Real World Economy?

[Saabfan]

Hi to all, as my names suggests i'm a big fan of Saabs but find myself needing something with a lot better fuel economy than my 9-5. As an ex Xantia owner i know how good Citroen diesel engines are but how bad their electrics can also be. :) I'm used to the luxury and gadgets of my Saab so i'm looking at buying a MY02-04 C5 with a high spec. What sort of economy can i expect from both the 2.0 and 2.2HDi engines in both manual and auto version? I know that government/manufacturer provided figures are light years away from real life figures. I'm currently getting 18mpg urban and 31mpg on motorways from a 2.0 auto. :( The way fuel prices are rising i'm gonna need to sell a kidney to run the Swede so its gotta go!

[Randombloke]

What sort of economy can i expect from both the 2.0 and 2.2HDi engines in both manual and auto version? I know that government/manufacturer provided figures are light years away from real life figures. I'm currently getting 18mpg urban and 31mpg on motorways from a 2.0 auto. :) The way fuel prices are rising i'm gonna need to sell a kidney to run the Swede so its gotta go!

 

The answers for the 2.2 HDi manual are here.

 

I have a friend with 2.2 auto which he drives very gently, economy is from 30 to 40 on motorway trips.

 

The newer 6 speed seems to be more economical.

 

Fuel economy round town does suffer somewhat on the 2.2 IMV.

[72dudes]

Ah, this is my speciality subject!

 

I keep detailed records for all cars I have owned over the last 15 years, as I always brim to brim, note mileage, litres and convert.

 

Real world economy for my 2.2 HDi hatch is an average of 44.4 MPG over 11,500 miles in the last 15 months. This is really close to the gov. combined figure 44.1.

 

On a long motorway run, cruising at around 75, it'll do up to 49, but journeys around town knock it down to mid/high 30's.

 

I would expect the auto to achieve high 30's on average.

 

The 2.0 HDi should be more economical, but remember that the gearing is lower and the engine has less torque so works a bit harder. Driven gently, expect mid/high 40's.

 

As another ex Saab man I know your issues - I had a 9000 2.3t auto which averaged 28.4 over the 12k miles I had it, but round town took it down to 18 ish, as you say.

 

Hope this helps.

[paul.h]

I have a 2004 2.2 HDi hatch, 6 speed manual and the fuel use is similar to 72dudes. My previous car was a Saab 9-5, 2.3t, this would give about 30 mpg compared to the C5 about 44 mpg. The Saab gave about 75% of the miles of the C5 per gallon eg motorways 48-50 vs about 36. Towing the C5 gives about 30 vs 24.

[Johndouglas]

My C5 does around 46mpg on the motorway, with a town/motorway average of 40. Towing a caravan manages about 30mpg, but increase the towing speed and the economy suffers.

[myglaren]

I've had an '02 C5 estate 2.0 HDI 110 for six months and do as 72dudes does.

Since buying it my usual mileage of 2,000+ miles per month has dropped to 400 miles over 4~5 weeks.

 

It does 400~450 miles per tank, always wait for the red light then fill to the brim. Short urban trips only, around 4 to 15 miles per trip (I know!).

The last three fills have been chipfat er.. BioDiesel.

This has had no impact whatsoever regarding perceived power or range. It's only 80p/L so that has been the only discernible advantage other than being green and smug.

 

Did my first 'long' run a week ago, 250 miles at speeds not particularly advisable or economical.

 

Under all conditions I'm returning an average of 31.6 MPG . Min: 29.68/Max: 33.39

 

I know this defies the perceived wisdom but my Accord 2.0iLS did exactly the same, driven at 50MPH or 120 made no difference to it.

 

My Xantia 1.9 Turbodiesel was far more economical and substantially quicker. 36MPG around town and up to 70MPH on long relaxed runs (two passengers)

 

Anyone else any Biodiesel experiences? a mate at work has a Berlingo and filled up with bio and his MPG dropped to about 10! (He has had it chipped so that may have an impact.

[shallishanti?]

I have a 52 plate 2.0 HDi manual estate.

 

It is used for my daily commute which is 6 miles per day urban and 52 miles per day on the A1. I try to drive at 75mph on the A1.

 

Doing this it averages 41mpg. This equates to 600ish to the tankful.

