C5 ride

[Spaces]

All this thought of replacing arbs, connecting up suspension cylinders Heyring-fashion via accumulators and inline damping using ex-Hydractive bits made me realise how simplicity is the best answer. Put simplicity and Citroën together and the result also happens to be unparalled comfort on poorer roads. A good GS would fly over your forest stage as if it were the M5, Peter - and the smooth, gloriously-sweet sounding flat four would be a delight on longer journeys after the background thrum of an inline four burning oil.

My only problem with GSs was that I often seemed to be at 80mph+, making best use of the exceptional aerodynamics and suspension - so the economy was never on the right side of 40. From what you say, that shouldn't be a problem for you. No more worrying about having your upper back and neck over-stressed with arb rock-roll, the narrowness would be well-suited to Dorset's lanes and the accurate steering a revelation after Xantias, XMs and C5s.

Thinking along the KISS lines, a good Dyane is nearly as comfortable as a GS (more so off-road) and it would complement an XM or C5 rather nicely I would have thought? Why have a car capable of travelling at over 125mph for pootling down to the shops and taking the bins down the road to their collection point? Oh yes, not many Dyanes and GS available for £300 anymore!

[aneesh84]

After having recently driven my XM which I don't often see as my son has adopted it, and returned to the C5 the ride on the latter is definitly not as good. There seems to be a fair ammount of suspension movement especially on the rear but the car rocks from side to side on uneven surfaces, the XM rides almost flat and is fitted with comfort spheres.

Is there anything I can do to improve the ride? The car has covered nearly 150k and quite possibly still has the original spheres, do they make comfort spheres for the C5 or can I fit XM ones, all suggestions appreciated - well most anyway.

Peter

I have the same issue on my C5 mk2 2005 non-hydractive. Very harsh on uneven surfaces. Compared to a hydractive x7 2008 I just tried the ride is much worse. still on original spheres, was always like this since i bought 5 years ago. Are the non-hydractive ones like this or can it be improved with comfort spheres.

[Peter.N.]

I broke with tradition when I bought my X7 C5's and had steel springs, I drove one just to see what they were like and was blown away with the ride and quietness, I would go as far as to say that the ride is better than the Mk1 hydropnumatic. I have to travel a forest track to reach the road and the ride over that is far better. My experience has been that although the hydropnumatic is very good at speed it doesn't cope with short sharp bumps at low speed very well.

Comfort spheres definitely improve the ride, I used them, but tyre choice also makes quite a difference. 'Look up tyres for comfortable ride' . They won't be as grippy as many but as I don't drive fast or brake or corner hard it doesn't bother me, all I want is comfort. The centre sphere is responsible for the soft ride so you could just try replacing them. Most modern cars have a dreadful ride in my opinion.

Its worth noting that the high spec cars ride harder than the standard ones, the front springs are stiffer. Delighted with the first one I bought my wife decided she wanted one, we managed to find one with electric leather, satnav, parking sensors and glass roof but manual and steel sprung, its a very nice car but doesn't ride as well as the first one, still better than most other cars but not quite as good as the VTR+. You can determine which ones have which springs by the chassis number.

Replacement springs all seem to be the same, the softer ones, I have just changed mine as they both broke!

Peter

[aneesh84]

Excellent Peter. Thank you for the guide, my next car will be a spring one then probably a X7.

But I have the non-hydractive mk2 C5, so I dont have any centre spheres. I will look at the tyres. But any recommendations for which brand of comfort spheres to replace the original spheres with?

[Peter.N.]

OK that would account for the less than perfect ride. My first Mk 1 was a 2.2 that was hydractive, I got rid of it because the fuel consumption was so poor and got a 2.0 like yours, fuel consumption was much better but the ride was a lot worse. The 2.2 was quite good but the non hydractive 2.0 gave a dreadful ride on some surfaces, it would pitch from side to side and I fitted new spheres, no difference.

Peter

[aneesh84]

Ok I guess then will have to just learn to live with a poor ride on non hydractive 2.0 ! Had you tried fitting the comfort spheres on them?

Xantia's non-hydractives were much better when fitted with new spheres.

[white exec]

Unless there's something about a C5 mk2 I don't appreciate, I don't understand why the ride should be inherently so much worse.

Non-hydractive models normally provide a very good ride, as the four wheel spheres are chosen to be softer than their hydractive counterparts.

Aggravating factors that won't help (apart from the very slight volume reduction of the saucer spheres) are incorrectly-spec'd aftermarket spheres, low gas pressure, or even slightly over-inflated tyres, maybe with stiff side-walls.

Citroen had a long history of non-HA models riding extremely comfortably - CX, BX, XM and Xantia - so I'm puzzled by this. There has to be a solution.

Dropping tyre pressure by 0.2 bar (no more, and check the pressure gauge is accurate) is an easy experiment, to see if ride improves. I've found that just 0.15 bar (2.2 psi) can make a difference on poor roads.

[aneesh84]

Unless there's something about a C5 mk2 I don't appreciate, I don't understand why the ride should be inherently so much worse.

Non-hydractive models normally provide a very good ride, as the four wheel spheres are chosen to be softer than their hydractive counterparts.

