It's not unusual. A work colleague has a Subaru Forester and it only came with one remote, as did his previous two Foresters. Others brands skimp too.
How reliable is the C5? - No Rose coloured glasses please
- Thread starter GTI124
- Start date
UFO said:
307 came with one remote and one remoteless service key. I asked for two PLIP keys and was charged $122 for the second one.
Mind you, it took almost two months for me to get the key, despite ordering it well over a month before taking delivery.
C5 HDi turbo lag
Bob, I'm interested by your reference to turbo lag. I have never been conscious of this, although I would class the acceleration of my 2.0 diesel as "leisurely". Is this the same thing? And the 2.0L engine definitely has a variable geometry turbo., it's not a new feature on the 2.2L.
Bob Cav said:
Bob, I'm interested by your reference to turbo lag. I have never been conscious of this, although I would class the acceleration of my 2.0 diesel as "leisurely". Is this the same thing? And the 2.0L engine definitely has a variable geometry turbo., it's not a new feature on the 2.2L.
Turbo Lag
Bob Cav
Roger; By Turbo lag ;I mean the initial hesitation on take off that is (or was) a characteristic of Turboed motors until recent developments and it is caused by the Turbo not being effective before engine speed rises and exhaust gases become effective in driving turbo vanes (blades) and thus increasing intake pressure. I'm sure "Shane " would be able to explain better with more tech, detail at any rate the car I recently traded (2 litre Diesel C5 Auto') had a definite "pause" if you like, on take off before a noticable surge as the turbo kicked in and it was annoying at intersections etc, where instant take off' is important in Sydney traffic conditions at any rate.When you say that your car is "leisurely" what are you comparing it to! I did not find mine slow or leisurely as you say, once it was rolling compared to any run of the mill 1600 to 2 litre cars petrol or diesel, on the road. And as I have said on this site before it climbed hills like a six. For instance the 2 litre C5 diesel auto would hold the hill going south towards Mittagong(Catherine Hill?) on cruise control in top without changing down or losing more than 2 kms per hour anywhere between 90 to 130 kms per hour ,try it, if yours doesn't do it ,then it needs to be tuned.I wasn't sure whether the 2 litre motor had the same Turbo as my new 2.2 (variable geometry)I have owned 43 cars of all descriptions and many of them new over 39 years, v8's xr 8 /Fairlane/ Honda Accord (2)Disko's (3) Landcruiser's,/ Prado,/etc, etc ,etc, this 2.2 C5 is the best most comfortable ,most enjoyable car to drive "that I have ever bought"Roger said:
Bob Cav
turbo lag etc.
Bob
You have opened up a topic that I find deeply interesting.
Firstly I would liken my C5's acceleration to that of an electric train, rather than the "Apollo lift off" favoured by the "traffic light" brigade. (But I just refuse to "flatten it" - this technique reportedly allows you to more or less keep up with the Commodores.)
Secondly there is the "diesel factor", that is the high engine inertia resulting from the heavy construction of a diesel engine.
Thirdly there is the "turbo lag". Older turbo technology (still employed by Japanese diesel manufacturers I think) uses a crude motorised damper to divert the turbo discharge to atmosphere when inlet manifold pressure becomes excessive (such as at idle). When you accelerate from a standstill you have to wait until that damper closes to get turbo assistance. It is an "on/off" situation. On the other hand, the modern variable output turbo (as used in the C5 HDi) has no damper, so no lag.
Fourthly, I have always been of the opinion that the key determinant of driving pleasure is the engine's peak torque together with the shape of the torque curve (the flatter the better) and the gearbox ratios provided. The peak power in kilowatts (so emphasised by motoring journalists) is irrelevant.
Bob Cav said:
Bob
You have opened up a topic that I find deeply interesting.
Firstly I would liken my C5's acceleration to that of an electric train, rather than the "Apollo lift off" favoured by the "traffic light" brigade. (But I just refuse to "flatten it" - this technique reportedly allows you to more or less keep up with the Commodores.)
Secondly there is the "diesel factor", that is the high engine inertia resulting from the heavy construction of a diesel engine.
Thirdly there is the "turbo lag". Older turbo technology (still employed by Japanese diesel manufacturers I think) uses a crude motorised damper to divert the turbo discharge to atmosphere when inlet manifold pressure becomes excessive (such as at idle). When you accelerate from a standstill you have to wait until that damper closes to get turbo assistance. It is an "on/off" situation. On the other hand, the modern variable output turbo (as used in the C5 HDi) has no damper, so no lag.
