Tester’s notes - All Comments

re: Audi's lost quality

minesaseat — Fri, 16 May 2008 14:46:06 GMT

Well if you like Audi 'quality' and don't like the price - buy a Skoda or Seat. Most Audi buyers (and other 'premium makes') are only buying the badge, unless you have mega bucks and buy a top spec sports model i.e. S something or other. May I commend the cute, fun, comfortable, genuine quality, and quick Seat Leon, it sort of reminds me of a Porsche inside and the 200hp version is a lot of fun on a real world budget.

re: Britain's most pointless car?

scook2003 — Fri, 16 May 2008 14:07:04 GMT

The Warranty Holdings repair survey ranks Citroen as the fifth cheapest of all listed manufacturers, and eighth overall for reliability. The company is ahead of the Germans on all counts.

According to the other sources you cite, the least reliable manufacturer is Land Rover which, until very recently, were part of Ford.

---------------------------

Cheapest to repair, well I guess thats an advantage but I would prefer one that doesnt break in the first place.

www.whatcar.com/.../7588125111.jpg

Shame you had to mention LR when we are talking Ford, guess you couldnt find any other information?

However as you did, you can see from (link) above LandRover although unreliable are more so than Citeron, this is 2008 data. As you can see all the French makes down the bottom as I said.

Its true that the older population would probably prefer the Citroen, no offence but im guessing your 50+? It does have the more comfy less dynamic feel about it.

For anyone who appreciates a dynamic drivers car all reviews would point towards the Mondeo, in fact its been rated better than the BMW for quality and its handling.

re: Britain's most pointless car?

ThwartedEfforts — Fri, 16 May 2008 13:06:55 GMT

The Warranty Holdings repair survey ranks Citroen as the fifth cheapest of all listed manufacturers, and eighth overall for reliability. The company is ahead of the Germans on all counts.

According to the other sources you cite, the least reliable manufacturer is Land Rover which, until very recently, were part of Ford.

No, I don't want a Mondeo!

re: Britain's most pointless car?

scook2003 — Fri, 16 May 2008 11:07:54 GMT

John McIlroy May 16, 2008 11:18 AM

I don't think the C5 is any more poorly screwed together than a Mondeo, really.

---------

John if you look at the quality of the two products Ford are leaps and bounds ahead, recently they have excelled in this.

You need to look at industry data for TGW or things gone wrong and look at the spend on warranty. You will find Ford near the top nearer to Honda and Toyota and you will find the majority of French firms down the bottom.

re: Britain's most pointless car?

scook2003 — Fri, 16 May 2008 11:03:06 GMT

The fact that the French are trying to sell it as being German says it all really doesnt it?

re: Britain's most pointless car?

ThwartedEfforts — Fri, 16 May 2008 10:49:32 GMT

The 2.7 litre C5 has 18-inch wheels - your press car may even have had 19s for a photo shoot - whereas the rest of the range has more ordinary 16s and 17s. That is the cause of the added road noise, and the reason it's so noticeable is only because the rest of the car is so quiet. It's not like the C5 is worse than any rival shod with the same rubber, is it?

Most of us have at one time or another bounced along in borderline discomfort in an Audi or BMW with rubber bands for tyres, and it's no fun at all on today's roads. Your mini-review has moved on from labelling the car as pointless, to scoffing at the marketing and complaints about iffy ride quality, and now you're telling us it's noisy? Not sure about anyone else, but I'm beginning to not believe you.

re: Britain's most pointless car?

John McIlroy — Fri, 16 May 2008 10:19:50 GMT

Oh, and you do have a point about in-gear acceleration. I haven't checked but I'm sure the 2.7 does have an extra wallop of torque to help in this area over the 2.2. Whether or not it's worth shelling out an extra few grand for this is another matter...

John

re: Britain's most pointless car?

John McIlroy — Fri, 16 May 2008 10:18:31 GMT

I don't think the C5 is any more poorly screwed together than a Mondeo, really. It's not as involving a drive, though - and I was disappointed that elements that I'd consider safe ground for Citroen, such as ride quality, weren't as accomplished as I'd expected. The car suffered particularly badly from tyre/road noise.