 

Driving it at 60 or at 85 seems to make no difference - tyre pressures seem to have more effect.

[Guest sirdrinksalot]

I have an 02 plate 2.2 hdi. i average 35 mpg around town (and i have a very heavy foot :ph34r: )

on longer journeys i do maybe 100 miles motorway then 60 miles on country roads and still manage 45+ mpg with speeds above and beyond :)

[72dudes]

That sounds pretty good sirdrinksalot, especially with a heavy right foot!

 

However, I think myglaren's car might not be fulfilling it's potential - I'd expect 31 mpg from a 2.0 petrol. Unless this is all short journeys of course?

 

Just checked my records (anorak!), best tankful to date 50.4 MPG, worst tankful 40.1 MPG.

[Guest stephendrak01]

my c5 did approx 40mpg on a run down to france, 2.0hdi 90 saying that we were not haging about 80-90mph all the way in france

 

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e186/stephendrake01/sigeee.jpg

[myglaren]

However, I think myglaren's car might not be fulfilling it's potential - I'd expect 31 mpg from a 2.0 petrol. Unless this is all short journeys of course?

 

They are almost all very short trips, as I said, 4-15 miles.

 

I took it in for a service last week, had it six months and M.O.T. is due in a month. Apparently one of the injectors is leaking, going back tomorrow to have that done, new front brake discs, rear calipers refurbishing as they are corroding and running out of line, so most likely new discs there too and if it all goes horribly wrong, new calipers too. Also a new fan belt pulley.

 

Maybe the economy will improve with the injector repair. Who knows?

 

The car was serviced when I bought it and I only checked the service booklet when I took it in to be stamped. Could have waited another 18,000 miles. Damnit!

[tonedepear]

Another saab man here. My 1992 9000 turbo (auto) averaged low 20s at best. My 2001 9-3 2.2 td averaged low 40s iirc. I now have an '02 C5 2.0 hdi (110) estate which at best gets 41mpg on a run. General average over a week for me is about 35. I'm pretty disappointed with it tbh, as I'm sure my old 1.9 td xantia was noticeably better on fuel and quicker. Aside from that it's a lovely bus, on a par with the 9000 for comfort and space, which not many things are.

[Guest sirdrinksalot]

managed 550 miles on £60 fill up at tesco probably the best ive had so far ;)

[Big Al]

I have an '03 C5 2.2 HDI manual estate and am averaging 44mpg over a mixture of town and fast A roads plus the occasional motorway stretch. These aren't trip computer numbers, but actual tankful to tankful measurements. This gives circa 630 miles per tankful (my best was 650). I drive pretty gently, just using the performance to overtake (on boost the car is pretty fast). Driving with a heavy foot all the time will lower the range to closer to 500 miles per tankful/36mpg. These cars are sensitive to driving style which is why I think some people are disappointed with the mpg. My old 2.1 TD Peugeot 406 manual estate was less sensitive to driving style, but didn't have the performance of the C5. However, even with relatively small throttle openings you can make decent progress and keep up with the traffic no problem. My verdict on the car after 6 months of ownership (2nd owner from new) is very positive. It's done 75k miles and shows no signs of being unreliable. Only fault so far is a defective tyre pressure sensor (which I think may have been damaged by a tyre fitter). As long as they are serviced properly (including the DPF) they are fine. If you can find a good local Citroen specialist you will probably get better service than from a Citroen main dealer at around half the hourly labour rate.

[Randombloke]

I have an '03 C5 2.2 HDI manual estate and am averaging 44mpg over a mixture of town and fast A roads plus the occasional motorway stretch.

 

Hi Al,

 

You driving a five or six speed?

[Big Al]

Hi Al,

 

You driving a five or six speed?

 

Hello Randombloke,

 

5-speed. It's the later 5-speed box with reverse to the left and up. Actually I think it is the 6-speed box without the 6th speed if you see what I mean. But the ratios are the same as for the earlier 5-speed (as found on an '02 car for instance)

[Guest Terry Toye]

Ah, this is my speciality subject!

 

I keep detailed records for all cars I have owned over the last 15 years, as I always brim to brim, note mileage, litres and convert.

 

Real world economy for my 2.2 HDi hatch is an average of 44.4 MPG over 11,500 miles in the last 15 months. This is really close to the gov. combined figure 44.1.

