Best diesel engine in the C5 range

[corsehf]

Reading all the interesting info here as i'm in the market for another C5 (glutton for punishment i know!) having just scrapped my 2.2 SX.
I didn't think my car was that bad apart from the anti-pollution glitches.

After reading this info, i have just been to see a 2.0HDi C5 with 105000 on the clock but have walked away for the mo as it is gutless!!!
It feels like it's in limp home mode yet if you get the revs up to around 3500 then the turbo seems to kick in and the car takes off!! but there is nothing until the revs reach around 3500.
No management light come on whilst driving - need to check if it comes on at all!!
Turbo sounds like it's spinning up.

Anyone with a 2.0 HDi 110bhp know what this may be???

[myglaren]

I wish I did as mine is behaving in a similar fashion.
I am convinced it is an air leak in the turbo circuit that is affecting the boost controller.

Other members will drfinitely sing the praises of the 2.0 HDi 110.

[cachaciero]

Almost all 2.2 136 owners experience the 'Anti-Pollution' warning at some point. This is usually FAP filter related, either the filter is clogged and needs cleaning/replacing or the Eolys fluid has ran low and its stopped the filter from regenerating.

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! yes most 2.2 owners do experience the dreaded Anti Pollution message which most times is nothing whatsover to do with the FAP.

I do wish you you would stop pushing this story which has entered into folklore as fact. Anti-Polution message on the 2.2 only rarely has anything to do with the FAP and then will be accompanied by al Filter warning.

It can have injector problems, though its not as common as the anti pollution warning, they injectors often rust into the head of the engine block making them very difficult or impossible to remove. Ive heard of 2.2s requiring replacement heads to solve this problem.

Its worth bearing in mind that many injector failures, in general not Citroën related, are put down to poor quality of fuel, supermarket or cheap brands etc. I only ever use Shell or BP, its no more expensive but its much better for economy, performance and most importantly your engine.

With respect in your opinion.
Who ever sells fuel in this country has to sell it to a specification and as far as I am aware that spec is no different whether it is sold by the Supermarkets or by Shell and BP (from whom the Supermarkets often buy from anyway) I personally have never been able to establish any benefit in using big name fuels over cheaper brands and I have done some reasonably careful trials as regards fuel consumption, furtherI have never seen the results of authoritative trials which prove conclusively that Supermarket brands are detrimental to engine life.

The FAP or particulate filter has been improved on the later 1.6 and 2.0 HDi 16v units, they tend to give far less problems.

As they were on facelifted 2.2.'s

However if the fluid is kept in check and topped up and the car is used for longer journeys where the filter can have chance to regenerate then problems should be minimised.

Many 2.2 HDi engines go on for very good mileages, and i would think by 100K yours will have at least had its FAP fluid topped up at one point. Though its something to check and get topped up. As a side note, has your 2.2 had a cambelt, as thats every 100K.

A 2.2 is tempting, as they do have a bit more power but mainly because they are easier to find with a higher spec, say an Exclusive SE in earlier S1 form.

The 2.0HDi 110 is a very hardy and well proven diesel engine, its the one people favour as it does without the FAP and its generally more reliable and less hassle. Though there are plenty of 2.2s around with high mileages.

What age is your 2.2 and how long have you owned it?

100 miles a day is a breeze in a C5, providing it stays reliable and with good maintenance it should.

Can't find a lot to complain about in the last bit of this post

cachaciero

[cachaciero]

With the 2.2 C5's do the 173bhp ones not suffer the same issues as the 136bhp version? i.e. injectors getting stuck in the head, etc etc.

I believe its a different block?

Im not sure though, which is why im a little sceptical of getting one of those.

What makes you think that its a different block?

It isn't a different block but different head and pistons though.

cachaciero

[Citroenmad]

Almost all 2.2 136 owners experience the 'Anti-Pollution' warning at some point. This is usually FAP filter related, either the filter is clogged and needs cleaning/replacing or the Eolys fluid has ran low and its stopped the filter from regenerating.

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! yes most 2.2 owners do experience the dreaded Anti Pollution message which most times is nothing whatsover to do with the FAP.

I do wish you you would stop pushing this story which has entered into folklore as fact. Anti-Polution message on the 2.2 only rarely has anything to do with the FAP and then will be accompanied by al Filter warning.

So, enlighten me, what is the main cause of Anti-pollution warnings?

Maybe you can put my theory to rest and I could start to like the 2.2 136 ...

Ive known C5s to give a anti-polution message and nothing else, yet it requires the fluid topping up. As did one car I almost bought but didnt due to this warning, i then found out from the dealer that is just wanted the fluid topping up. That is just one case i know of.

