Jump Starting C5 HDI Risks?

Turboselecta · Unread post by **Turboselecta** » 08 Dec 2008, 17:29

It's seems highly likely that I'm about to be forced to use jump leads to awaken a C5 2.0 HDI that has been standing for a while.

Just slightly concerned having read warnings concerning connection procedure & possible damage to engine management + other 'sensitive' devices.

Is anyone aware of any issues with using my ZX Turbo D to start the C5 please??

AndersDK · Unread post by **AndersDK** » 08 Dec 2008, 23:01

Apart from recent cars being crammed with computers & electronics, I dont see any troubles.
To be safe use a pair of jumpstart cables with integrated overvoltage surge arresters.

Alwyas connect first (and remove last) the PLUS poles between both cars.
Then after connecting the MINUS cable, give the helping car a chance to charge the dead car's battery a couple of minutes before you try start it.

The first try should be nothing but exactly a short try, do not crank it first off for lengthy time.
does the startermotor crank as expected ?
no weird abnormal sounds from the cranking engine ?

If all checks good try a normal start.

marsalek · Unread post by **marsalek** » 08 Dec 2008, 23:36

The safest way is to connect both batteries with even donor car's engine off. It prevents any possible overvoltage. Wait a while and then try to crank your C5. If this does not work at all, start your ZX with cables already connected to your C5. This also prevents any overvoltage. Give the C5 battery some time to recharge and make another try. Now with the ZX engine running. That must work

Karel

reblack68 · Unread post by **reblack68** » 09 Dec 2008, 05:24

The C5's electronics are subjected to massive surges when the suspension pump cuts in and out, so a careful jump start shouldn't do any harm.

wheeler · Unread post by **wheeler** » 09 Dec 2008, 10:34

There are risks in jump starting any car with an ECU it's just that some ECU's are more likely to be damaged than others.
see here > http://www.frenchcarforum.co.uk/forum/v ... rting+hdis

Turboselecta · Unread post by **Turboselecta** » 16 Dec 2008, 13:49

Many thanks to the respondents on the subject of jump starting, very interesting- I must confess I was unaware of the existence of 'anti-surge' jump leads.
I did manage to start it & it seems fine, all I need to do now is make space for it by selling the ZX Turbo D Estate! (advert now carries a photo by the way & price has dropped to £325 ono).

Plan for the C5 once my local independent specialist has checked it over, is to give it a damn good polish(!) & fit a module which will improve its economy from 48mpg(?) to around 55mpg & take the standard 110bhp to between 130 & 140bhp- should be interesting.

den169 · Unread post by **den169** » 16 Dec 2008, 20:04

I take it you mean 55mpg on a long run ie motorway driving they won't do that driving about local.Ive just fit a chip on my sx 110 bhp estate makes a big difference in 3rd and 4th gear and the mpg local has gone up from around 38mpg to 41 42.Not tried it on the motorway yet but it normally does 51mpg at 70mph.At least thats what theclock tells me.

bencowell · Unread post by **bencowell** » 16 Dec 2008, 21:28

Strange, my 2002 2.0 HDI 110 with a PSI powerbox does about 42mpg round town and 47mpg on the motorway. I'd love to be able to get 50mpg frequently on the motorway.

The economy is very similar to before the tuning.

Ben

DickieG · Unread post by **DickieG** » 16 Dec 2008, 21:40

Is the C5 much heavier than a Xantia estate? My HDi 2.0 110 bhp Xantia estate returns 50 mpg on day to day running around, 8 mile commute, shops and the odd long run etc. Its as standard other than the catalyst has been removed.

den169 · Unread post by **den169** » 17 Dec 2008, 10:12

Ben mine has cruise control does yours,Its a godsend on long motorway journeys and i think it does help with mpg.

reblack68 · Unread post by **reblack68** » 17 Dec 2008, 18:54

DickieG wrote:Is the C5 much heavier than a Xantia estate? My HDi 2.0 110 bhp Xantia estate returns 50 mpg on day to day running around, 8 mile commute, shops and the odd long run etc. Its as standard other than the catalyst has been removed.

I don't know about heavier but the C5 is much slower so something must be holding it back.

bencowell · Unread post by **bencowell** » 21 Dec 2008, 06:29

den169 wrote:Ben mine has cruise control does yours,Its a godsend on long motorway journeys and i think it does help with mpg.

My C5 had cruise fitted after I had the car for a year (there is a thread on here about retrofitting). Cruise is only useful on light to medium motorways. Not much use at rush hour.

Jeremy Clarkson (The scientific testing god that he is) drove an Audi A8 TDI from London to Scotland and back on one tank. He reckoned that cruise control uses more fuel and it was better to back of a few mph when going up hills and gain a few mph downhills.

Unread post by **myglaren** » 21 Dec 2008, 09:35

bencowell wrote: Jeremy Clarkson (The scientific testing god that he is) drove an Audi A8 TDI from London to Scotland and back on one tank. He reckoned that cruise control uses more fuel and it was better to back of a few mph when going up hills and gain a few mph downhills.

Very true. I think cruise control could be more fuel efficient for a lot of drivers but for more aware and experienced motorists you can increase fuel economy by careful application of gears brakes and throttle.

I haven't a cruise control on the C5 but used it a lot on the Accord to prevent me from speeding accidentally.
Nothing changed the Accord's fuel economy anyway. Defied all logic.

rowanmoor · Unread post by **rowanmoor** » 23 Dec 2008, 14:21

bencowell wrote:Cruise is only useful on light to medium motorways. Not much use at rush hour.

I use it every day in both directions on the M23 in rush hour. It all depends on the motorway. Even in the south east we have some that are quiet enough. I do always have to switch it off as I pass Gatwick and most days there will be odd patches where I have to turn it off but it stays on for most of the length of the motorway.

myglaren wrote:I think cruise control could be more fuel efficient for a lot of drivers but for more aware and experienced motorists you can increase fuel economy by careful application of gears brakes and throttle.

The way most people seem to randomly speed up and slow down by over 10mph for no reason with no change in gradient I would say they could save quite a lot with cruise. They would also be less annoying to those of us who do use it who have to keep overtaking the same car again and again and then get boxed in by them etc.

den169 · Unread post by **den169** » 23 Dec 2008, 19:54

Well it definately improves mpg on motorways for me and much more relaxing to drive with cruise.As for being experienced iv'e been driving since 1967 i spent the 70s and 80s rallying an escort rs2000 drove a 10ton skip wagon in the 80s and so far have had 52 vehicles,I think that makes me experienced.

French Car Forum

Jump Starting C5 HDI Risks?

Jump Starting C5 HDI Risks?

Chipped 2.0 HDI C5 fuel economy