| C6owners :: Forums :: Owners Reviews and Road Tests :: C6 owners and drivers reviews |
<< Previous thread | Next thread >>
|
London to Chamonix in a C6 |
    Please Register to enjoy additional Member Benefits |
| Author | Post | ||
michaelb
 
|
|
||
  Member No: #14
Location: London |
I've had the first chance to sample my C6 on French roads. I was really looking forward to this as French road surfaces are so much better than UK ones that the road noise I had been complaining about should be a non-issue. Sure enough the big Citroën in its natural habitat is very impressive. Yesterday I was many hours at the wheel on a mixture of autoroutes I know very well. The traffic was Christmas-holiday very heavy in places so it would have been a trying drive in a lesser car. The C6 made it a pleasure. I've done this route over the years in many different cars and the C6 trumped them all by a clear margin. The ride quality, the quietness, the grip exhibited on the twisty 'Autoroute Blanche' and the supreme comfort had me feeling more fresh and rested on arrival than ever before. The boot is still too small: two cases of wine, two large squashy sports bags and it's full. We had to pile loads of stuff inside. The auto-wipers were a pain in the salt. They kept thinking the slightest smear of salt was rain and carried on wiping thus smearing the salt even more until I'd have to wash again. This was constant for the whole trip. I know the auto function can be turned off but at 170 kph there was no way I was going to try fiddling with sub-menus. Around 170 kph I heard the wind noise that tonyrome complains of. As I only touched those speeds a few times it wasn't an inconvenience and no worse than the roof gutter whistle I had in my 166 above 160 kph. Slightly annoying was a brake vibration/rubbing sound which took away from the otherwise silent French road surfaces. This rubbing can't be heard on UK surfaces - I don't know how I'm going to go about tracking it down. An interesting comparison for me was getting a lift up to Paris with a friend in his Octavia (petrol) last week. An Octavia is a good solid recommendable product but riding in the C6 on the journey back from Paris this week was night and day, chalk and fromage. Sadly French toll prices really negate any diesel savings. This has been my argument against diesels for years and it really is true. Going from Chamonix to Paris in the Octavia cost €60 in petrol and €40 in tolls: €100 overall. Coming back the same road in the C6 cost €40 in diesel and the same €40 in tolls, or €80. So on the face of it the diesel is more economical but in reality it only saves €20 over that particular route. In France you would have to be doing mega-mileage to make that pay for the higher original purchase price. Anyway, €20 saving or not, the diesel motor was impressive. Powering back to a 150 kph after slowing while waiting for a slower car to get out of the way was effortless. What really illustrated the comfort and silence for us was stopping for the toll booth after a fast run we expected the change in sound levels to wake our sleeping daughter as it would normally do. It didn't. Pulling away on the other side of the toll booth I realised that there is such little difference between motorway speed noise and tickover noise that she simply slept through it undisturbed. That is one comfortable car. |
||
|
|
|||
|
C6Dave
|
|
||
   Member No: #1
Location: Northumberland |
Nice report and I do want to try my C6 out in France. We are thinking about going down to the Loire in May. Have considered it in the past but the drag down to the channel from Northumberland has put us off in the past. Will have to do a bit of planning and see what we can organise. BTW the €20 saving was a bonus. It's the comfort that makes up for the difference between the Skoda and the C6 (but not buying a C6 new!) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
michaelb
|
|
||
|
Member No: #14
Location: London |
michaelb wrote ... I know the auto function can be turned off but at 170 kph there was no way I was going to try fiddling with sub-menus. I finally figured this out today. I know I'm frequently slow on the uptake but it really isn't obvious. Moving the stalk up turns on the wipers, intermittently on the first notch then constantly and full-speed on the next notches. So much so normal. Moving it down switches on Automatic. That much too I had managed to grasp. What had slipped by me was to turn them off completely you have to move the stalk from the Off position (where Automatic action will keep them going when you don't want) to Intermittent then back to Off. Voila. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
C6Dave
|
|
||
|
Member No: #1
Location: Northumberland |
Never thought to post that for you as I thought is was fairly well known, sorry you had to find out by trial and error. The other problem with the auto system is that it sometimes takes it into it's ead to wipe very fast when it should be going slow. Doing the auto off and back on often fails to resolve it and you need to switch the ignition off (with the car stopped of course) and then starting again, but sometimes auto off / on several times stops it, it can be a tad frustrating! |
||
|
|
|
||
|
tonyrome
|
|
||
  Member No: #15
|
Good to hear you enjoyed the journey, Michael! | ||
|
|
|
||
|
michaelb
|
|
||
|
Member No: #14
Location: London |
Can't say I enjoyed the return journey so much  I'm just in the door. 1,100 kms in a day wasn't too bad but the hour and a half delay at the end of it waiting to get through UK Border Agency at Calais took the biscuit. Fair dues to P&O for coping very well with the chaos this created. Disappointed in the consumption too: didn't do spectacular speeds, mostly stuck the cruise control on 140 kph, not much traffic, nice steady pace, but the trip counter told me I only averaged 35 mpg. Maybe it was the cold? Dare I say it - the 166 used to return 30 mpg on the same run! |
||
|
|
|
||
|
C6Dave
|
|
||
|
