Have a picture of Citroen C5 SX 2.2 HDi?, please send it to us.
Picture courtesy of Peter Walecki.
| Performance | 6.9/10 |
|---|---|
| Practicality | 7.5/10 |
| Reliability | 5.1/10 |
| Value for Money | 6.4/10 |
| Reviewer Rating | 5.6/10 |
| Overall Rating | 5.4/10 |
| Performance | 10/10 |
|---|---|
| Practicality | 10/10 |
| Reliability | 8/10 |
| Value for money | 10/10 |
| Overall value | 9/10 |
| | |
Value for money
Performance / ride / handling
Equipment fit
Water runs from tailgate iinto boot when it is wet
Some reliability problems.
My Citroen C5 was purchased in June 2002 at nine months old, 5,900 miles ( probably an ex Citroen UK management car), and it has just had its 25000 mile service ( £163 ) albeit early at 23500 miles.
Problems have been limited to :
1) A failure of the ignition system aerial that detects the security chip in the key ring, preventing the car starting. This was rectified next day by the dealer.
2) A recurring "Anti-Pollution" fault warning. The manual says this indicates a serious engine fault, which was unfortunate as at the time we were on our way on holiday with a car and top-box load of luggage, bicycles etc. The problem was only solved after 4 seperate visits to the dealer, each of between 3 days and 2 weeks. However each visit was covered by a hire car ( Vectras, Mondeo, Bora ) each of which made us want our C5 back! At least it reduced my mileage in the C5 to only 18K for this year.
3) The drivers seat side bolster foam has split where the frame mounting for the arm rest presses on the back of it. The foam is to be replaced under warranty.
Many early C5 owners complained of banging noises from the back axle. This is not a problem I have had, however when I collected my car after its service I was told a new back axle is to be fitted as an improvement modification. At least Citroen have seen the need to introduce this mod fleet wide, not just on those cars which have been complained about.
In terms of everyday running, the C5 is hard to fault. Performance is terrific, particularly acceleration when overtaking, and whilst fuel consumption at 40 mpg falls somewhat short of the declared 44 mpg combined figure, it does better my previous smaller/lighter 1.6 petrol-engined car by 10 mpg over the same routes. Provided the reliability does not deteriorate from here, I anticipate remaining very happy with the car.

| Helpful | Unhelpful | Agree | Disagree |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Total Respect: +11
vmitchell
on 13th Aug 2004
blister on 1st Sep 2004
rossted on 19th Nov 2004
rodneysmith on 16th Jul 2005
tombeer77 on 4th Aug 2005
vmitchell
on 2nd Sep 2005
rodneysmith on 6th Sep 2005
rickhough
on 28th Sep 2005
vmitchell
on 28th Sep 2005
vmitchell
on 14th Oct 2005
russmngt on 21st Dec 2005
kamdealwis
on 19th Feb 2006
kamdealwis
on 20th Feb 2006
vmitchell
on 21st Feb 2006
kamdealwis
on 23rd Feb 2006
vmitchell
on 23rd Feb 2006
vmitchell
on 2nd Mar 2006
kamdealwis
on 6th Mar 2006
troman on 5th Jun 2006
ejsnapp on 7th Jun 2006
ejsnapp on 8th Jun 2006
vmitchell
on 21st Jun 2006
monolith on 9th Jul 2006
wilsonfok on 28th Jul 2006
Sydman on 12th Aug 2006
vmitchell
on 14th Aug 2006
TomAr on 26th Aug 2006
itsmeagainalan on 12th Nov 2006
colin asndrew on 15th Nov 2006
bruce riches
on 5th Feb 2007
mikekill on 8th Mar 2007
johnnie99 on 15th May 2007
marvyn on 19th Feb 2008
Paul sussex on 28th Feb 2008
felman on 28th Mar 2008