Fourthly, I have always been of the opinion that the key determinant of driving pleasure is the engine's peak torque together with the shape of the torque curve (the flatter the better) and the gearbox ratios provided. The peak power in kilowatts (so emphasised by motoring journalists) is irrelevant.
Roger; I find your reasoning a little odd, you say ,your C5 has mediocre acceleration and "then" you go on to say you refuse to flatten it! there is something inconsistent here?. As for the analogy with the electric train, this is accurate there is nothing more linear than electric trains and the C5's acceleration can best be described as linear (after the initial delay in 2 litre that is! not in the 2.2 though!) I think your so called "diesel factor" I am not able to follow. engine inertia? I assume you are talking here about "reciprocal weights" I always understood the extra weight in diesels was in the block and head, to cope with higher compression and the slow response of diesels or "snap" as we called it in my enduro motor cycle days, was due to the slower burning characteristics of diesel oil over motor spirit. Don't know enough about turbo technology to comment here. As for peak torque early, in C5 1800 rpm and relatively high tourque (320 in 2.2). torque curve flat or "Linear" and the gearbox ratios to "match it" make it ("C5" diesel) indeed a pleasure to drive. And Fourthly ? you are right ,I used to say when "dragging" an XW GT Falcon 2600 rpm clutch dump quarter lock left ,step out ,take off",in my neanderthal years ago when talking to Hold/Chev peddlers "Its not about revs (developing kilowatts) it's about torque. Go and take a 2.2 C5 for a test drive there will be no "inertia" as you call it, the response is instant, the new motor "moves out" very well indeed, no mashing of the peddle just move the throttle 1" down, then begins a "torquefest" My 2.2 seems to be a little dearer to run average, about 1 litre of fuel more than 2 litre. New car 7 litres/100 at this time 3000 kl , it C5 2.2 was "too dear " but at my age it doesn't pay to wait,?,,, Bob CavRoger said:
Roger said:
Guys,
I haven't even driven a C5 HDi. Put it this way it generates what, 320Nm of torque from 1750 rpm upwards. That's as much as older technology V8's. I imagine everything will be effortless, but being a diesel you have heaps of lugging power but not really sheer power, so your not going to be super fast. Gimme a nice effortless torquey motor anyday to a high revving screamer that's a mongrel down low.
I think a lot of it has to do with the modern technology turbo chargers that generate usable boost from very low revs. They have variable turbo vanes and all sorts of technology don't they
Take my 20year old CX. Off boost it certainly has no less power than my old CX2400 5spd. At 1800rpm you can hear the turbo wine upto speed, at 2000rpm it's generating nice amounts of torque (that you notice on the highway or when towing) but no great accellerating power. From 2200rpm it's starting generating decent power, from 2500rpm to the rev limiter it's giving lots of power & torque. So the old tech stuff doesn't really give lots of boost to 2500rpm, the newer turbos develop it from 1750rpm
Yep, I think all turbo car have a slight delay from the time you punch it until full power is delivered (if you listen you'll hear the turbo whine upto speed in that time).
Of course having a proper gearbox manual gearbox would help you a lot :banana: :banana:
seeya,
Shane L.
I've spent a fair bit of time in the C5 and I would describe it as a seriously quick car around town. Off the line it's a bit slow, but I found if you just squeeze the throttle rather than floor it you get the best results. You squeeze until you get to around 20kph and then floor it and hold on to the wave of torque that follows.
In every day traffic where you're not stopping and racing off the line that often (heck I don't even do that in my ST170 anymore!) it's seriously quick once moving. Combine that with a superb ride, compliancy and handling and I think it's a mighty impressive car.
Just need to keep a pack of disposable gloves in the back for filling her up with diesel!
I'll be considering a diesel with my next purchase...especially if I move to the UK!
In every day traffic where you're not stopping and racing off the line that often (heck I don't even do that in my ST170 anymore!) it's seriously quick once moving. Combine that with a superb ride, compliancy and handling and I think it's a mighty impressive car.
Just need to keep a pack of disposable gloves in the back for filling her up with diesel!
I'll be considering a diesel with my next purchase...especially if I move to the UK!
Last edited:
C5 HDi turbo lag
Bob
All the rotating parts in a diesel engine are heavier - Pistons, rods, flywheel. So the "polar moment of Inertia" is higher and tends to slow things down.
The word I used about my C5's acceleration was "leisurely" and I imply "with gentle application of the accelerator" - the nicest way to drive.
