Hi folks. I've recently joined the Citroen XM forum and been directed over here by those helpful chaps.
I'm keen to join the ranks of the hydropneumatically cosseted and having initially been keen on an XM I think that might be more of a challenge than my lifestyle can currently support.
So I'm wondering about a diesel C5. The 2003 2.2hdi appeals (6 speed, Hydractive 3+ (I think?), cheap) but I'm very much open to options and would welcome any advice. There are many many more 2.0s so that might become a decider.
Hello! (Citroen C5 2.2hdi 136 2003)
Moderator: RichardW
- white exec
- Moderating Team
- Posts: 7445
- Joined: 21 Dec 2015, 12:46
- Location: Sayalonga, Malaga, Spain
- My Cars: 1996 XM 2.5TD Exclusive hatch RHD
1992 BX19D Millesime hatch LHD
previously 1989 BX19RD, 1998 ZX 1.9D auto, 2001 Xantia 1.8i auto
and lots of Rovers before that: 1935 Ten, 1947 Sixteen, 1960 P5 3-litre, 1966 P6 2000, 1972 P6 2000TC, and 1975 P6B 3500S - x 1752
- Michel
- (Donor 2022)
- Posts: 2207
- Joined: 29 May 2017, 13:50
- Location: Nothanks
- My Cars: Some cars and a motorbike
- x 659
Re: Hello! (Citroen C5 2.2hdi 136 2003)
Jay P wrote: ↑13 Nov 2018, 10:46 Hi folks. I've recently joined the Citroen XM forum and been directed over here by those helpful chaps.
I'm keen to join the ranks of the hydropneumatically cosseted and having initially been keen on an XM I think that might be more of a challenge than my lifestyle can currently support.
So I'm wondering about a diesel C5. The 2003 2.2hdi appeals (6 speed, Hydractive 3+ (I think?), cheap) but I'm very much open to options and would welcome any advice. There are many many more 2.0s so that might become a decider.
I'd be more concerned about your sanity than anything else, running an XM as your first Citroen I've had three....
C5s - I've also had 3 of those, I'd be tempted more by a 2.0HDi of that age, and the 2.2 *can* be problematic with it's emissions equipment, but you should be ok if you are going to fix it yourself and invest in a Lexia diagnostic kit. I'd rather have a 2.0 as the power difference isn't that much, and the 2.0 is much more economical. If you want more power, have it remapped..
Whichever you go for, check the struts for bad leaks, check all the Heating, aircon and ventilation works properly - the flap motors can fail, which results in you being cooked or frozen, depending on how they've failed. Sit in it, and go through every switch and check it's item functions. Oh, and any creaking or cracking from the rear end over speed bumps or uneven roads - rear suspension arm bearings. FIxable, at a cost. Probably about £300 for a garage to do it.
Nice cars. In fact, I might have talked myself into looking for one.
-
- Posts: 7
- Joined: 13 Nov 2018, 10:40
- Location: Brighton
- My Cars: Mondeo
Citroen C5
Citroen XM
Citroen CX - x 2
Re: Hello! (Citroen C5 2.2hdi 136 2003)
Thanks Michel. The reason I'm interested in the 2.2 is that it seems only that one has the hydractive 3+.
I still can't quite figure out, despite lots of reading, whether the hydractive 2 in the XM gives a similar ride to the 3+ in the higher end C5s.
My impression is that the 3 (no +) has significantly more body roll than the 2.
And more than once I've read that 3+ in comfort mode is most comfortable, but that body roll is only reduced in sport mode which eliminates many of the benefits of the hydractive system. Which seems not to be something the XM suffers from - it seems to have the best of both worlds in most driving conditions.
Does that sound right? I guess the system in each case has to be working well for a fair comparison.
As has been mentioned there's reading online is no substitute so I'll try and check a few out.
I guess I'm thinking the XM would be for the future if my circumstances change. And I'm hoping to find the particular C5 that's the best substitute for now.
I still can't quite figure out, despite lots of reading, whether the hydractive 2 in the XM gives a similar ride to the 3+ in the higher end C5s.
My impression is that the 3 (no +) has significantly more body roll than the 2.
And more than once I've read that 3+ in comfort mode is most comfortable, but that body roll is only reduced in sport mode which eliminates many of the benefits of the hydractive system. Which seems not to be something the XM suffers from - it seems to have the best of both worlds in most driving conditions.
Does that sound right? I guess the system in each case has to be working well for a fair comparison.
As has been mentioned there's reading online is no substitute so I'll try and check a few out.
