138 Hdi poor economy ?

hdi_man · Post by **hdi_man** » 28 May 2010, 13:27

well nearly 1 week with the new C5 2.0 138bhp.

I've done 150 miles and averaged 35mpg ....the computer is showing 43mpg over the last 6500 miles. This is lower than I was expecting ! I would have thought I would be getting low 40's quite easily.

BrianM · Post by **BrianM** » 28 May 2010, 14:30

I'm getting low to mid 40s - I don't spare it but don't go overboard either - you'll see how low the efficiency is though in the first few miles after startup and also once you get into 6th how it improves too !

Brian

09 Citroen C5 Exclusive

JohnD · Post by **JohnD** » 28 May 2010, 14:38

hdi_man wrote:the computer is showing 43mpg over the last 6500 miles. .

If that has been mainly around town with a lot of cold starts thrown in, it's not bad. Mine is at its worst when it's engine is cold and doing a lot of gear changing.

I've noticed before when starting out on a journey with zeroed computer, the first 7 miles up to the M25 can average 30mpg, but after several fast miles on the motorway, the readout winds round towards 50mpg.

Citroenmad · Post by **Citroenmad** » 28 May 2010, 16:35

It depends where you have been driving it? And how you have been driving too?

If around town and quite briskly then it seems perfectly feasable.

Economy is something you work at, if you want it!

logiclee · Post by **logiclee** » 28 May 2010, 21:03

On most of my cars (Iv'e had 29

) I find on my 20 miles commute through one town centre I get just under the combined figure.
On a run out I get somewhere inbetween the combined and Extra Urban figure.

So far the C5 is following the same pattern.

Combined is 39mpg and Extra Urban 51.4 and I'm getting 36.5ish going to work. On an 160 mile round trip to the coast I managed 47mpg.

So I thinks that's pretty much bang on.

Mondeo was 27.4mpg Combined and 37.4mpg Extra Urban. Used to get 26mpg to work and 33mpg to the coast.

My wifes Skoda diesel beats my C5 by nearly 20mpg but my C5 weighs one and three quarter tonnes before anyone or anything is put in it. The Skoda is half a tonne lighter.
I don't think the mpg is too bad for a car this big and heavy.

Cheers
Lee

Citroenmad · Post by **Citroenmad** » 28 May 2010, 21:11

As yours is an automatic it will be a lower figure for yours than the manual version.

Combined MPG for the manual C5 III Saloon 138 is: 47.1 combined, 35.8 Urban and 57.6 on a run. 0-60 in 11.6 seconds.

0-60 for the C5 II with the same engine is claimed to be 9.8! C5 III must be a bit heavier, MPG for C5 II and III is very similar.

Geees, my 2.0HDi 110 C5 is 11.3 to 60. Do the brakes stick on the new C5s or something

logiclee · Post by **logiclee** » 28 May 2010, 21:28

Citroenmad wrote:As yours is an automatic it will be a lower figure for yours than the manual version.

Combined MPG for the manual C5 III Saloon 138 is: 47.1 combined, 35.8 Urban and 57.6 on a run. 0-60 in 11.6 seconds.

0-60 for the C5 II with the same engine is claimed to be 9.8! C5 III must be a bit heavier, MPG for C5 II and III is very similar.

Geees, my 2.0HDi 110 C5 is 11.3 to 60. Do the brakes stick on the new C5s or something

Yep, for the manual I'd be expecting about 44.5mpg on my commute to work and low 50's on a gentle A road run.

As for 0-62? the new C5 is a very heavy car, quite a bit heavier than the new massive Mondeo.
There is also a definate torque limit in 1st gear, there is no where near full torque available in 1st which does limit the launch.
I also think the original figures were a little conservative as the new published figures are massively quicker with only modest increases in power. Infact the 1.6HDi has dropped from 13.4 seconds to 12.2 seconds and it hasn't had a power upgrade at all.

You also have to look closely at 0-60/0-62 times as some manufactures publish 0-60 and some 0-62 and there could be nearly a second difference.
Ford did this in it's own Mondeo range, the Mk3 models were quoted as 0-62 but the heavier Mk4 is quoted with 0-60 times to make the newer models seem more competative.

One other strange one. The Mk4 Mondeo 2.0TDCi Auto has the same engine and gearbox as my C5, the Mondeo is a bit lighter (about the weight of a normal adult), both cars have virtually the same top speed and fuel economy as you would expect but Fords quoted 0-60/62 time is 2.8 seconds quicker than the C5.

Cheers
Lee

steelcityuk · Post by **steelcityuk** » 30 May 2010, 22:16

Hi,

I would say that's about right driving normally. My 2.0 HDi110 usually gave around 35 on my daily commute. My little A Class does 50 mpg on the same run if I concentrate but I can easily lose 10 mpg if it don't pay attention. These are actual fuel in the tank figures, not fuel computer or boasting down the pub numbers.

Some people would have you believe that a 2.5 XM estate will do 50 MPG, it can but only on a motorway at a steady speed, on my commute it did 32mpg.

Cold weather and hills kill economy.

Steve.

Citroenmad · Post by **Citroenmad** » 31 May 2010, 10:13

I have never had less than 40 out of any 2.0HDi, my driving is very mixed though, usually brisk and unless im just around town most of my journeys are quite long. My 2.0HDi 110 averages 45MPG at the pumps, which i think is pretty great.

The Xm 2.1TD i find averages very slightly less than the 110 C5s.

hdi_man · Post by **hdi_man** » 31 May 2010, 11:35

I know the new C5 is heavier but I was expecting as you all say 40+mpg. Average over 200 miles is now 37mpg on computer but this still feels heavy consumption...not what I was expecting. maybe something is wrong ??

DickieG · Post by **DickieG** » 31 May 2010, 11:44

With the new C5 a 2.0 HDi auto does a whopping 9.7 less mpg than a manual

that's why I thinking of going for a 3.0 which is only 2.7 mpg less than a 2.0 auto.

hdi_man · Post by **hdi_man** » 31 May 2010, 11:50

I have a manual...

DickieG · Post by **DickieG** » 31 May 2010, 11:52

hdi_man wrote:I have a manual...

Oh, well the chosen gearbox isn't the issue then.

Citroenmad · Post by **Citroenmad** » 31 May 2010, 22:13

hdi_man wrote:I know the new C5 is heavier but I was expecting as you all say 40+mpg. Average over 200 miles is now 37mpg on computer but this still feels heavy consumption...not what I was expecting. maybe something is wrong ??

Have you worked out the actual MPG at the pumps? Brim to brim? You might find the computer is way out.

hdi_man · Post by **hdi_man** » 01 Jun 2010, 13:00

no I haven't done manual calculation yet, just computer readings.
upto 38mpg now over 300 miles.....my mate can get 38mpg in his Civic Type-R !! lol

French Car Forum

138 Hdi poor economy ?

138 Hdi poor economy ?

Re: 138 Hdi poor economy ?