New Poster And Some Questions Already

[djuwenda]

Hello I am a 35 yeard Frenchman who has been living in the UK for about 15 years.

 

Despite my very first and strongest automotaive memories being mostly about my father's DS "super 5" (cause it had 5 gears and that good enough to shout about) I have never actually owned a citroen. 

 

 

I like the idea of the C5 and had a test drive saturday in a 2.2hdi 173hp 09 plated example from a dealer with 95k on the clock.

 

 

When we started the test drive it took a good few minutes of fiddling with the ride height button to get the rear to go up. We then heard a "clonk" and the rear went to what looked like the correct ride height and off we went.

 

For the first 30 seconds after that, the front end was extremely bouncy, it was actually quite comical and I could see how embarrased the salesman was.

this then appeared to sort itself and I was treated to a lovely driving experience. It was my first time driving a hydraulic susser and I thought it was extremely good. I tend to drive way too fast and thought this car would actually help me keep my speed down as it felt so tranquil and unhurried.

 Nothing else of significance came up during the test drive and I would like to find out if the symptoms described above could be attributed to the car having been stood for a couple of weeks?

 

I also did notice when I parked the car, after switching the engine off , I put my hand on the fron tyre, driver side and felt vibrations, and activity which I assumed must have been to do with the suspension.

 

I did like the car, and I would be keen to make an offer on it, but I wonder if the sympytoms I describe are normal or likely to point to a more important problem?

[Johndouglas]

You unlock a C5 and by the time you are seated, the suspension should be at its 'normal' level - even before you start the engine. It shouldn't be necessary to move the height control. Even if the suspension had been left at the 'wrong' height, the vehicle would correct itself by the time you had reached 20mph. Obviously there is something not right with this vehicle. It may be that the height correctors are just 'sticky', but it might also be something more expensive.    Also the 2ltr engine as fitted in most C5s is considered to be better and more reliable than the 2.2. The vibrations you felt at the front wheel after you had switched off would more than likely be the suspension pump still running. It's situated under the bonnet over the o/s front wheel.

 

Unless you can obtain a reasonable warranty and an undertaking that the fault has been corrected, I would leave it. 

[djuwenda]

right... thank you very much for the answer.

 

Back to the drawing board. I still fancy a c5 though. Off to hunt a 2.0 now.

 

 

I must say I was very underwhelmed by the engine performance and thought there is no way that unit gives out 173hp. I drive vw cars with similar( and lower outputs ) and the engines feel much stronger.

 

a 2010 passat 140bhp feels a much much more repsonsive car than the C5 did.

 

As explained, its better for me to look for something of a slightly more sedate nature though.

[Parkesie]

Sounds like the hight sensor linkage snapped on the one you test drove. My car had a similar sounding crazy suspension moment following a clonk as the sus went up.

[Johndouglas]

Back to the drawing board. I still fancy a c5 though. Off to hunt a 2.0 now.

Consider a C5 in VTR form from around 2010 onwards. You'll get a 160bhp 2 ltr engine on a platform that has normal steel suspension. Much less to go wrong without the hydropnuematic suspension of the Exclusive models. Don't get me wrong! The Citroen suspension gives a fantastic ride and can go for years without trouble, but the VTR's are undoubtedly simpler to maintain.

[FridgemagnetC5]

The Hydractive suspension is the only reason I drive a Citroen; it certainly ain't for the electrics. I've got a 2007 2.2 173 bhp, and I've driven a 2008 Mk3 with the same engine, and there's a huge difference - the older car is much faster (this is evident in the official 0-60mph times too). I can only assume the Mk3 is heavier. That said, the later 2.0 160 bhp Mk3s are, for some reason I don't understand, faster than the 2.2 173 bhp on the same chassis. Better fuel economy too.

 

I'd give the 2.2 Mk3s a miss, and sadly all the Mk3 saloons too as I need to carry stuff (why did Citroen lose both the hatchback and the rear windscreen wiper?), but I'd be tempted by a 160 bhp estate. But not for a few years as I'm quite fond of the one I've got at the moment.

 

If it's Hydractive 3+ suspension you're after then it's very confusing as to which models have it fitted. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe only the 2.2 HDI (and 3.0 V6 petrol?) in the 2001-2008 range had it; all the rest were mere Hydractive 3, no matter what the trim level. In the 2008+ range only the Exclusive models have 3+, no matter what the engine size. All the rest have spring dampers. Sometimes an advert will claim a 2008+ C5 is an Exclusive when it isn't: the way to tell is that the Exclusives have an electronic handbrake.

[djuwenda]

oh, the car I tried did have an electronic handbrake, but that was a VTR+

 

anyways thanks for all the replies and input, I used to have a 406 coupe and the experience was made much better by the wealth of knowledge and the attitude shared on the related forum, much similar to this one.

 

for me buying the 2.2 I thought, was being clever because it affroded me a higher rate or repayment for mileage from my employer (from 0.15 for a 2l engine to 0.18 for an engine ove 2.0l)

 

but that only works if reliability is there and if fuel consumptions are comparable

[FridgemagnetC5]

 

 

oh, the car I tried did have an electronic handbrake, but that was a VTR+

OK, now I'm confused! The real giveaway for the Hydractive 3+ suspension in the 2008+ models is the presence of the height adjuster buttons, on the centre console near the handbrake. There should be a "Sport" button between the up/down buttons, indicating H3+.

 

Go to Autotrader and compare the fuel consumption figures for the 2.2 (173 bhp) and 2.0 (160 bhp) engines. The 2.0s are much more economical, and even though you'll get £0.03p less per mile in expenses you may find the better fuel economy more than compensates.

 

My 2007 2.2 (173 bhp) will do about 50 mpg at 70 mph (115 km/h). The same engine in a 2008+ is a couple of mpg worse off.

[djuwenda]

I should have pointed out the car I tried was an 09, sorry!

 

point taken on the mpg, makes my life easier.

 

back to autotrader!

[FridgemagnetC5]

It's just a personal thing, but I would avoid the 19 inch alloy wheels and go for the standard 17 inch, just because they're more comfortable. Also less likely to be damaged on big potholes in the road.

[djuwenda]

thanks, I hate oversized wheels. They put unecessary strain on the drive train, do nothing for the dynamic ability of the car (unless the road surface has race tarmac quality) and make rubber more expensive... a complete con.

[Parkesie]

Not only exclusives with the hydractive suspension on the mk3 vtr with auto box's have it aswell.

[rednose66]

I have a 2.2 Hdi 2008/9 model. I love it. I drove a similar spec Vauxhall last week for two days and was severely underwhelmed. If I had the cash I would be seriously considering a new one.

[djuwenda]

does anyone on here happen to live in in Kilmarnock?

a bit of a long shot I know!

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Citroen-C5-2-0HDi-16v-160bhp-VTR-NAV-/181415355307?pt=Automobiles_UK&hash=item2a3d32a3ab#ht_1883wt_1275

Edited June 5, 2014 by djuwenda