I guess I'm thinking the XM would be for the future if my circumstances change. And I'm hoping to find the particular C5 that's the best substitute for now.
- GiveMeABreak
- Forum Admin Team
- Posts: 36996
- Joined: 15 Sep 2015, 19:38
- Location: West Wales
- My Cars: C3 Aircross SUV HDi Flair Peperoncino Red (The Chili Hornet)
C5 X7 2.0 HDi Exclusive Mativoire Beige (The Golden Hornet)
C3 1.6 HDi Exclusive Aluminium Grey (The Silver Hornet)
C5 MK II 2.0 HDi Exclusive Obsidian Black
C5 MK I 2.0 HDi SX Wicked Red
Xantia S2 2.0 HDi SX Hermes Red
C15 Romahome White
XM 2.0 Turbo Prestige Emerald Green Pearlescent
XM 2.0 Turbo Prestige Polar White
XM 2.0 SX Polar White
CX 20 Polar White
GS 1220 Geranium Red
CX 2.4 Prestige C-Matic Nevada Beige
GS 1000 Cedreat Yellow - x 5644
Re: Hello! (Citroen C5 2.2hdi 136 2003)
These really can't be compared like for like as they are mechanically and electronically 2 completely different systems - chalk and cheese.
The XM still uses mechanical pumps and pulleys, different spheres, different fluid and has different suspension geometry.
For the C5 MK I & II:
Hydractive 3
Hydractive 3+
On the MK III (X7), the Hydractive 3+ system has an additional rear centre sphere, making 2 of these at the rear. The MK III has a firmer ride anyway than previous C5s.
In all C5 cases the sphere pressures and the damping hole diameters are different upon system, suspension type (H3 / H3+) and engine type
The XM still uses mechanical pumps and pulleys, different spheres, different fluid and has different suspension geometry.
For the C5 MK I & II:
Hydractive 3
- Fitted with 2 spheres on each axle.
- The suspension is linked to vehicle speed and to the condition of the road surface.
Hydractive 3+
- Fitted with 3 spheres on each axle.
- The suspension is linked to vehicle speed, to the road surface condition and to the user’s driving style.
On the MK III (X7), the Hydractive 3+ system has an additional rear centre sphere, making 2 of these at the rear. The MK III has a firmer ride anyway than previous C5s.
In all C5 cases the sphere pressures and the damping hole diameters are different upon system, suspension type (H3 / H3+) and engine type
Please Don't PM Me For Technical Help
Marc
Marc
- white exec
- Moderating Team
- Posts: 7445
- Joined: 21 Dec 2015, 12:46
- Location: Sayalonga, Malaga, Spain
- My Cars: 1996 XM 2.5TD Exclusive hatch RHD
1992 BX19D Millesime hatch LHD
previously 1989 BX19RD, 1998 ZX 1.9D auto, 2001 Xantia 1.8i auto
and lots of Rovers before that: 1935 Ten, 1947 Sixteen, 1960 P5 3-litre, 1966 P6 2000, 1972 P6 2000TC, and 1975 P6B 3500S - x 1752
Re: Hello! (Citroen C5 2.2hdi 136 2003)
The full glories of Citroen hydraulic suspension systems (including Hydractive, H2, H3, H3+, Activa) are digestibily described here:
http://citroen.tramontana.co.hu/en/the- ... ical-guide
Download the Guide (pdf).
Required bedtime reading (if you haven't already)!
http://citroen.tramontana.co.hu/en/the- ... ical-guide
Download the Guide (pdf).
Required bedtime reading (if you haven't already)!
Chris
-
- Posts: 7
- Joined: 13 Nov 2018, 10:40
- Location: Brighton
- My Cars: Mondeo
Citroen C5
Citroen XM
Citroen CX - x 2
Re: Hello! (Citroen C5 2.2hdi 136 2003)
That's a great resource! Lots to take in but quickly jumping to the end it seems to answer the question.
So the H3+ is pretty similar in its effects to the H2 (in XMs).
And H3+ is quite different from H3, particularly where body roll is concerned.
So if i can find a decent one with H3+ (probably a 2.2 as I'm after a diesel) then that's the one to go for.
Thanks Chris, you're a mine of great info!
So the H3+ is pretty similar in its effects to the H2 (in XMs).
And H3+ is quite different from H3, particularly where body roll is concerned.
So if i can find a decent one with H3+ (probably a 2.2 as I'm after a diesel) then that's the one to go for.
Thanks Chris, you're a mine of great info!