Now, I have been looking at Citroën's European web site that has specs. of the 3 diesels available over there in the C5. The interesting thing is that the new European 2.0L (manual trans.) has more torque (320 Nm without overboost) than the Australian 2.2L !! (I suspect that the Australian 2.2 still has the old system of 2 injections per cycle whereas the new 2.0 can deliver up to 6 injections). So, I just don't understand Citroën's logic in offering a 2.2 - unless its injection system is about to be upgraded to bring it into line with the 2.0 (and the 1.6). If you want to check this out, go to Citroën.com, then Products/Private Cars/C5/Engines.
If Citroën Australia could persuade the French to offer the new 2.0 with automatic transmission I might be tempted — but then again, the 150 kg. weight increase with the new models is a huge disadvantage, from my engineering viewpoint.
Bob Cav said:
Bob
All the rotating parts in a diesel engine are heavier - Pistons, rods, flywheel. So the "polar moment of Inertia" is higher and tends to slow things down.
The word I used about my C5's acceleration was "leisurely" and I imply "with gentle application of the accelerator" - the nicest way to drive.
Now, I have been looking at Citroën's European web site that has specs. of the 3 diesels available over there in the C5. The interesting thing is that the new European 2.0L (manual trans.) has more torque (320 Nm without overboost) than the Australian 2.2L !! (I suspect that the Australian 2.2 still has the old system of 2 injections per cycle whereas the new 2.0 can deliver up to 6 injections). So, I just don't understand Citroën's logic in offering a 2.2 - unless its injection system is about to be upgraded to bring it into line with the 2.0 (and the 1.6). If you want to check this out, go to Citroën.com, then Products/Private Cars/C5/Engines.
If Citroën Australia could persuade the French to offer the new 2.0 with automatic transmission I might be tempted — but then again, the 150 kg. weight increase with the new models is a huge disadvantage, from my engineering viewpoint.
GTI124 said:
Sounds like you are now a convert. Have you done any freeway/counttry trips in it? To my eyes that is the car's greatest strength. While around town things are very pleasant, it's a bit big & has a poor turning circle for many shopping centre car parks. I also find there is a blind spot with the door mirrors that I don't get with, for example, the BX that can make peak hour driving tedious. I still think though it isn't a car for everyone, the interior/dash/instruments are quite bland compared to the competition, and if that matters then the C5 won't make the short list. It would be interesting for someone to drive the 240000km C5 in Brisbane to get some idea of how well the car ages, mine is at 70000km now & is still tight & rattle free.
Barry.
Roger said:
Go and visit your local Peugeot dealer, there you will find the new 2.0 l in the 407 and 307hdi 2more kw and 6more Nms as well as a little more efficiency. Drove the C5 and the 407 with a view to leasing one, choice would have been the C5. The ride was better, and dare I say it, the autotranny made it more enjoyable than the 6 spd (coming from a long time manual owner this is strange). When government purchasing power came in to the equation I simply could not go past a WL Statesman, the amount of room for 3 growing kids in the back really clinched the deal not to mention the discounts available from the 3 different makes. Perhaps in 3 years I will again venture down the C5 route when one child will have his own car. Right now any increased driving enjoyment evaporates when 10mins down the road they are argueing about who is taking up too much of the very limited rear seat room available.
Roger;Roger said:
The technique you are using to take off or move off "IS" the most effective I agree, and in the 2 ltre diesel, it would make no difference to the initial response if you 'did' try anything else! the car will move foreward at the same speed if you "mashed the peddle to the floor" ,this is what I have been talking about from the start and trying to get over to you that the 2.2 motor IS different and will respond to a heavy application of the throttle.An incident after purchasing the 2.2 will demonstrate this. After trading the 2 ltre C5 D for the 2.2 D the day came when I had to give the car to my wife, who had of course been conditioned to the first car (2 Litre) We had gone to a plant nursery and purchased a grass tree in an 18 inch pot, took the parcel shelf off to get it in the boot .I suggested my wife drive home I had not thought it necessary to secure the pot as my wife is a very easy driver. When she attempted to turn "right" onto the highway the pot crashed into the back of the boot! Being used to the initial slow response on take off "What I refer to as turbo lag" she was taken completely by surprise by the sudden surging forward of the car and after stopping to check for damage to the boot and "secure the load"? I suggested she take it easy until the new car's throttle characteristics were familiar to her. The fact that you don't necesserily drive in this manner is a matter of choice, and probably, in the interest of longterm drivetrain reliability, the right one! .In my case long term reliability is not an issue I will keep abreast of the new models. Last week "I pressed the little green button" on arriving at the base of the "Barrengarry Mtn in the Kangaroo Valley. I got a clear run up and around those switchbacks to the top and I say again " MAN!THIS C5 2.2 auto IS NOT A SLOW CAR! it pulled like a train up those grades, it sets itself on "turn in" beautifully , "I think the steering weight is perfect" the brakes are progressive and effective( they have now put 1 1/2 inches of free travel into the brake peddle to please those "non citroen types", I preferred the old NO free travel type system) Seriously . I owned an 96 XR 8 and though I don't for a minute claim it to be in that cars class for sheer performance, the C5 is the much better handling car. In short the C5 can be a lot of fun, if you like to drive you will like this car! Its a "go"cart" disguised as a shopping cart! press the green button and see!
Bob Cav
I've have to state a prejudice against diesels right here and now.
The fuel savings are illusory: you've paid for them at the outset with the higher diesel engine price and will continue to pay with higher diesel fuel prices. When something goes wrong out of the warranty period, you will pay b-i-i-i-g time! Any diesel repair will be more costly compared to petrol. Even repairs to items unrelated to diesel/petrol issues can turn out eye-wateringly expensive in some makes of diesels.
If it wasn't for the above, I could almost have fallen in love with the new VW Golf 2.0 diesel that I test drove a few days ago. What a goer!. Has to be said that with its six-speed auto gear box it totally shaded the Cit diesels I have driven - yes, I know it's a smaller car but even so, still weighs 1350 kgs. The first gear feels very low and the surge of torque in second and third took me totally by surprise.
What a shame that Peugeot can't think a bit laterally, take the bit between the teeth and equip their cars with decent auto gearboxes. Certainly, the V6 will come with the six-speed so why not their diesels? Just about any tranny can be "beefed-up" to cope with different torque outputs. Their own AL4 is one which comes in at least two guises according to the mechanics at my dealer.
It pains me to see some carmakers come out with worthwhile mechanical improvements while "my" marque indulges in navel-gazing exercises, after all, five-speed autos are not rare at the C5 price range now. My petrol C5 auto will be staying in the garage for quite some time methinks. Which won't be any cross to bear. I don't really lust for more power, rather, just can't help feeling what a truly great car it would be with another one or two cogs.
Happy motoring all.
jmn.
The fuel savings are illusory: you've paid for them at the outset with the higher diesel engine price and will continue to pay with higher diesel fuel prices. When something goes wrong out of the warranty period, you will pay b-i-i-i-g time! Any diesel repair will be more costly compared to petrol. Even repairs to items unrelated to diesel/petrol issues can turn out eye-wateringly expensive in some makes of diesels.
If it wasn't for the above, I could almost have fallen in love with the new VW Golf 2.0 diesel that I test drove a few days ago. What a goer!. Has to be said that with its six-speed auto gear box it totally shaded the Cit diesels I have driven - yes, I know it's a smaller car but even so, still weighs 1350 kgs. The first gear feels very low and the surge of torque in second and third took me totally by surprise.
What a shame that Peugeot can't think a bit laterally, take the bit between the teeth and equip their cars with decent auto gearboxes. Certainly, the V6 will come with the six-speed so why not their diesels? Just about any tranny can be "beefed-up" to cope with different torque outputs. Their own AL4 is one which comes in at least two guises according to the mechanics at my dealer.
It pains me to see some carmakers come out with worthwhile mechanical improvements while "my" marque indulges in navel-gazing exercises, after all, five-speed autos are not rare at the C5 price range now. My petrol C5 auto will be staying in the garage for quite some time methinks. Which won't be any cross to bear. I don't really lust for more power, rather, just can't help feeling what a truly great car it would be with another one or two cogs.
Happy motoring all.
jmn.
Why do you want more gears? Driving around the C5, the transmission is a bit clunky, but I do like some of things it's trying to do, like holding gears rather than shfting up at the wrong time like most autos do.
You want a 5th gear for what exactly? better cuising or better one-up-manship at the pub? The torque spread of the diesel is so large, what on earth do you need to flipping high in the rev range for exactly? It's returning impressive fuel economy and it drives well, so I'm trully puzzled why you're demanding more gears!
The main reason why we're seeing 5, 6 and 7 speed transmissions is to compensate for the peaky engines that are coming out and to meet new emission/fuel economy standards in Europe. So here we have a C5 diesel (old or new ones) which returns great fuel economy and is so tractable, and the problem is... the gearbox?
The 2.0 diesel that is in the 407 puts out more power but is quite a peaky diesel engine. I believe it's the same 2.0 that is in the Mondeo and Focus TDCIs. A 5 speed box would help that car. The 2.2 that is in the C5 now is torquier down low and puts out lower figures, lower down the rev range. I'm sure the 5 speed would slot in there, but I struggle to see what good it would do...
I can see some of the bad points, but I can't swallow servicing as being an issue with them over what can go wrong with modern fuel injection cars. They're both as complicated as each other. Common rail diesels or direct injection petrol engines, they're both going to be bloody expensive if something goes wrong out of warranty.
I do see that the fuel saving benefits of diesel in Australia are fairly minimal. In Europe it makes more sense with their registration (emissions based) and insurance systems.
You want a 5th gear for what exactly? better cuising or better one-up-manship at the pub? The torque spread of the diesel is so large, what on earth do you need to flipping high in the rev range for exactly? It's returning impressive fuel economy and it drives well, so I'm trully puzzled why you're demanding more gears!
The main reason why we're seeing 5, 6 and 7 speed transmissions is to compensate for the peaky engines that are coming out and to meet new emission/fuel economy standards in Europe. So here we have a C5 diesel (old or new ones) which returns great fuel economy and is so tractable, and the problem is... the gearbox?
The 2.0 diesel that is in the 407 puts out more power but is quite a peaky diesel engine. I believe it's the same 2.0 that is in the Mondeo and Focus TDCIs. A 5 speed box would help that car. The 2.2 that is in the C5 now is torquier down low and puts out lower figures, lower down the rev range. I'm sure the 5 speed would slot in there, but I struggle to see what good it would do...
I can see some of the bad points, but I can't swallow servicing as being an issue with them over what can go wrong with modern fuel injection cars. They're both as complicated as each other. Common rail diesels or direct injection petrol engines, they're both going to be bloody expensive if something goes wrong out of warranty.
I do see that the fuel saving benefits of diesel in Australia are fairly minimal. In Europe it makes more sense with their registration (emissions based) and insurance systems.
Last edited:
G'day GTI124
In the '70's Holden came out with a 2-speed auto when the 3-speeders were almost ubiquitous. The less said about it, the better.
Can't agree with you about the new peaky engines. More cogs is about extracting best performance from a given engine. You can have a lower first and second without having a performance "black hole" between them and a leisurely and economical top gear.
To say that I don't want more power is not contradictory to saying that I want the best performance from an engine. More cogs gives you both performance AND economy. If you are happy with your car then that's terrific. Unless Citroen drops a real clanger with its product I'll be very happy as well.
To digress a little.
My aged father has for years been a Toyota man. He has a Lexus IS300 which he hardly ever drives, ie 3 years old with 7k on the speedo. To me, it's a totally underwhelming car. Compared to the Cit it rides like a billy-cart, whilst performance-wise, any number of much cheaper cars will do it like a dinner. It's a typical Japanese, soulless, technical exercise; one that I have no desire to drive.
Why am I saying all this? Simply, the C5 is so good that the few minuses it has stick out like the proverbial dog's whatsits and, to me, the tranny is not up to the rest of the car.
Enjoy your Cit!
jmn.
In the '70's Holden came out with a 2-speed auto when the 3-speeders were almost ubiquitous. The less said about it, the better.
Can't agree with you about the new peaky engines. More cogs is about extracting best performance from a given engine. You can have a lower first and second without having a performance "black hole" between them and a leisurely and economical top gear.
To say that I don't want more power is not contradictory to saying that I want the best performance from an engine. More cogs gives you both performance AND economy. If you are happy with your car then that's terrific. Unless Citroen drops a real clanger with its product I'll be very happy as well.
To digress a little.
My aged father has for years been a Toyota man. He has a Lexus IS300 which he hardly ever drives, ie 3 years old with 7k on the speedo. To me, it's a totally underwhelming car. Compared to the Cit it rides like a billy-cart, whilst performance-wise, any number of much cheaper cars will do it like a dinner. It's a typical Japanese, soulless, technical exercise; one that I have no desire to drive.
Why am I saying all this? Simply, the C5 is so good that the few minuses it has stick out like the proverbial dog's whatsits and, to me, the tranny is not up to the rest of the car.
