Which Engine 1.6, 2.0 Or 2.2?

[madassmax]

Hi,

 

I'm starting to look around for  a replacement for my BM 525 estate, having had a Xantia a few years ago i'm considering a C5 probably around an 07 plate.  Main reason for this is I remember my oil burning Xantia being very frugal on the fuel gauge.  The beemer is currently returning around 20mpg which I just can't keep up with financially.

 

The majority of my milage is local for work, around 600 to 800 per month but very little motorway miles.  So which engine should I go for is the current question?  The 1.6 has very good mpg figures and low annual road tax so that's jumping out at me at the minute.  Having said that am I going to be spending all my time thrashing it because theres no power there, thus ruining the mpg?  Not sure if theres any difference in reliability for either variations, wouldn't have thought so.

 

Would need to be an estate model just for ease of transporting the dog and the obligatory 6 monthly trip to Ikea, however, i'm not ruling out a hatch if there was good reason to go with it?

 

Anyone with any views or suggestions please feel free to comment, would be very interested on your point of view on this.

 

Thanks in advance :)  

[paul.h]

A lot of people here would suggest avoiding the 1.6hdi, it is a bit underpowered for a heavy car (is great in our C4) but more importantly can be prone to turbo failure if the oil is not changed regularly. So any fuel savings could be lost in maintenance costs.

 

The 2.0hdi may be the one to go for but the problem may be in sourcing a car, took me about a year to find a decent low enough mileage one not too far from home and then it was a 2.2 hdi. The fuel economy between the 2.0 and 2.2 is probably not that different and the road tax is the same. Mine is used mainly for longer distance motorway miles and towing a caravan. Unless it is used for short trips through town with stop/start drinving, about 45mpg should be possible and I get about 45-55 mpg on motorways depending on driving speed/wind direction.

 

Before the 2007 estate we had a 2004 earlier model 2.2 hdi hatchback - this is almost as large a boot but gave slightly better fuel economy on the motorway - however, I prefer the estate, partly since the mark 2 C5 handles better and the estate is enormous with the back seats down, plus being a heavier car is better for towing the caravan. If the passenger front seat is moved forward, you can get an Ikea 2m wardrobe in. You will find the C5 takes a lot of beating for comfort/smooth ride and they are amongst the more reliable cars. Beware that at about 70k miles the exhaust particle filter needs replacing, cost several £100, but many instead have it removed/drilled out and a software mod so the ecu does not try to inject the eolys fluid which burns off ash in the filter.

[Johndouglas]

Yes - I go along with what Paul has said.   The 1.6 is under-powered for a car as heavy as the C5.   And there's the well doumented turbo trouble.     An owner on another forum has both a 2.2 and a 2ltr.   According to him, the fuel consumption on the 2.2 is quite a bit more than the 2 ltr.   Mine is a 2ltr and over a month the fuel consumption usually comes in at around 45mpg.   I also tow a caravan with it which usually gives 28.5mpg.   But for the benefit of other caravanners - I recently drove back from southern Spain in appalling snowy conditions, at least for some of the way.   Because of the slush on the road for about 150 miles, I put the car in 5th gear, set the cruise to 50mph, reset the fuel readout and was amazed that for the 150 miles, I got 34.5mpg.

 

Also, as far as the particle filter goes, to avoid the expense of refilling the Eolys container, the filter can be removed without any ill-effect.   Mine was removed 18 months ago with the ECU being modified, and at MOT time, the smoke test shows just a slightly higher figure.

Edited March 19, 2013 by Johndouglas

[madassmax]

Thanks for the informative replies, sort of compounds what i thought might be a problem with the underpowered 1.6 unit.  Looks like the 2.0 mite be the one to look at then if i can find one?

[DaveHerns]

This months Car Mechanics magazine has an excellent article on the Mk 2 C5 as a used car purchase , They recommend the 2.0 Hdi 138BHP 6 speed manual version

[Randombloke]

I have had the Mk 1, driven the Mk 2 and now have a Mk 3 with H3+.

 

The Mk 3 is so much better a drive, but is really only a BX sized car.

 

For lugging stuff about, the Mk 2 is the best. It is much bigger inside than the Mk 3, but I find the performance even of the lowest power 2.0 136 HDi amazing, and with 50+ MPG on long runs without have to drive slowly.

 

The Mk 1 simply isn't as well built or sorted as the Mk 2 but is much, much cheaper.

[DaveHerns]

I've been toying with getting a Mk3 but I find them a bit cramped being 6' 2" and 20ish stone .Rear legroom is pitiful

Plus there's so many toys on my Mk2 Exclusive that I wouldn't get on a Mk3

Bolingmores wrote to me about a Mk3 Exclusive Estate they had - probably a cancelled order .It had everything , cost £28K+ but was on offer for £24K .I'm afraid that if I was going to spend £24K on a replacement I'd put my money into a Volvo V70 to avoid such heavy depreciation

[HDI Hatch]

We had no bother with a 2002 2.2HDI 136bhp engine in ten years and 110,000 miles of use, beyond a crankshaft pulley being found to be delaminating the rubber section at about 90,000 miles and a failed rocker cover gasket at about 100,000 miles. The car cruises happily at motorway speeds and still returns in excess of 45 mpg. It has had Millers diesel fuel treatment in almost every tank of fuel since the factory warranty expired.

Edited August 17, 2013 by HDI Hatch

[Johndouglas]

 a crankshaft pulley being found to be de laminating the rubber section at about 90,000 miles

The whole range has similar pulleys.   Some go sooner than others it seems.