C5 Maintenance Expenses Petrol vs HDI
  • Register
  • Help
Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    1000+ Posts Ken W's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    North Brisbane
    Posts
    1,927

    Default C5 Maintenance Expenses Petrol vs HDI

    One of my friends is thinking of getting a C5 HDI as his next car and was wondering about the above. So I would like to get some idea of how these compare for general maintenance expenses like service intervals, cambelt change costs and intervals and any extra special things that Diesels need to have replaced during the first five years or so.

    Advertisement


    I guess there are no spark plugs but there are glow plugs that I have heard need replacing in BX diesels, and the batteries are bigger and probably more expensive to replace.

    Thanks for your future comments

    Ken W

  2. #2
    Member tom currie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Bundanoon NSW Australia
    Posts
    30

    Default maintenance

    Having had both a C5 V6 and, currently, a diesel 2.2, I wouldn't think there's be too much difference in normal, regular maintenance costs between the two. I would add that, under no circumstances, would I adhere to the recommended 20,000 intervals between oil and filter changes. Oil is the cheapest form of maintenance and I never go beyond 6 months or 10,000km. More often than not I change the oil in my cars at 5,000km. Some may consider this to be too often and I expect it's up to the individual. I also had the oil and filter changed at the first service.

  3. #3
    1000+ Posts Ken W's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    North Brisbane
    Posts
    1,927

    Default Fuel Economy Petrol 2.0l vs HDI 2.0l and 2.2l

    I've just been doing some more research and it seems that quoted fuel consumption for the 2.2l HDI (Urban 9.8 l/100km) is significantly worse than for the 2.0l HDI (Urban 6.8 l /100km).

    Any ideas why???

    The 2.0l petrol on urban is quoted as 11.1 l/100km which only 13% worse than 2.2HDI????

    Could it be that the system for measuring fuel consumption has changed earlier this year?

    Ken W
    Last edited by Ken W; 13th November 2005 at 07:17 PM.

  4. #4
    Member tom currie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Bundanoon NSW Australia
    Posts
    30

    Default 2.2 HDi Fuel Consumption

    So far my ffuel consumption in the 2.2HDi is 6.7 l/100 on a recent trip to Queensland and back (including some running around in Toowoomba and Brisbane) and 8.0 l/100 around town.

  5. #5
    Fellow Frogger! Trixie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    495

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken W
    I've just been doing some more research and it seems that quoted fuel consumption for the 2.2l HDI (Urban 9.8 l/100km) is significantly worse than for the 2.0l HDI (Urban 6.8 l /100km).

    Any ideas why???

    The 2.0l petrol on urban is quoted as 11.1 l/100km which only 13% worse than 2.2HDI????

    Could it be that the system for measuring fuel consumption has changed earlier this year?

    Ken W
    The AS 2877 fuel consumption testing method changed a year or two ago to better replicate real conditions - and figures are higher as a result, if perhaps not that much more realistic .
    John

    2005 Renaultsport Clio 182 Cup - French Racing Blue
    2008 BMW 325i M-sport steptronic sedan - Alpineweiss
    2010 BMW 320d Touring Innovations - Space Grey

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Melbourne, Vic.
    Posts
    34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken W
    I've just been doing some more research and it seems that quoted fuel consumption for the 2.2l HDI (Urban 9.8 l/100km) is significantly worse than for the 2.0l HDI (Urban 6.8 l /100km).

    Any ideas why???

    The 2.0l petrol on urban is quoted as 11.1 l/100km which only 13% worse than 2.2HDI????

    Could it be that the system for measuring fuel consumption has changed earlier this year?

    Ken W
    Ken
    The urban consumption for the 2.0 HDi is 8.9 (in the Owner's Manual), not 6.8 L/100. And 8.9 is realistic in my experience. The figure of 9.8 for the 2.2 HDi is some 10% higher; this is because
    (a) the car is 10% heavier thanks no doubt to the improved crash rating (what nonsense these rules are!!)
    (b) the engine is 10% bigger displacement (who needs it?)
    (c) the fuel system (I strongly suspect) is the original Year 2000 Bosch at 135 Mpa with only 2 injections per cycle. The smaller European delivery engines (2.0 and 1.6 L, manual transmission only) definitely have a new Siemens fuel system at 160 MPa with up to 6 injections per cycle. My point is that if CitroŽn could offer a 2.0 automatic with the new Siemens fuel system, the fuel consumption would probably be the same as before in spite of the added mass.

    Just for the record: My 2002 2.0 HDi delivers 6.0 or better on the highway, and 8.5 around town.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •