C4 G.P grows on you

[Dippy]

Does it have the self levelling suspension on the rear? Some GPs have spheres on the rear.

Nein Leibschen ! - But my GP's got a wart on her nose .

looked at a couple of Expensives 1 ad - 1 ant - sales guy said had to be specced ( extra dosh £ ) from factory ?

[DickieG]

Not entirely sure about this but I thought that 7 seater Exclusives came with hydraulic rear suspension as standard.

[Dippy]

Not entirely sure about this but I thought that 7 seater Exclusives came with hydraulic rear suspension as standard.

Think I read that somewhere ? In actual fact I know very little about them , and we all know that sales staff have a full product knowledge - or not.

Its the old reading - doing - hands on thing again .

I never got past the asking stage since they were beyond my budget anyway . I tend to go for base - spec cars these days ,.

My BIL's VTR+ had more than enough toys for me. Life don't end without them. possibly without Jack Daniels

[Dippy]

For an MPV they really are a good looking car, I also like the normal 5 seater too.

Im pleased you like the EGS box,

Hmm . Jury's still out - not sure I like it , but I can live with it .

Would like a full auto - but with EGS fuel consumption .

Since the 1.6 Hoody is so very nippy , I would like to try a 2.0

We all make our own arguments to fit the crime eventually , s'pecially with wheels

[RichardW]

Pneumatic (not hydraulic ) rear suspension is std on the current C4GP, but does not appear to be an option on lesser models.

[Sl4yer]

Forgot to mention that the engine seems to be detuned from that in a standard C4 (199 torques instead of 236). Don't know if that is to protect the clutch, or to help the CO2 figures / economy. There is quite an increase in acceleration at 3000rpm though, so quite possibly the latter.

James

[Dippy]

Pneumatic (not hydraulic ) rear suspension is std on the current C4GP, but does not appear to be an option on lesser models.

Useful info thank you.

Had levelling shocks on motors past , Carlton Estates etc.

The carlton was blow it up yerself via a shraeder valve in boot , and monroe replacement air shocks were half the price of the G.M - O.E crap.

Extemely useful for towing . and being a very simple system - reliable. Hope the G.Pic fares as well.

[Dippy]

Forgot to mention that the engine seems to be detuned from that in a standard C4 (199 torques instead of 236). Don't know if that is to protect the clutch, or to help the CO2 figures / economy. There is quite an increase in acceleration at 3000rpm though, so quite possibly the latter.

James

Cheers James.


Using a highly techinical algorythm , based on sticking a pin in most modern cars Tech Specs ....

There appears to be a Correlation twixt Power / Economy / Engine failure ? possibly always was .

e.g if 110 Ponies / enough torques are sufficient for my needs , and it can be achieved by an older Tech HDI 2.0 8v engine , as repeatedly advised on this Forum .

Why would I want to go the H.D.I 16v 1.6 motor route , with all it's other associated gubbins ? apart from modernity and a few more m.p.g ?

By it's very nature , surely extracting the same power from less cubes has to place the engine under more stress , and any subsequent repair bill will almost certainly wipe out at a stroke the supposed economy advantage .

Apologies for repeating the same sort of Q. in different posts , and I realise it will come down to sink or swim .

Or ? am I too dyed in the wool to accept change , and the fact that modern engines are a quantum leap in Errrrr what exactly

I recall a U.S Saturn -Astronaut being asked

Q. what do you think about when the lauch sequence begins ?

A. I think about being sat on a skyscraper made from over 4 million seperate components - each of which produced by the lowest bidder ....

No substitute fer Cubes ? or simply pot - luck ?

Factor in the LUST Equation , the DS, C6 , G.Pic looks gorgeous ( personal opinion) all of the above becomes meaningless , then , when it spits it's dummy - you may console yourself that

" It ain't my fault " + " the book / magazine / road test said they are O.k "

both uttered in a kneeling - whispered penetant chant in the split second before the Missus Scutches yer bonce with the rolling pin

[DickieG]

Reduced engine size is just part of advances in technology, as you go further back in time the argument you put forward will have been debated many many times. I recall in the 80's an Alfasud 1.5 petrol engine was just about the most powerful engine for its size producing 95 bhp, go further back and you'll find 3.0 litre engines struggling to produce 100 bhp. Smaller engine size certainly means greater economy at idle and now with the benefit of technology that can also apply when under power as well plus the smaller engine will generally be lighter.

I've previously owned 2.0 and 1.6 HDi Berlingo's, both produced 90 BHP but the 1.6 was much quicker picking up from low speeds presumably due to a greater/lower torque figure, the 1.6 was also more economical by around 4 mpg.

[Dippy]

Hi buddy. Yep , I see your point entirely , Its just that Modern Tech - supposedly better built ought to mean easier to mend ?

Do we really need all the inbuilt high - tech ?

Digressing again - sorry but ,

British Superbikes ( BSB) have recently formulated , and are applying an excellent remedy to spiralling costs and mind bendingly complex electronics .

Ditch the traction control , anti wheelie , launch control electronics etc.
Ditch the extra team member needed to control all these ECU's

Not quite the same thing I know , but it would be nice to able to " service " a modern vehicle with a hacksaw and side snips decreasing the clutter for an easier and less costly future life .