The FAPs on 2.2 136s (ok, so maybe only pre-facelift) tend to need the fluid topping up more regularly than the later 16vs and possibly the filter cleaning too.

I have no problems with the system needing the fluid topped up, id happily have that done, but some of the stories and costings for replacing the FAP filter do seem a bit steep.

I know they can be disabled and its something im going to look into, how its done and if there are negative effects. I know the info is all on this forum, I just need to read it.

I will refrain from any more 2.2 comments.

With respect in your opinion.
Who ever sells fuel in this country has to sell it to a specification and as far as I am aware that spec is no different whether it is sold by the Supermarkets or by Shell and BP (from whom the Supermarkets often buy from anyway) I personally have never been able to establish any benefit in using big name fuels over cheaper brands and I have done some reasonably careful trials as regards fuel consumption, furtherI have never seen the results of authoritative trials which prove conclusively that Supermarket brands are detrimental to engine life.

That is your opinion too ....

The problem is that I can't find any hard evidence to argue one way or the other. So I just on my experiences and what I read and hear. I certainly think there is some truth in what I originally said and I stick by that 100%.

Likewise i suspect you have no evidence to prove that every fuel supplier gets shipped exactly the same fuel.

Obviously Tesco and Asda dont produce their own fuel, they will get it from other companies. However I bet those companies are on the cheaper end of the scale, Imperial etc.

My main belief is that fuels differ, and they must - why would BP or Shell advertise new fuel saving fuels or whatever when Tesco is rolling out the same batch. Obviously you get higher rated fuels, Shell V-power which do differ in octane rating.

From the research ive done, it would seem fuel is fuel, when each company gets it they add in their own additives and lubricants and then sell it on as their own. This could well be a load of rubbish! Though again i maintain that fuels differ, even if not by that method.

I believe its the lubricants, or lack of, in fuels which causes premature injector failure. What else can be the explanation of some cars going hundreds of thousands of miles on the same set of injectors and other cars of the same spec doing far less before replacement is needed.

I also know a bit of this as the company my dad works for is an oil product company, who have obviously researched into fuels.

Im a strong believer in this, I do only ever use Shell or BP fuel and I will not use anything else. I have in the past used Tesco fuel with a petrol car and found it did less MPG than with Shell - this is when I started using Shell and researched into the fuels a little.

My local diesel injector specialists swears cheap fuels keep him in business, I dont disagree!

If i have premature injector failure on a HDi then ill let you know and ill put this fuel thing to one side, but for now im happy using only the best brands of fuels. Plus they are no more expensive to buy, not around here anyway, and i get my Shell points!

I know our 52 C5 110 has only ever been run on Shell or BP through its life, its nearing 130K and is still on its original injectors with no signs of injector problems or noises.

As they were on facelifted 2.2.'s

2.2 136? I guess that would be the case, hopefully anyway. However the 2.2 136 was only available with an autobox in the facelift and is therefore not around in the same numbers as the 1.6 & 2.0 16v HDis.

Were you disagreeing with what i said about the possibility of the injectors becoming stuck in the 2.2 head? I can't say ive seen it myself but I have heard of Citroen Specialists and owners commenting on just that. If that does happen, is the 173s head of a different design to get around that problem?

Ive not looked into the 2.2 173 engine and how it differs from the 2.2 136, though, which is why I left a question mark after my comment on the previous page.


Well, im pleased you agree with what i think is good about the 136

A quick question then:
With what you know about the 2.2 136 engine (good or bad) would you recommend someone buy one? Would you recommend one over the 2.0HDi 110 8v?
Obviously performance differs but the 110 is enough for most.

[daviemck2006]

All that I can say about my 2.2 136 is that it has been the most reliable, comfortable car I have ever owned. It is 2003 03 plate sx manual, I bought it in may 2008 with 52000 miles,one owner full service history from supplyin citroen garage. Had been traded in and punted out to a small independant seller, I saw it on e-bay and got it at a very reasonable price. Within a few months the display told me the fuel additive level was low so got it topped up at 58000 miles. The only thing it has needed apart from oil and filter changes and tyres is timing belt at 90000, then a battery (with hindsight not really needed) and alternator, 3days after battery. Now on 100000, just getting brakes done, !st time they have been touched in my owerership. Always been run on shell, mosyly because they are next to my work and cheapest in the area, always. I absolutely love it and cant see anything else I would rather need for the use we have it for, except a newer facelift, prob either 2.0 138 or a 2.2 from about 2006/7 vintage but as long as this one gives me no grief then it stays here, and I would recommend it anyone

[Citroenmad]

Thats an excellent report daviemck. I find all HDi engines are pretty good and reliable units, the 2.2 may be one of the more complex of the lot having an early FAP system, but on the whole they appear to prove reliable.

