C5's 2.0Hdi vs 2.2HDi... Thoughts please!

[GiveMeABreak]

Sorry to hear that Iain. My 2.0 110 HDi lasted me for about 185k on original clutch and no DPF on this model. Had driveshaft go ( wheel nearly came off while driving)! but generally a very good quick car. Since then I had the 138 facelift, and had a whole new load of issues ( DPF, clutch, DMF) etc. that I never had before. Ditto these on the newer X7. But I have to say the newer models in my opinion have been progressively nicer to drive with less niggly things going wrong. There was an issue with the earlier BSI units that were later superseded that caused some hesitation and stalling issues. The 138 is quick enough for me and of course the extra ongoing tax with the 2.2 is another factor. Go with your gut and get the best you can for your buck!

Almost forgot. If you are going for an X7, look out for the leaking steering rack issue that was prevalent on the earlier models as they have to be replaced with new or recon units!

[wurlycorner]

Thanks Marc

[wurlycorner]

There was an issue with the earlier BSI units that were later superseded that caused some hesitation and stalling issues.

Any more info on this?
I drove a 55 plate 2.0 Hdi today. Generally all good, but there was a momentary flat spot when accelerating hard in second, as it approached 3k. Does that ring a bell? Something to worry about?


Incidentally, on the 2.2 vs 2.0 debate... Not driven a 2.2 manual, but having now driven the 2.0 16v, I have to say... Plenty quick enough!!! Can't see any need for the 2.2!

[GiveMeABreak]

There was an issue with the earlier BSI units that were later superseded that caused some hesitation and stalling issues.

Any more info on this?
I drove a 55 plate 2.0 Hdi today. Generally all good, but there was a momentary flat spot when accelerating hard in second, as it approached 3k. Does that ring a bell? Something to worry about?


Incidentally, on the 2.2 vs 2.0 debate... Not driven a 2.2 manual, but having now driven the 2.0 16v, I have to say... Plenty quick enough!!! Can't see any need for the 2.2!

Sure, it's buried in some of the docs. I'll dig it out and post back re the BSI ASAP.

[citroenxm]

Yea the 2.0 is pretty good.. but see this is where things get confusing.. the 2.2 when fitted with the zf hp20 autobox KEPT the older 136 bhp engine from 2005.. however the 2.2 with manual box got the more powerfull 173bhp 2.2 updated engine ... which I beleve is modified and less trouble some then the earlyer 136bhp engine.. but why when the 2.0 hdi 16v could be had with 138bhp and 6 speed auto?? Why have more CCs less bhp and 2 less gears!! Crazy!!

[wurlycorner]

I'm sure there was some sense in it somewhere...

[Stickyfinger]

Citroen

[daviemck2006]

French.

I had an 03 reg 2.2 136 sx as my first c5. I did not have any real problems with it, IIRC the control module for the air con, starter motor and alternator was all I replaced along with tyres and brakes. The second c5 I had was am 07 2.0 138 vtr. The seats in the vtr were poorer, the dash nicer, the front end looks nicer and the rear end poorer. It was about 5 mpg better than the 2,2, I cannot really say if I noticed ant difference in power or driving them. Both towed well, the 2.2 a caravan at 90% kerb weight the length and breadth of the country, the 2.0 towed a loaded car trailer with no problems at all. Had I not bashed it I would still own it I would think. In fact I should have fixed it and kept it. Hindsight, a great thing! As to if I e er buy another c5 I would hanker for a 2.0 hdi exclusive se auto, that's the 16v 138 and 6 speeder, or if I wanted a manual the 2.2 twin turbo 173.

[Andy F]

This C5 for sale near me is a 2.2 170hp auto. This engine with the auto wasn't availble until I think 2007. So early facelift 2.2 autos were 136 Hp and after 2007 had the 170hp bi turbo unit.

I actually went to see this one as I was curious. They weren't forthcoming with help or keys though.

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/ ... &logcode=p

Andy

[citroenxm]

I didnt think the facelift s1 ever got the c6s 2.2 173 in auto form untill the x7... however im not certain if it was a late change.. I know the 2.2 autos in 06 were 136bhp engines..

[mooseshaver]

I had a facelift 07 173. They did exist.

[citroenxm]

I had a facelift 07 173. They did exist.

Auto??? I know it did with manual gearbox from 05 .. but initially the auto 2.2 was the older 136bhp engine..

[daviemck2006]

I think there is a late facelift 2.2 173 auto vtx+ on the bay just now.

Sent from my SM-G361F using Tapatalk

[daviemck2006]

Just looked it's an exclusive and says 168 bhp I don't know how to link to in on the phone

Sent from my SM-G361F using Tapatalk

[mooseshaver]

Mine was a 173 auto exclusive. It was a wonderful engine. Seemed to go as soon as you pressed accelerator.
Very smooth.
My 2.0 163 x7 auto feels a bit peaky in comparison.