As for your age comment, it has resulted in much amusement in the office, I can tell you... :-D

John

re: Britain's most pointless car?

julianphillips — Fri, 16 May 2008 09:05:47 GMT

I see what you mean. But when you see Sibbo's post above, where he says "French cars are badly screwed together, and fall apart easily", you can understand why Citroen want to build up this association!!

Apologies for the "fifties" remark in my first post.

re: Britain's most pointless car?

John McIlroy — Fri, 16 May 2008 08:30:36 GMT

Julian,

You're missing my point slightly. It's not whether the Citroen is a well built car or not (it felt solid enough to me, yes); it's the fact that someone in the marketing department believes this 'association' with German traits will persuade the general public that it is well built...

As for resale, in 18 months' time it'll be a bargain...

John

re: Britain's most pointless car?

ThwartedEfforts — Thu, 15 May 2008 22:59:46 GMT

Citroen has a boggling array of cars in the 'B' CO2 category (i.e. taxed at just £35 per year), so it's not as though the company hasn't got its eco-act together.

Primarily the C5 2.2 is a four-banger manual. That means if you really want a six cylinder auto with which to hoof it up and down the country and continent, the 2.7 litre - pref. in Tourer form - is the one that fits the bill. It's a very large, soothing, quiet car, and a very large, soothing, quiet engine is the perfect accompaniment to it. You can chip it to 250bhp if that's what you feel you need, and come on, it's not as though it's diesel debauchery anyway - it returns over 40mpg on a run.

The Mondeo is a nice car but very dull. It's also very dull to see it presented as the default choice in this sector over and over again, when car buying is so often about what your heart tells you to do. A motoring hack should understand why more than just a few people will be actively seeking a Citroen instead of the Ford - perhaps even a pointless one with two extra cylinders.

And sure, while the French company's advertising is a bit odd (to say the very least), you're the one giving them the repeat marketing they crave...

re: Britain's most pointless car?

Sibbo — Thu, 15 May 2008 20:08:40 GMT

The fact they need to imply it is German is damning and says it all. French cars are badly screwed together, and fall apart easily. My father in law's 4 year old Laguna is a fine example. Bits were falling off it as soon as it left the showroom.

I would never put any of my hard-earned into anything with 4 wheels which is made by the French or Italians (unless they live in Modena, but then there isn't enough hard-earned for that).

re: Britain's most pointless car?

julianphillips — Thu, 15 May 2008 18:56:09 GMT

www.ae-plus.com/.../cc-Citroen-news14.htm

Might be of interest; although it doesn't prove that the C5 is a good car.

re: Britain's most pointless car?

julianphillips — Thu, 15 May 2008 18:35:43 GMT

"...a serious attempt to suggest that the C5 is German and therefore well built, efficient and likely to hold its value well. Erm."

John - Erm it is well built, very well built in fact. On the efficiency side, not sure what you mean but it is certainly econmical in all senses of the word - as a car in diesel guise and as an economical model for Citroen's finances: Although I currently work in the heavy duty US truck component market, I have worked on Euro projects with several of the automotive components suppliers who were involved in the C5 - Johnson Controls, Behr, Bosch and ArvinMeritor - and I can tell you that it was built to raise credibility as a rival to the German brands WHILST also saving costs on the component side. Certainly from the industry side of the market it is regarded as a high quality product. Perhaps the advert will help to persuade the car buying public of this as well.

As far as holding its value, maybe not compared to list price, but as I implied earlier - and your friend at Autocar Mr Ruppert may agree (hopefully) - the list price is totally irrelevant. The real retained value that a car like this will hold is in fact very strong, at least expressed as a percentage which is what CAP and Glass's would have you believe is all important, because it is likely to be so heavily discounted at the front end. This is why it is cheaper for me to choose a C5 over a similarly priced/engined/specced Mondeo as a company car, because the depreciation is minimal thanks to a lower front end cost and the RV isn't all that different from the Ford. This applies to corporate or private buyers, so I would say it does hold its value well. This is ignoring the fact that it is massively better than its predecessor and this may result in a stronger RV than the low-ish one that CAP and Glass's have predicted.

re: Britain's most pointless car?

John McIlroy — Thu, 15 May 2008 17:58:23 GMT

I don't deny that Ride of the Valkyries is a terrific piece of music. I just don't see what it's got to do with a French car...