Enjoy your Cit!
jmn.
more c5
have now done about 15,000k in '04 2.0 c5 hdi:
1. auto is clunky - most annoying is dealing with ubiquitous 60k/hr speed limit which is right on the cusp of 2k rpm & wants to change up/down & with a clunk - but I appreciate the gear-holding downhill etc
2. no problem with acceleration, pulling/ uphill torque - just fine
3. handles very well, through winding whatever
4. interior room is fine - about the same as my fairmont & with better headroom
5. but - as an old cx driver - i'm trying to work out whether to be disappointed with the hydro suspension?
It's definitely thumpier on any sharp road imperfections, albeit with superior handling generally.
Is this a commonly held view?
Interesting forum, this!
have now done about 15,000k in '04 2.0 c5 hdi:
1. auto is clunky - most annoying is dealing with ubiquitous 60k/hr speed limit which is right on the cusp of 2k rpm & wants to change up/down & with a clunk - but I appreciate the gear-holding downhill etc
2. no problem with acceleration, pulling/ uphill torque - just fine
3. handles very well, through winding whatever
4. interior room is fine - about the same as my fairmont & with better headroom
5. but - as an old cx driver - i'm trying to work out whether to be disappointed with the hydro suspension?
It's definitely thumpier on any sharp road imperfections, albeit with superior handling generally.
Is this a commonly held view?
Interesting forum, this!
C5 suspension
It is 30 years since I sold my ID19 but I think I agree that the C5's Hydractive 3 is stiffer than the old system. Even though it is a very soft ride, you don't get that miraculous ID/DS feeling that was similar to watching a snake "oozing" over any obstacles in its path !! One reason will surely be that the C5 wheelbase (a major factor in achieving a soft ride) is some 400 mm. shorter than that of the Goddess. What was the wheelbase of the CX compared to the C5?
No problems with the auto. in my '02 C5 HDi (40,000 km.), but I do "drive" the transmission if you know what I mean, by feathering the accelerator and anticipating the change points.
jimgc5 said:
It is 30 years since I sold my ID19 but I think I agree that the C5's Hydractive 3 is stiffer than the old system. Even though it is a very soft ride, you don't get that miraculous ID/DS feeling that was similar to watching a snake "oozing" over any obstacles in its path !! One reason will surely be that the C5 wheelbase (a major factor in achieving a soft ride) is some 400 mm. shorter than that of the Goddess. What was the wheelbase of the CX compared to the C5?
No problems with the auto. in my '02 C5 HDi (40,000 km.), but I do "drive" the transmission if you know what I mean, by feathering the accelerator and anticipating the change points.
jimgc5 said:
Hi and welcome Jim,
1. Strange one this, my wife drives our 2002 C5HDi during the week (so I don't get much time behind the wheel), but we had a reason to do quite a bit of driving this last weekend, because there have been a number of comments regarding clunks etc. with the auto, I decided to really put ours to the test. In a combination of city stop start, highway and some nice twisty rural (reasonably steep hills and descents) driving, I could not fault our car - it performed flawlessly with smooth predictable changes. It has impecable manners in traffic and shows no signs of hesitation at city suburban speed limits. We are just not experiencing the clunks some owners complain of.
Why?? I'm not sure, but it may have something to do with who did the pre-delivery and who is currently servicing, which of the software upgrades have or have not been installed etc. What I can say is the combination of HDi and auto can and should work very well.
5. The C5 has a totally different feel compared to a CX, it is much more 'tied down', you only really get that floaty feeling on the highway, it deals with some situations better and many not quite so well, probably a suitable compromise for a modern Citroen. They do handle quite well for a family sedan whether driving fully laden with passengers and baggage or being driven solo, a virtue pretty well exclusive to the marque.
Cheers
Chris
Roger said:
It's all the the setup. Remember how soft and smooth early CX's are... You want to try my '85 model CX, it's *very* firm in the suspenion.
Differences:
--MUCH less bodyroll .... ie: much bigger anti-roll bars
--big suspension cylinders (bigger == more fluid to move through the sphere valve for the same suspension movement == firmer ride)
--The sphere's I think are actually the same.
The biggest change you can easily make is the spheres valveing, the less restrictive to fluid flow they are, the softer the suspension, and the more the car will tend the 'float'. Not something modern car manufactures seem to like.
The Xantia SX I found really dissapointing compared to the VSX. The SX felt like the VSX in 'hard' mode all the time. The rear of the VSX Xantia tends to float slightly.
seeya,
Shane L.