Nirvarna - really , but I suppose we are all now stuck with Euro Emission wallet eaters

Forgot to add :-

The BIL snatched his G.pic back yesterday , do I miss it ? you betcha' back to the durge of a manual box in traffic .

Back to 10 mpg less overall .

Technology .

[Dippy]

Now got 2 x C4 Gpics in our family, our neice has bought one . 2.0 Hoody with EGS box this time .

Different animal to the 1.6, lots more grunt , unfortunately she hates it with a vengance . same issue - EGS , it's never entirely natural and you often have to 2nd guess what you - or the box is going to do next / try and remember what you did last ? Another issue for her is not been able to easily reach the electro handbrake button ( which she also hates ) without either removing her seatbelt or sliding the seat forward . At 6' 3" with primate limbs , even I have to really lean forward .

I hear Ford have now ditched the electro handbrake on some models ?

On the upside - 47 mpg average including traffic.

As mentioned by others , you end up doing a two feet shuffle in :- tight places , reversing or parking , no clutch slip but you end up braking against the engaged clutch , no gradual take up like a slush box . which can't be good long term ?

You end up caressing the loud - pedal as though it were a land mine , then overbraking with the left foot as the clutch engages suddenly . neither is it easy to learn your way around it since the clutch takes up with varying degrees of sudden - ness at any particular time making it almost impossible to just use your right foot .

Same conclusion as the 1.6 for me , I could live with it , but would I want to ?

I'll wager most women will not like the egs at all ?

[Citroenmad]

I probably said elsewhere in this thread, but I know of a few people who have ditched their GP C4s earlier than expected in favour of another car just because of the EGS box. It really is a bad idea in my opinion.

Ive not driven an EGS, nor do I want to rush out and drive one, but our Sensodrive Peugeot was the same type of thing. That would not let you use two feet for parking up to things, you could for a few seconds but it would catch on and disengage the clutch. It was also slow at gearchanging with big pauses between gears, I know this is the same as a 2.0HDi EGS Pic as ive been in one and it did the same, very annoying! It doesnt make for a smooth drive at all. Our Peugeot had 110bhp but the box made it seem more like 90bhp.

I wouldnt recommend one, so much more to go wrong too. Have either an auto or a manual, but not an automated manual.

Ive no idea what the trend is with electronic handbrakes either, ok so it saves a bit of space and means you can have a fridge (this is a car isnt it?!) or a large cubby to store some rubbish in, excellent, its still a car! Its going to come with some major controls around the interior!

I mean, I wouldnt even mind too much if they are all automatic, so as soon as you let out the clutch (or press the accelerator in a EGS) the handbrakes releases. Our ScenicII did this and it did make it a boon in stop and go traffic. However I don't believe the C4 Pic does this, I think you actually have to press the button to release it? You certainly do in a C6, a bad feature in my opinion, there is no advantage in it in that case.
I drove a new shape Audi A4 "tourer" recently (a uselessly shaped estate which isnt really an estate, as the boot is tiny, so its a "tourer") which had an electric parking brake, with that you had to press the button to disengage the parking brake, but it would still be on until you let out the clutch. A good idea but why do you need to press the button!

Things are far far too complicated on cars at the moment, car designers should look back at cars from 20-30 years ago and get a few tips on simplicity! They try to make cars more efficient to run, a true efficient car is simple to fix and consumes few parts while lasting a long time. Many modern cars will be scrapped much earlier as they cost a fortune to fix. A LR specialist was telling me to change a clutch in a new Discover3/4 the whole body needs lifting off, LR want £2000 for removing the body alone. When its a few years old it will be a throw away car, just like so many others.

Come on car manufacturers, when will you learn, less is more!

Sorry, slight rant

[myglaren]

Chris, the Audi system is automatic but you have to engage the clutch AND at the same time depress the throttle pedal. No need to push the button if you do that.
You have to wear your seatbelt too or it will never release.

[DickieG]

Chris, the Audi system is automatic but you have to engage the clutch AND at the same time depress the throttle pedal. No need to push the button if you do that.
You have to wear your seatbelt too or it will never release.

If you press/hold down the handbrake button at the point of applying the drive/releasing the clutch the handbrake will release even though you're not wearing a seatbelt, works on A6's anyway.

[Sl4yer]

I mean, I wouldnt even mind too much if they are all automatic, so as soon as you let out the clutch (or press the accelerator in a EGS) the handbrakes releases. Our ScenicII did this and it did make it a boon in stop and go traffic. However I don't believe the C4 Pic does this, I think you actually have to press the button to release it? You certainly do in a C6, a bad feature in my opinion, there is no advantage in it in that case.

The C4 can be set to release automatically, which is great. It also engages automatically when you switch the engine off. Or at least it should... My dad's threw some warnings the other week as he was parking, and he noticed after switching off that it hadn't applied the handbrake. He applied it manually and all was well (and it hasn't done it again since) but it's an accident waiting to happen in my opinion.

I checked the handbook for driving style advice with the EGS box (following a suggestion further up this thread) - nothing.

James