C5 comfort spheres

[411514]

I know that different people have reported different experiences of comfort spheres, and so thought it would be worth posting mine.

My 2003 C5 had become somewhat 'crashy' recently, inasmuch that, whilst not necessarily anymore uncomfortable than before, it seemed more susceptible to knocking and shaking with sharp bumps or potholes. It generally felt a bit skittish.

I previously changed the spheres around 4 years ago (circa 130k miles), with genuine Cit spheres on rear, and IFHS standard spheres on front (due to unavailability of genuine Cit front spheres).

I recently got hold of some IFHS 'comfort' spheres from sphereshop.co.uk for the front only.

I stuck the comfort spheres on a week ago, and am most impressed. They have certainly helped the 'crashy' feeling. Clearly large bumps are still felt, but the new spheres seem to be a much better job of dealing with small ruts and high-frequency bumps. The difference is noticeably significantly better.

Previous posters have reported the car feeling boat-like and wallowy on comfort spheres. Whilst I can certainly detect a little more roll on cornering, and a small amount more dip on hard braking, these effects have not been so bad as to bother me. I tend to drive relatively slowly and smoothly, 95% of my miles are motorway, and I am far more interested in comfort than sporty handling, and so for me the significantly improved ride of the comfort spheres easily justifies the slight detriment to handling.

Maybe mine is not so inflicted by the previously reported ill effects of comfort spheres as I have only yet put comfort spheres on the front, and still have standard spheres on the rear? To me the rear (genuine Cit) spheres still seem perfect, and so I hope to get another year or two out of them, at which time I reckon I may opt for comfort sphere on the rear too.

[demag]

Interesting post thankyou.

Sent from my Wileyfox Swift using Tapatalk

[white exec]

That's a very positive report.
It could be that the standard spheres on the back are helping to stabilise the car, and stop it becoming too rolly.

Assuming the car is Hydractive (were there any C5s that weren't?), and the soft ride comes therefore from the F and R centre spheres, I wonder what would happen if the electrovalve-regulator damper orifices were enlarged/changed to give less damping into the centre spheres? During hard cornering, the "cross-flow" ball valve would come into operation to prevent excessive fluid movement between L and R, and therefore still control roll in extremis.

My thinking is that if Soft isn't soft enough, but Firm needs retaining for stability reasons (cornering, hard braking, rapid acceleration...) then maybe the extra "comfort" should be injected into where it originates from - the centre spheres.

One for Simon, amongst others!

[411514]

To confirm, I understand that mine is referred to as Hydractive 3, but is not Hydractive 3+, and so only has the four corner spheres, no centre spheres and no variable hard/soft mode.

I do wonder if the lack of excessive roll in mine may be down to the standard spec rear spheres countering to an extent the softer fronts.

[white exec]

OK, four wheel spheres only.
The system is nicely described here:
http://citroen.tramontana.co.hu/system/ ... nguide.pdf

[demag]

I fitted BX comfort spheres on my XM and it transformed the ride to more or less on a par with the C5. Bearing in mind when I bought the XM there was hardly any suspension to talk about and it took a lot of hard work to soften it up.

Sent from my Wileyfox Swift using Tapatalk

[lexi]

I think you will get more than a couple more years out of the genuine rear ones. Mine look original and tatty. 14 yrs old and still ok.

[white exec]

If they don't lose their gas, they should soldier on for many years. I know this is a bit like saying they don't fail until they do (!) but if gas pressure is maintained, the membrane doesn't become over-stretched (or anywhere near the spikes in saucer spheres).

There's a good case for fitting regassing valves to new spheres after a couple of years of use, rather than waiting for them to fail.

I've also found that the supplied 2mm thickness O-rings for the Valprex valves (same size as Citroen originals) are a bit marginal for making a gas-tight seal, because they fail to 'squash to fill' the O-ring groove, and too readily allow metal-to-metal contact between the valve and the sphere seat before the ring has been adequately compressed. Polymax, in Bordon, Hampshire, offer a 2.6mm gauge Viton O-ring, which makes a much better seal, IMO. This may explain the occasional reports of regassed spheres not holding their pressure as well as OE 'plugged' ones. If anyone's interested, I can post the Polymax ref no for the replacement ring.

[demag]

Yes please I have Valprex on the BX.

Sent from my Wileyfox Swift using Tapatalk

[white exec]

Dave, it's http://www.polymax.co.uk/o-rings-bs102-bs178-viton
Polymax ref no: BS110V75
9.19mm ID x 2.62mm thick
Viton material (oil/LHM resistant)

I bought a pack of 100 for £11, but you can go for less. High quality and good service. Huge range of stock, with everything fully dimensioned and specified.

[demag]

Thanks that's useful.

Sent from my Wileyfox Swift using Tapatalk