'new' C5 Tourer..a step up?

[Citroenmad]

Ah, im getting my wires crossed with the original poster, sorry.

Yes, a 1.6HDi 110 C5II is a good car, economical and refined. Performance would e adequate for most and its a reliable unit on the whole. If MPG of the 2.0 138 is anything to go by (our estate has averaged 43-44 over the last 20K miles, always with a heavy load on board) then the 1.6 will be similar, if not slightly better. Its lower geared but smaller engine, should in theory, be more economical.

Though if its economy your wanting, you will be better off with a manual.

Ill have to dig out the Xm specs i have and compare them to the C51&2.

Yes, the ever increasing fuel prices are always something to think about. Most diesel C5s return great MPG if they are not solely confined to short journeys, so im not worried about that.

[Citroenmad]

My Xm brochures were easier to hand than i thought!

Xm 2.1TD hatchback Auto:
weighs: 1468
MPG: 39.8
0-60: 13.0 (Im surprised)

C5II 1.6HDi hatchback manual:
weighs: 1424
MPG: 52.3
0-60: 11.3

C5II 2.2HDi Hatchback Auto (2005>)
Weighs: 1558
MPG: 39.8 (same as XM, is that progress?!)
0-60: 11.3

C5II 2.0HDi 16v 138 Hatchback Manual:
Weighs: 1498
MPG: 47.1
0-60: 9.8

Maybe a 1.6HDi Auto would be quite good after all ...

[Citroening]

...bit O/T but the 110BHP 1.6 HDi as in the C5, they also put the same engine in the little C2 VTS HDi - bet that goes well!
We were thinking of buying one that was cheap down Gloucester way, got Dom Weston to take a look (thanks again if you're reading!) but was bit of a thing - shame as that would've been nice!

[cachaciero]

My Xm brochures were easier to hand than i thought!

Xm 2.1TD hatchback Auto:
weighs: 1468
MPG: 39.8
0-60: 13.0 (Im surprised)

C5II 1.6HDi hatchback manual:
weighs: 1424
MPG: 52.3
0-60: 11.3

C5II 2.2HDi Hatchback Auto (2005>)
Weighs: 1558
MPG: 39.8 (same as XM, is that progress?!)
0-60: 11.3

C5II 2.0HDi 16v 138 Hatchback Manual:
Weighs: 1498
MPG: 47.1
0-60: 9.8

Maybe a 1.6HDi Auto would be quite good after all ...

I have to say that the weights are far closer than I expected I wonder where the weight comes from on the C5, it's a smaller car and everything appears less solid than the XM.

Those fuel consumption figures are the open road figure not the combined cycle number, my gut feel is that the XM would do better relatively on the combined cycle than the 2.2 but in general consumption terms progress it is not.

1.6 Auto? well as there isn't one I guess we will never get an answer as to just how acceptable it would have been

[Citroenmad]

I would say the C5 feels more sturdy in general than an Xm, its not a whole lot smaller either, the C5, its definitely wider. Plus the C5 has a lot of added weight due to safety reasons, there are no crash tests for the Xm, however the Xantia didnt fair well, so id expect the Xm to perform similar, if a little better perhaps, due to its longer nose. The C5 S1 is a 4 star crash test car, the C5II is a 5 star and actually very very marginally better results than a C5III. This extra strength and crumple zones will be the weight you were not expecting. Im surprised they are so close, i thought the C5 might be noticeably heavier.

Actually only the Xm MPG is for a out of town figure, doing a steady 75mph. For some reason it didnt give a combined fuel consumption, however it seemed a middle number, and similar to the later Xm book which did have combined MPG but for the manual. The C5s MPGs above are all combined figures, not extra-urban. Extra urban for the 1.6 is 60mpg.

Given the low MPG you get with your 2.2, most of your driving must be town work?

Im very happy with the MPG of the diesel C5s and the 2.1 manual Xm, though my driving is a mixture, never just confined to the town. The Xm will easily do 45 on a reasonable run, the C5s see 50-55 on a good motorway drive.

[reblack68]

Cars have been getting steadily heavier since the 1990s. I believe my Volvo 940TD Estate, which most people would say is an exceptionally big and heavy car, weighs quite a bit less than the current diesel Vauxhall Astra.

[cachaciero]

Actually only the Xm MPG is for a out of town figure, doing a steady 75mph. For some reason it didnt give a combined fuel consumption, however it seemed a middle number, and similar to the later Xm book which did have combined MPG but for the manual. The C5s MPGs above are all combined figures, not extra-urban. Extra urban for the 1.6 is 60mpg.

Given the low MPG you get with your 2.2, most of your driving must be town work?

Im very happy with the MPG of the diesel C5s and the 2.1 manual Xm, though my driving is a mixture, never just confined to the town. The Xm will easily do 45 on a reasonable run, the C5s see 50-55 on a good motorway drive.

Well if you take the view that the South East is one large town then yes . I live about half way between Crawley where I work and Brighton which is a common weekend destination. So the majority trips will be circa 15 Miles, little bit of town at each end and country A / B roads in between with hills!. The XM on this kind of journey would give me 33 on average and on the occasions when "long haul" on motorways 40/45 was not uncommon. The 2.2 C5 rarely betters 29 and 40 long haul. There is no doubt that the C5 drinks fuel when cold, driving to Chichester the instantaneous fuel consumption can be seen to improve as the engine warms up but by the time I can get good numbers we are already at the Brighton end of the A23. Doesn't seem to like hills very much either, that wouldn't be so bad because in theory you can recover it on the downhill bits, but you know, there's always some body or some stupid speed limit impeding the queens highway necessitating application of brakes and hence energy loss in heat.

cachaciero

[Citroenmad]

It seems a lot of owners of the 2.2 136 engine get quite poor MPG, certainly for a diesel. The 1.6HDi would be a noticeable improvement in economy for your driving. Though if you dont want a manual it will have to be another 2.2?