If i wanted an auto C5 that is the engine i would have, as the 110 might be a bit slow with an auto box attatched.

[daviemck2006]

Is the fap the bit in the exhaust thatb looks like a cat? My local garage, not citroen or specialist, took it off and blew it through with an air gun, dont think his garage cleared for weeks He did this when he topped up the fluid. This car changed me, I've never kept a car longer than 9 months to a year, cos I like to change and usually buy them at a reasonable price, auctions, private or e-bay and then sell them on, sometimes for more than I paid, makes for cheap motoring and I dont get bored. Still do it though, maybe time for the wifes 206 to go, but then she would divorce me, maybe not a bad idea, but expensive

[dnsey]

My local garage, not Citroën or specialist, took it off and blew it through with an air gun, dont think his garage cleared for weeks

Seriously unwise from a health and safety point of view
IMO, it's this sort of thing that has led to the sillier H&S regulations being imposed - you wouldn't expect people to do such things, but they do!

[cachaciero]

Almost all 2.2 136 owners experience the 'Anti-Pollution' warning at some point. This is usually FAP filter related, either the filter is clogged and needs cleaning/replacing or the Eolys fluid has ran low and its stopped the filter from regenerating.

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! yes most 2.2 owners do experience the dreaded Anti Pollution message which most times is nothing whatsover to do with the FAP.

I do wish you you would stop pushing this story which has entered into folklore as fact. Anti-Polution message on the 2.2 only rarely has anything to do with the FAP and then will be accompanied by al Filter warning.

So, enlighten me, what is the main cause of Anti-pollution warnings?

Pretty well anything engine related MAF, Turbo Overpressure, loss of vacuum somewhere, anything!
This message is a catchall ( as I have written before on various threads in this forum)

Maybe you can put my theory to rest and I could start to like the 2.2 136 ...

Ive known C5s to give a anti-polution message and nothing else, yet it requires the fluid topping up. As did one car I almost bought but didnt due to this warning, i then found out from the dealer that is just wanted the fluid topping up. That is just one case i know of.

And you believe dealers ! ?

Look it works like this punter arrives in garage with "Anti Pollution" LIght on garage knows that being a 2.2 it has (as it was then) this new thing called a FAP the garage also knows that the punter knows he has one of these things (Citroen made a big deal out of it) Sooooo. sucking in of breath, ah! yes it's the FAP (big high price item) now it's a 50/ 50 chance whether the garage really understood what the implications of the Anti Pollution message was did'nt really matter job was done (or not!) error messages cleared in the ECU which I supect were often sporadic and would likely have gone away after a few days of their own accord and a big hefty bill presented to punter together with sage words about "how that was a know problem with this car and maybe about how someone had to pay the cost of keeping the envirnment clean".
And so a legend was born, once the trade had created the legend that "Anti Pollution" = FAP nobody was going to be to vocal about pointing out that it wasn't so, it was a license to print money.
Now I am not saying that the FAP system is perfect on the 2.2 and I am not saying it can't or doesn't give trouble but it is fundamentally the same system as fitted to later 2.0 which have'nt got such a bad rep and in fact I don't believe that the early 2.2 system is any less reliable than the current system fitted on most / all PSA diesels. The only difference is that the fluid was modified on later systems resulting in less fluid use an hence longer filter life. There may have been changes to the filter as well i.e reduced back pressure but that is speculation and I am not convinced was the case.

The FAPs on 2.2 136s (ok, so maybe only pre-facelift) tend to need the fluid topping up more regularly than the later 16vs and possibly the filter cleaning too.

I have no problems with the system needing the fluid topped up, id happily have that done, but some of the stories and costings for replacing the FAP filter do seem a bit steep.

I know they can be disabled and its something im going to look into, how its done and if there are negative effects. I know the info is all on this forum, I just need to read it.

I will refrain from any more 2.2 comments.

With respect in your opinion.
Who ever sells fuel in this country has to sell it to a specification and as far as I am aware that spec is no different whether it is sold by the Supermarkets or by Shell and BP (from whom the Supermarkets often buy from anyway) I personally have never been able to establish any benefit in using big name fuels over cheaper brands and I have done some reasonably careful trials as regards fuel consumption, furtherI have never seen the results of authoritative trials which prove conclusively that Supermarket brands are detrimental to engine life.

