Sadly I must leave the Citroen brotherhood.

[h2ocooler]

Well I feel the time has come to leave the Citroens behind Having bought a caravan that weigh's 1500kg the C5 will not tow it, well it does but legally I cannot due to the stupid restrictions Citroen put on its auto's, 1100kg for a 2.2 turbo diesel, what is that all about....
I did use my girlfriends Hyundai Santa Fe on a trip to France but at 15mpg towing that is a no brainer

So I have been looking around for an affordable Diesel Auto that can cope, after discounting the usual Shoguns, Landrovers 4X4's etc there were few cars that can easily tow 1500kg and not be at their limit.
So:

I am

in 12 hours time

picking up a

2002 S Class 320 CDi auto Mercedes Benz with all the toys
It is a shame that the Citroens have to go but there were no cars available with a high enough limit, some manuals could but I hate twiddling that stick in the middle.

Rob

[Peter.N.]

The excuses some people come up with! Sorry to loose you, had you thought about an XM?

Peter

[cachaciero]

Sorry to see you go Rob but before you do, hang around long enough to give us your impressions of the 320 from the perspective of home mechanicking, because you made me think, just a little:-)

Never looked much at Mercedes and I was gob smacked to see that the 320 has apparently better practical consumption figures than I can ever seem to get out of the C5, yes makes one think

cachaciero

[Peter.N.]

Dont think you can beat an XM, I recently bought a 5 series BMW but still prefer the XM.

Peter

[JohnD]

Mercedes Benz

Don't they also have a FAP system - but instead of Eolys they use Adblue.

[mooseshaver]

I think it may be the newer Mercedes with the adblue, which is made from cows urine. I try not to think what Citroen make Eolys from.

I was tempted by an E class, but I couldn't find one with airmatic at the time, and the cost of replacing each corner airbag (instead of spheres) was around £1500 !
I was also advised that the C5 was more reliable but I never found out if that was true.

[mooseshaver]

Never looked much at Mercedes and I was gob smacked to see that the 320 has apparently better practical consumption figures than I can ever seem to get out of the C5, yes makes one think

cachaciero

Yeah I noticed that too compared to the 2.2 I lost. But my 1.6 is better still.
I really covet a 320 or 350 cdi. with airmatic and the 7 seats. And distance cruise. Massaging seats and........

[Citroenmad]

Its a shame your having to leave Citroens, though i dont blame you too much for leaving the C5 behind.

Peter, i think your right, the Xm is a much underrated car and is extremely hard to beat for what it offers, even with up to the minute modern cars - mind all they do there is stuff it with needless toys, which will go wrong!

However the Xm has the same failing as the C5 in this case, as the 2.1TD Auto will only pull a similar weight to the C5 auto. For any major towing id always pick a manual, unless there is a reason for auto. Autoboxes sometimes dont like the extra load.

Some friends run 04/05 reg E-Class mercs, one is a 3.0 petrol and the other a 320, both autos naturally. They are both range toppers with the adaptive cruise control, air suspension etc. They have been nothing but problems, rusting, air suspension breaking at a cost of over £1200. But they like them. Its there thrid pair of E-classes, the last pair were just as bad, they almost fizzed in the rain they rusted so badly!

The S-class is a nice looking car, i hope it proves reliable for you.

[Peter.N.]

Peter, i think your right, the Xm is a much underrated car and is extremely hard to beat for what it offers, even with up to the minute modern cars - mind all they do there is stuff it with needless toys, which will go wrong!

Not by me it isn't!

[cachaciero]

The XM was arguably always an under rated car and I would have another one tomorrow if it was a good one but therin lies the rub.

Good XM's are now like hens teeth and even if you could find a good one spares are increasingly becoming a problem. Today a good XM would be a practical day to day car but in a year or so even a relatively minor problem could keep the car of the road for an inordinate amount of time.

cachaciero

[myglaren]

The XM was arguably always an under rated car and I would have another one tomorrow if it was a good one but therin lies the rub.

Good XM's are now like hens teeth and even if you could find a good one spares are increasingly becoming a problem. Today a good XM would be a practical day to day car but in a year or so even a relatively minor problem could keep the car of the road for an inordinate amount of time.

cachaciero

Fully agreed Tony, this is what causes my prevarication on the acquisition of either a CX or an XM.
I'm afraid that I am withdrawing steadily from the spannering brigade, only ever work on my kid's cars these days.

[cachaciero]

The XM was arguably always an under rated car and I would have another one tomorrow if it was a good one but therin lies the rub.

Good XM's are now like hens teeth and even if you could find a good one spares are increasingly becoming a problem. Today a good XM would be a practical day to day car but in a year or so even a relatively minor problem could keep the car of the road for an inordinate amount of time.

cachaciero

Fully agreed Tony, this is what causes my prevarication on the acquisition of either a CX or an XM.
I'm afraid that I am withdrawing steadily from the spannering brigade, only ever work on my kid's cars these days.

Steve

If you are considering either one as an occasional use Classic car project then the average reliability may be good enough for the "days out" but you will still have to work on them from time to time.

In the case of the CX most of the work is likely to be body / chassis related, mechanically these are bullet proof cars and for the most part extremely robust.
For the XM given a good body to start with most of your work is likely to be mechanically related these cars being nowhere as solid in terms of running gear or engines as the CX which is not say that they are bad for their age just not as good as the CX was for its age.

Citroen do not today make a car as advanced for it's age as either the CX or the XM were in their day and that includes the C6.

My Mk2 CX 2.5 Turbo was the most exciting and comfortable car I have ever owned and the only reason it went was running cost and lack of flexibility in the load carrying department.

cachaciero

[myglaren]

I would want it as a daily driver. I don't have the space nor economy to permit two cars, certainly not one as an indulgence.
No garage pretty much rules them out as winter is very unkind to them.

I am still very very tempted by the 2.5 Exclusive in blue that was at Little Horwood. Stunning looking car that one.

[Peter.N.]

I don't find that so with my particular choice, the 2.1 manual, I have been running these cars for 14 years now and once sorted find them very reliable. After fitting a head gasket and done one or two other jobs on my green eastate it gave my 70,000 virtually trouble free miles until my wife wrote it off

The red one that my son drives has done about 265k and the last but one I sold had covered 292k with the original clutch! They nead a head gasket at about 150k but once done you can expect another 150k without problems. The 2.1 engine and box are virtually bomb proof

Peter

[myglaren]

How about the 2.5?