|
|
Test of C5
2,0i 16V SX
|
|
|
|
The
steering wheel has a nice feel, as do the switches -
but either the
wheel was misaligned or there was something wrong with
the binnacle
moulding since I could hear it scraping inside as I
turned the wheel.
|
The
door mounted window/mirror switches are mounted on a
panel that moves
as you operate them. The switches for the
electric windows are
confusing.
The tachometer is too small, is
calibrated in single digits and has no red line.
The
seats are an improvement over those fitted to the
Xantia thanks to a
longer squab but they are surprisingly firm after the
XM’s hedonistic
creations. I did not like the textile used, a sort of
pseudo velvet
that is too light and therefore guaranteed to show up
the dirt and
would probably be unpleasant to sit on with bare
flesh. I kept my
trousers on so did not test this hypothesis.
|
|
The
driving position is good, one sits up high and there
is good forward
visibility but the dual focus mirrors are confusing
since two images
appear in them.
The gearchange
was excellent, being precise and with a nice feel to
the knob, the
clutch was light and progressive. However, every
time one selects
reverse, a loud electronic BONGGG! sounds – this would
infuriate me and
I never did determine whether it could be
silenced.
The
brake pedal required very low pressure and, since it
does not employ
high pressure hydraulics, has a long travel.
However, it doesn't feel
radically different to the fully powered set up which
in turn begs the
question why, if it was consumer hostility that was
responsible for the
change, did they engineer a braking system that is so
similar in feel?
The brakes pulled to the left on this car.
Electronic brake assist is
very effective but does make a drama out of hard
braking and it took me
a while to fathom out that you have to reset hazard
flashers by
pressing the hideous red button or by accelerating.
|
|
|
The steering felt imprecise, it
was nicely weighted but a bit dead in the straight
ahead position.
The
handling was good - mild understeer, but rear steer
was obvious feeling
almost feels like the onset of oversteer - you have to
unwind the
steering and then wind it back on. Lift off in
the middle of a fast
bend and the same thing happens. While this
might be fun on a race
track, it feels disconcerting on the road.
Perhaps one gets used to it
and learns to trust the car but I did not like
it. My XM also has
passive rear steer and the effect is absent - the XM
goes where you
point it, without drama or fuss.
The
car also suffered from noticeable torque steer and if
this is
noticeable with this engine, it must be very
noticeable with both the
diesel and V6 - unless the additional weight of these
two engines masks
it.
|
|
The
2 litre engine is surprisingly torquey at low revs for
a 16 valve unit,
although it really only comes on song between 3000 and
maximum revs.
Maximum
torque is generated at 4100 rpm. There is a
throaty growl on
acceleration but it quietens down when cruising.
Use of the gears is necessary if
you want to make rapid progress.
Much of the underbonnet is covered
with plastic cowlings
|
|
|
But
what of the ride? Is Hydractive 3+ any advance
over Hydractive 2 or
even regular hydropneumatics? Hydractive 3 comes
in two forms -
regular Hydractive which is analogous to the
hydropneumatic systems
fitted to the D, SM, GS, CX, BX, lesser Xantiae and
lesser LHD XMs but
with the added refinement of automatic ride height
adjustment.
Hydractive 3+ is analagous to Hydractive with a Sports
setting,
automatic ride height adjustment and auto-adaptive
facility whereby it
reads your driving style. This car was fitted
with Hydractive 3+. The
ride was firmer than the XM but I was less aware of
the suspension
switching modes. Rough road surfaces were handled just
like any well
engineered conventional set up and broken tarmac in
the middle of a
bend were transmitted into the cabin, through the
wheel and could even
throw the car off line.
The
ride seemed more consistent than in either of my
XMs. Body roll was
subdued - turn into a bend and the car leans slightly
and then, just as
you expect it to lean more, it doesn't. Very
impressive indeed.
There
was very little transmission of road noise into the
cabin but the car
pitches diagonally on some road surfaces. Couple this
with the torque
steer, the pulling brakes and the rear steer effect
and it feels less
stable than either an XM or VSX Xantia. As
expected, the sport setting
made the car feel tauter.
|
|
|
The
two electronic ride height switches (why is it that
all too often,
using electronics means the replacement of one control
with two?) were
neat as was the electronic display of ride height
selected (above left,
above right and below left).
I
was unaware of the automatic ride height in operation
(the ride height
is lowered by 15 mm at the front and 11 mm at the rear
at speeds above
68 mph and raises itself to the normal height
when speed drops below
56 mph).
Using the manual controls, the car
changes height much more rapidly than any
hydropneumatic car I have ever driven.
|
|
|
|
©
2001 Julian Marsh/Citroënët
|
|
|