That is your opinion too ....

The problem is that I can't find any hard evidence to argue one way or the other. So I just on my experiences and what I read and hear. I certainly think there is some truth in what I originally said and I stick by that 100%.

Likewise i suspect you have no evidence to prove that every fuel supplier gets shipped exactly the same fuel.

Obviously Tesco and Asda dont produce their own fuel, they will get it from other companies. However I bet those companies are on the cheaper end of the scale, Imperial etc.

My main belief is that fuels differ, and they must - why would BP or Shell advertise new fuel saving fuels or whatever when Tesco is rolling out the same batch. Obviously you get higher rated fuels, Shell V-power which do differ in octane rating.

From the research ive done, it would seem fuel is fuel, when each company gets it they add in their own additives and lubricants and then sell it on as their own. This could well be a load of rubbish! Though again i maintain that fuels differ, even if not by that method.

I believe its the lubricants, or lack of, in fuels which causes premature injector failure. What else can be the explanation of some cars going hundreds of thousands of miles on the same set of injectors and other cars of the same spec doing far less before replacement is needed.

I also know a bit of this as the company my dad works for is an oil product company, who have obviously researched into fuels.

Im a strong believer in this, I do only ever use Shell or BP fuel and I will not use anything else. I have in the past used Tesco fuel with a petrol car and found it did less MPG than with Shell - this is when I started using Shell and researched into the fuels a little.

My local diesel injector specialists swears cheap fuels keep him in business, I dont disagree!

If i have premature injector failure on a HDi then ill let you know and ill put this fuel thing to one side, but for now im happy using only the best brands of fuels. Plus they are no more expensive to buy, not around here anyway, and i get my Shell points!

I know our 52 C5 110 has only ever been run on Shell or BP through its life, its nearing 130K and is still on its original injectors with no signs of injector problems or noises.

All diesel sold in on the forcourt in Europe has to meet EN520 which when you look at it ties most of the characteristics down to quite tight levels.

2.2 136? I guess that would be the case, hopefully anyway. However the 2.2 136 was only available with an autobox in the facelift and is therefore not around in the same numbers as the 1.6 & 2.0 16v HDis.

Were you disagreeing with what i said about the possibility of the injectors becoming stuck in the 2.2 head? I can't say ive seen it myself but I have heard of Citroën Specialists and owners commenting on just that. If that does happen, is the 173s head of a different design to get around that problem?

Yes I have read of cases of the injectors becoming stuck, never had need to get mine out so can't comment from personal experience, do hear that the 2 Ltr Baby Merc engine has the same problems and I have no experience and very little knowledge of the 173 other than what can be gleaned from the spares Fiche.

Ive not looked into the 2.2 173 engine and how it differs from the 2.2 136, though, which is why I left a question mark after my comment on the previous page.


Well, im pleased you agree with what i think is good about the 136

A quick question then:
With what you know about the 2.2 136 engine (good or bad) would you recommend someone buy one? Would you recommend one over the 2.0HDi 110 8v?
Obviously performance differs but the 110 is enough for most.

Good and difficult question

My only bitch with the 2.2 is fuel consumption and if we were where we were when i purchased the car three years ago it wouldn't be an issue.
Mine is Auto and if one realy wanted Auto then I suggest that the 4HP20 is a better box than the AL4 fitted on the 2.0 Ltr. I don't know what the fuel consumption is like on the 2.0 ltr auto so it maybe that the differences are not so great. Certainly the few people that have manual 2.2's seem to get considerably better fuel consumption than I do.
There seems little doubt that on the 2.2 getting rid of the FAP will give a marked improvement in consumption however I do agree with the aims of the FAP although I have some reservations about the EGR system as well and suspect that elimination of the FAP improves EGR performance from a consumption perspective.
I would be inclined to keep the FAP except for the cost of Eolys.
In this matter there appears to be no competition at least in Europe over the supply of this and I believe as a result we are being cruelly ripped off, this I object to, and should I keep my 2.2 the FAP will go because of this.

So back to the question if the choice is an early mk1 C5 and manual gearbox and one doesn't want H3+ then it has to be the 2.0 ltr 110. However if you want the Autobox and / or you want some of the top spec toys then it has to be the 2.2.

cachaciero

[Geoff Lebowski]

I have to say, that with my XM dying, I\'ve been looking at a C5 estate and I\'ve found this thread really very useful.

