sticky is on the right track of the priorities IMO ...

[Dublin Tony]

I've never had the pleasure, as it were, of a hydromatic ride. The springs seem to work well enough in the C5, dealing with bad roads with aplomb. As with automatic transmissions, I have nothing against fancy suspension - indeed it's what Citroen is famous for - but when you're planning on at least 30,000 miles a year, you want to keep it simple.

[vborovic]

I'd say in those conditions (30,000/year) the car's true worth comes into play (with hydractive, automatic, and other luxury enhancements ...), but that's just my opinion ... and, go with the NAV package, it's a shame to see cars without it nowadays ... but, I'm a gadget guy, so my advice isn't really unbiased ... ...

[DickieG]

If you go for an automatic then budget in for fluid changes every 50k miles, this isn't just a Citroen issue just auto's in general as their filters get blocked by the time they get to 100k miles if you believe the manufacturers "sealed for life" tosh.

[Dublin Tony]

Parkers list the 160 auto with 45mpg and 163 g/km co2.
The 160 manual with 57mpg and only 129 g/km. Sorry auto 'box - I'll shift cogs myself.