 

On a long motorway run, cruising at around 75, it'll do up to 49, but journeys around town knock it down to mid/high 30's.

 

I would expect the auto to achieve high 30's on average.

 

The 2.0 HDi should be more economical, but remember that the gearing is lower and the engine has less torque so works a bit harder. Driven gently, expect mid/high 40's.

 

As another ex Saab man I know your issues - I had a 9000 2.3t auto which averaged 28.4 over the 12k miles I had it, but round town took it down to 18 ish, as you say.

 

Hope this helps.

Hi,

I have Sept 2006 C5 2.0HDI 138bhp Auto Exclusive Estate.

I am also a bit of a nut in that I take VERY careful record of everything done (& put in) to my car. i.e. The last 5 years in my 2.1TD XM Auto, I got 37.9mpg over 80,000 miles.

 

So - Problem with my C5. My trip says I am doing about 42mpg over the last 2000 miles BUT, fuel in to miles done measures 37mpg. That's 15% innacurate. I'm an Engineer and that kind of error makes it little better than a toy.

5% out would be acceptable - 15% is a joke.

Moral - Don't rely on the Trip reading unless you have proved that it is accurate.

Citroen Dealer's answer - It's only a guide. Hmmm!

 

The thing that grips me, is that the version of my car with the manual gearbox is supposed to have 47mpg combined cycle, where mine with the modern 'advanced' 6 speed auto adaptive gearbox only gets 38mpg on the combined cycle. My experience with my car confirms this.

SO, after over 60 years of Automatic gearbox design & manufacture, how come this 'advanced' gearbox's fuel economy is 20% worse than the manual ????

all the best

Terry Toye

[72dudes]

Hi Terry,

 

I agree, as I like the idea of a diesel combined with an auto box. But you are right, the vast majority of auto gearboxes just drink a lot more juice. The only exception seems to be the VW/Audi group DSG box which is a dual clutch "automated manual". This gearbox is slightly more economical than its manual conterpart, in some instances. But I think I'm correct in saying that nobody has yet managed to connect a DSG box to a diesel.

 

Your 37 mpg doesn't sound too bad, but as you say it's a long way from 47 on the manual car or even my 44 with the older 2.2 HDi engine.

 

My fuel computer is much more accurate than yours, I reckon within 4%. A more helpful dealer would offer to recalibrate yours with a software download. I had this done with a Volvo S60 I once had when I complained that the computer was optimisitic. But then that's Volvo dealers!

I always reset the computer at each fill up, if you don't, you will find that the computer becomes less and less accurate.

 

My wife's car is a Rover 200 1.6 with a CVT auto, and the bl**dy thing barely reaches 30mpg average!

[Randombloke]

Hi Terry,

 

I agree, as I like the idea of a diesel combined with an auto box. But you are right, the vast majority of auto gearboxes just drink a lot more juice.

 

Most auto boxes waste energy heating the ATF in the torque converter at some point or another. Especially with diesel, best economy comes from using the enormous bottom end torque, which is where an auto box always wants to change down, with their history of optimisation for petrol engines. A diesel can be made to pull the higher gear when driven manually.

 

Your 37 mpg doesn't sound too bad, but as you say it's a long way from 47 on the manual car or even my 44 with the older 2.2 HDi engine.

 

There's a sweet spot for fuel economy on the 2.2 HDi H3+ cars at about 67 mph. That's just before the car drops 11mm at the rear and 16mm at the front to create more down force for extra stability. In doing so, it also creates more drag.

 

My fuel computer is much more accurate than yours, I reckon within 4%. A more helpful dealer would offer to recalibrate yours with a software download.

 

I'm wondering if my display upgrade affected the fuel economy calculations. That software update is very cheap, see elsewhere on this forum for details.

 

So - Problem with my C5. My trip says I am doing about 42mpg over the last 2000 miles BUT, fuel in to miles done measures 37mpg. That's 15% inaccurate. I'm an Engineer and that kind of error makes it little better than a toy.

 

Did you get the car from new, and if not are the tyres the right profile? Does the speedo also read optimistically? Worth checking with a GPS.

[shallishanti?]

My computer is pretty much spot on for fuel consumption - within half a mpg.