If I hadn\'t read this, then I\'d probably be looking at a 2.2, and whilst they seem to have earned a bad reputation, I am definitely looking for simplicity, reliability and economy - so a S1 2.0 110BHP 8v it is...........in SX or possibly VTR (or is it VTS?) spec

I have a few questions to add to the mixing pot.
1) How does the 2.0 110 compare to the 2.1 12v found in the Xantia/XM?
2) I have spotted two 2.0 110 C5s with anti polution lights on - are these the 16v versions?
3) All the ones I am considering have FSH, but all things being equal, would you choose a 120K 2001 model or one with 150K but a 2003 plate?

On the subject of fuel further up the thread, what Citroenmad is quite true. In that, whilst Cachaciero mentioned a standard of fuel that all suppliers must meet, it is indeed the additives that are added by the various retailers (e.g Texaco, BP etc) that then make the fuels unique. Supermarket fuels either have no additives or add cheap/less of them.

Furthermore, when a car is run on a branded fuel for some time, and then \'expsed\' to supermarket fuel problems can occur. The rubber seals and components, over time, absorb the fuel and it\'s additives. Putting a supermarket fuel in leeches out these additives and causes the seals to shrink, resulting in the inevitable leak!

[CitroJim]

The 8V 110 HDi is a lovely engine Geoff... I'd say it is best thought of an an amalgam of the 1.9TD XUD and the 2.1TD and has the best characteristics of both of them.

It has the grunt and refinement of the 2.1TD but is more willing to rev. It revs much like the 1.9TD...

And it's remarkably frugal on fuel. It won't run on veg of couse but when it's so economical on DERV, what's the point?

the 8V is also easy to look after. cambelts are easy and much like the XUD.

Interesting on supermarket fuels...

'Fraid I can't advise on anything else as I know about as much about the C5 as I do about brain surgery... That's very little...

[myglaren]

2) I have spotted two 2.0 110 C5s with anti polution lights on - are these the 16v versions?

I'm fairly sure that no S1 2.0 110 8v have the FAP/EOLYS on them.

Mine chucks up antipollution faults for reasons yet to be determined - I was presuming that slow starting was trippin the 02 sensor but have more or less eliminated that now. A dud MAF will do it, or a misbehaving EGR or... take your pick, basically.
Need not be anything serious.

[Citroenmad]

I can certainly answer your questions, especially no 1 ...

1) The 2.0HDi 110 vs the 2.1TD, I drive both 2.0 110 C5 and 2.1TD Xm with a manual box. Performance wise they are very similar. I have had them side by side, by chance, at some lights on a dual carriageway and they were pretty much equal, though it was my sis driving the HDi C5! Economy wise, the HDi is noticeably better, by around 5-7MPG or more depending on how you drive it. The HDi is a quieter engine (not to say the 2.1 isnt, its great), its power is available over a wider rev range and it pulls very well from low revs. I find the 2.1 a very good engine and it does impress me. The 2.1, especially with a bosch pump, is a very hardy engine, but the 2.0 110 is very good too and if its a good one which is well maintained then it should stay reliable. Our 110 C5 has done 130K but you would never tell.

2) All 110 HDi C5s are 8vs and do not have a FAP filter. THe anti-pollution warning will be due to another matter, might be something simple, a code read should help you out.

3) If model, condition and drive is equal, then it depends how early a 2001 car it is. Very slight revisions were made to the C5s in 2001, the 110 HDi got a better gearbox, stronger i believe - you can tell this as the later ones have a lift up reverse which is next to 1st. They also got a few other mods, such as a change in the climate control, revisions to the rear beam to stop vibrations and noises etc.

As we have a 52 with 130K which still looks and drives very well id be tempted to go for the bit later car with the 150K, just so its the later model. However I would look at both cars and pick the best one.

The 110 HDi is available in LX, SX, Exclusive (quite rare with a 2.0, usually 2.2s) and then later (from around 2003 onwards) the VTR - which replaced the SX.

The SX and VTR would be a good pick of the range, they are well spec'd and easy to find. Earlier VTRs had manual air conditioning, later cars got climate control. All VTRs have a rear wiper on the hatchback. VTRs also have an alarm and 16" alloy wheels, which I think make it drive better. However tyres are usually double the cost than they are for the SX cars with its smaller 195/65/15 tyres.

Thanks for the further info on the subject of fuel. I knew I was talking sense! I don't know why people think fuel is fuel and thats that. There is far more too it and it really pays to use the higher quality premium brand fuels.

[Paul-R]

I'm fairly sure that no S1 2.0 110 8v have the FAP/EOLYS on them.

Not in UK at any rate. There are some markets that do have a FAP fitted thoough I'm not sue which.