which is a better car?

[FarmerPug]

thats really good economy, i get about 40mpg on my 2.0 and thats for a load of short trips, its running very nicely, gets injector cleaner every tank. I think the clutch might have something to do with some energy getting away.

[OdinEidolon]

thats really good economy, i get about 40mpg on my 2.0 and thats for a load of short trips, its running very nicely, gets injector cleaner every tank. I think the clutch might have something to do with some energy getting away.

Yeah but then I drive extremely carefully and most of the time on the motorway at 70mph.
Most people don't pay attention to economy but with the right attitude you an go as fast and get a 20% better mpg.

[FarmerPug]

true, I'm still getting over the shock the pedal on the right can be pressed at different pressures as opposed to full or nothing
But even 40mpg is quite good compared to the clio, and most of my family do similar driving, my uncles golf does about the same, only my grandparents polo sdi and dads lpg nissan are cheaper to run than the 406.

[waue1978]

I've been looking at a 2.2 with 100k odd on the clock,apparently it's had a new fap(whatever that is lol) etc at 80k odd,my 110 is a good car but is just a bit lacking in go although it's dead reliable,i just don't want to jump out of the frying pan into the fire if you know what i mean,tax is £60 a year more and the insurance goes up 5 groups for the 2.2.It's the reliability issue that bothers me as the 110's seem to go on forever and ever but i'm not sure about the 136's? are they still good for big mileages?

If it's the same one that I've spotted (shiny red one - won't post up a link), it looks to be a good one. Only down the road from Doggy too. Don't write off the 2.2 as being too much thirstier either as it really depends on your driving style. When I was looking at the C5s not so long ago I was resetting the trip computer & found that they seemed to be slightly better than my 110 due to the better power band.

Well i struggle to go past 50mpg on the 2.2 and I'm really slow. But I have 2 knakered injectors (doggy helped me out with the other 2), EGR problems and still the FAP. Without those problems I'd be likely to get 55+ mpg.
For the use I make of the car (70% motorway, 20% big 50mph country roads, 5% mountain roads and 5% city) I bet I'd be able to get 60 with the 110.
My real mileage is in the link below, not bad for a car this age.

What'd worry me when buying a 2.2 would be insurance and tax. Still, if I had gotten the 110 instead of the 136, I'd have regretted it, the 2.2 is so smooth even with the problems I have.

I don't get over 50mpg in my 110. Town running gives me 30-34mpg & a motorway run gives 45mpg. Admittedly I have got a bit of extra weight in my car with the estate body & the extra rear seats in the boot, but 2 of the C5 2.2s that I drove showed 36mpg on the computer on an urban test drive with me booting it a couple of times at low speeds in high gears (to test for clutch slip) & from cold.

[OdinEidolon]

Well I guess that means I'm a master at consuming little fuel

[mjb]

Well I guess that means I'm a master at consuming little fuel

*COUGH* 46mpg average from North Germany (707 miles) on less than one tank of fuel (70 litres of unleaded) with 2 passengers, myself, and the car filled to the brim with luggage. Including a couple of city stops and quite a few rest/pee breaks for the weakling passengers

...in a V6 coupé.
...hitting rush hour around Antwerp

I think you'll find that the crown is mine!

[OdinEidolon]

Well I guess that means I'm a master at consuming little fuel

*COUGH* 46mpg average from North Germany (707 miles) on less than one tank of fuel (70 litres of unleaded) with 2 passengers, myself, and the car filled to the brim with luggage. Including a couple of city stops and quite a few rest/pee breaks for the weakling passengers

...in a V6 coupé.
...hitting rush hour around Antwerp

I think you'll find that the crown is mine!

Yes, master. Yes, it's definitely yours.

[rwb]

doesn't disco usually win this argument?

not with his C5 though

For town driving I'd have a 90: less power, less fuel, and shorter gearing (than the 110) means you can get into 5th quicker. You can dribble a 90 round at 30 in fifth if it's flat.
I got my 59.5 below mainly doing 70 miles every day in flat Berkshire on the M4 doing 56 with the wagons.
However, if I'm driving on business and doing 70+ then it's hard work and it drinks.

For serious motorway driving it's between the 110 and the 2.2, and I think it really depends on how fast you want to drive. If you need to get your foot down and expect to pay for the diesel then I'd have the 2.2. If you want to take it a bit easier and save the diesel then the 110.

See also: pros and cons between 2.0 and 2.2 HDI's from last year.

[OdinEidolon]

doesn't disco usually win this argument?

not with his C5 though

I don't trust the trip computer. always see between 4 and 5 L/100KM (70-56 mpg) on it even if it's actually doing 50mpg.

[sunexim]

I am thinking of changing my 2002 Rapier 110 hdi estate and wondered which is a better car for reliability and running costs,would a remapped 2ltr 110bhp hdi or a standard 2.2ltr 136bhp hdi be a better buy?

My friend have a 2.0, which i think is quite better with 110 bhp (enough for 406).