Aggravating factors that won't help (apart from the very slight volume reduction of the saucer spheres) are incorrectly-spec'd aftermarket spheres, low gas pressure, or even slightly over-inflated tyres, maybe with stiff side-walls.

Citroen had a long history of non-HA models riding extremely comfortably - CX, BX, XM and Xantia - so I'm puzzled by this. There has to be a solution.

Dropping tyre pressure by 0.2 bar (no more, and check the pressure gauge is accurate) is an easy experiment, to see if ride improves. I've found that just 0.15 bar (2.2 psi) can make a difference on poor roads.

Precisely I am so surprised as to why a non-hydractive suspension should ride worse than a spring suspension. To be honest, maybe 16 year old spheres might be part of the reason, but since Peter reported that changing the spheres didnt improve things i am afraid of throwing money over an old car without some guarantee of improvement. So I was looking for experience from other forum members if they have achieved soft ride from non-hydractive C5s.

Will try reducing the tyre pressure and report back. Thanks for all your help.

[Dormouse]

I know this is way off the current type of cars but when I set up my Estelle 120 Rally replica many years ago it was with Uniroyal Rain Tyres and they were light and compliant. The car would yump well and the ride and grip were excellent. In a moment of madness I accepted a deal on Colway Remoulded Rally tyres. Same size, same spec. The car was transformed into a pig. On the same yumps it crashed and squirmed, tyre breakaway was extreme and at a lower limit, the ride, noise and overall poise was completely gone. Now, I can just hear the howls about Colways from the gallery but I experimented with tyre pressures and everything I could but the stiff walled Colways just were chalk to cheese.
With our Hybrid4 I run the current tyres 0.2 bar below recommended around town as I noticed both fronts and rears were wearing much quicker in the centre than expected and the ride over potholes and sleeping policemen is now way better. I have a new set of Continentals going on shortly and fully expect to have to play with tyre pressures all over again and I don't expect to get the same results as our current set.

Summing up, all tyres are different and the tyre pressures at lower speeds can sometimes make a difference to ride and feel. Tyre pressures are set to match the manufacturers expected loads on the construction of the tyre under all conditions and running too high or too low is not a good idea if you don't really understand the limitations and the number of variable possibilities like load or sidewall flexing/stressing - doing 3 miles at 20 mph is not the same as doing 300 miles at 70 mph. I obsess over checking our wheels and tyres as well as steering/tracking set up so I am probably at the extreme end of tyre checking compared to most people.

[aneesh84]

I guess I am closer to identifying the issue. On doing some bounce tests, it was clear that the rear (especially rear right) feels much harder and far less bounce. the front suspension feel much more bouncier. Also on going over speed bumps the rear jolt is much harsher. I can only conclude that the rear spheres are out of gas and need replacement. afterall its been 16 years and 320,000 kms.

Now I checked the standard rear sphere specs on a non hydractive sedan has a 31 bar pressure. Would it be wise to order the Estate spheres instead which is 44 bars? would that give a softer ride in a sedan? Or should i play safe and order the standard 31 bars?

Should i only order Official citroen Spheres? Other options are Eurorepar or Febi, any experience with them?

[Hell Razor5543]

I would not use the estate spheres on a sedan car. The suspension ECU has been configured for the type of car it is fitted to, and this will include how the spheres will react. If you can afford them get the Citroen spheres. They can last a long time (ten years is the expected norm), and will react properly for the car.

[aneesh84]

I would not use the estate spheres on a sedan car. The suspension ECU has been configured for the type of car it is fitted to, and this will include how the spheres will react. If you can afford them get the Citroen spheres. They can last a long time (ten years is the expected norm), and will react properly for the car.

I will check the price of original Citroen tomorrow. Since its non-hydractive , the suspension has no connection to the ECU, but yeah maybe the higher pressured sphere changes the suspension dynamics for the worse, though I rarely drive hard!

[white exec]

Aneesh, could you post your VIN, so we can check exact vehicle details?
Thanks.

[aneesh84]

Here it is: VF7**************[VIN obfuscated, can be read by forum staff]

[Peter.N.]

I wouldn't use estate spheres, they are designed to carry more weight so will probably ride harder. All mine have been estates. There is a stretch of the B3165 between Hunters Lodge on the A35 and the Devon Dorset border which is particularly bad, its about 3 miles long and was lovely when we first moved here 50 years ago, then the dug the road up to lay telephone cables, its never been right since although its been resurfaced several times. It feels as though the camber keeps changing and throws the car from one side to the other.

The CX's and XM's weren't to bad but the non hydractive was all over the place, the hydractive was better but you could still feel it. The X7's can feel a bit choppy over it but not nearly as bad.

Certainly sounds as though you rear spheres need changing, there is usually much more travel on the rear than on the front . The rear you should be able to bounce it about 6 inches but the fronts only about 3 inches - on the XM's anyway. At low speed the steel sprung X7 definitely gives a better ride than the hydropnumatic, that comes into its own at speed.

I ran hydro Citroens for 20 years or more and I think the CX was the best to drive overall.

Peter