Member No: #1
Location: Northumberland |
Cruise does affect the consumption more than steady driving or the speed limiter. It's been well proved over at C4owners. When in cruise and say you hit an incline, the car tends to over compensate with a mini surge (often barely noticeable) I rarely use cruise in the UK as the roads are just too busy and I don't like the feeling of not being in control. Still on such a long journey it's nice to have it BTW the cold weather we are suffering also reduces mpg as the engine is running below optimum temperature which is why some countries get supplied with a 'snow-guard' to use where temperatures remain below 10c |
||
|
|
|
||
gmerry
|
|
||
 Member No: #21
Location: Scotland |
Off topic I know, but watching an old Top Gear on Dave and JC managed Basle to Blackpool on a single tank in his Jaguar. Same engine as the 2.7 Twin Turbo C6, so what kind of mileage was he getting? Would we expect the same in the C6. Presumably aerodynamics are no worse for the Citroen. Maybe the Jag is a little lighter? (This was the episode where the 3 clowns had to race back to Blackpool to switch on the Illuminations, one in a Polo BlueMotion, one in a Subaru Legacy diesel estate, JC in a diesel Jag S type |
||
|
|
|
||
|
tonyrome
|
|
||
|
Member No: #15
|
michaelb wrote ... Disappointed in the consumption too: didn't do spectacular speeds, mostly stuck the cruise control on 140 kph, not much traffic, nice steady pace, but the trip counter told me I only averaged 35 mpg. This has been a disappointment for me, too, Michael. I did a couple of Autobahn journeys and had figures of around 32mpg, which is not very good at all. Some of the newer petrol engines would actually improve on this! Dave's right about the cold weather, of course, but those figures were actually obtained when the temperature was around 17C, so it wasn't a factor. gmerry wrote ... Maybe the Jag is a little lighter? The XJ is a LOT lighter! It's made from aluminium and the body weighs the same as a BMW Mini! That's why the Jag had such excellent fuel economy, using the same engine. If you check the figures, you'll see that the XJ had much lower CO2 emissions than the C6 as well, putting it in a lower VED bracket. The C6 is a bit overweight and this affects economy, performance and emissions. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
michaelb
|
|
||
|
Member No: #14
Location: London |
gmerry wrote ... Off topic I know, but watching an old Top Gear on Dave and JC managed Basle to Blackpool on a single tank in his Jaguar. Same engine as the 2.7 Twin Turbo C6, so what kind of mileage was he getting? Would we expect the same in the C6. Presumably aerodynamics are no worse for the Citroen. Maybe the Jag is a little lighter? I remember the programme well. It was instrumental in me buying the C6 once I learnt it was the same engine. Basel to Blackpool is 823 miles. Hats off to Jaguar for achieving that. On Sunday my C6 couldn't get the 557 miles from Chamonix to Calais, I had to fill up on the way. Yes I know the cold weather effects diesels, and yes I know when Clarkson wasn't fooling around for the camera I'm sure it was driven with a feather's touch concentrating on maximum range. Even allowing for that it leaves me disappointed in the C6's economy. My 166, with its 1970's technology 3.0 V6, returned 30 mpg in the same conditions (weather, load, speed, cruise control). |
||
|
|
|
||
|
tonyrome
|
|
||
|
Member No: #15
|
michaelb wrote ... It was instrumental in me buying the C6 once I learnt it was the same engine. Basel to Blackpool is 823 miles. Hats off to Jaguar for achieving that. On Sunday my C6 couldn't get the 557 miles from Chamonix to Calais, I had to fill up on the way. When Jaguar were testing the XJ TDi, they managed to extract 1002 miles out of a tank of fuel - that's 53.5mpg  Just goes to show how important the weight factor is. However, you should note that the XJ TDi has an 85 litre fuel tank, compared to the C6s 72 litres, so about 2.8 gallons more.As you say, though, the modern HDi really should slaughter an old petrol V6 like that of the Alfa but, in some situations, it doesn't appear to be much better .Incidentally, Jaguar also used a new technology they developed to electronically reduce engine vibration on the XJ TDi, which is why, if you drive one, you'll be surprised at how silky smooth and quiet it is! For me, the problems with the XJ are that it is more expensive than the C6 secondhand and it's even longer, otherwise I may have bought one. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
michaelb
|
|
||
|
Member No: #14
Location: London |
tonyrome wrote ... and it's even longer,  Wouldn't work for me then. The C6 already FILLS my parking space. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Owen Snell
|
|
||
  Member No: #58
|
Fuel Consumption Diesel cars generally offer better fuel consumption for 2 reasons: Firstly they use a higher compression ratio and so can get more work out of each piston stroke (simple terms, but generally correct). Secondly, they are much more efficient than petrol engines when on part load. This is because low load running in a diesel is achieved by reducing the fuel input, whereas in a petrol engine it is done with a throttle valve, restricting the air flow, reducing the effective compression ratio and so reducing efficiency. Your larger petrol engine in the 166 will effectively catch up in efficiency terms when the power demand is increased for high speed cruising. Additionally, if you are comparing auto with manual, there will be some transmission losses in the auto when cruising, reducing the benefits of the diesel engine further. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
tonyrome
|
|
||
|
Member No: #15
|
Owen Snell wrote ... Your larger petrol engine in the 166 will effectively catch up in efficiency terms when the power demand is increased for high speed cruising. Yes, that seems to be the answer. I've been surprised and disappointed at the fuel economy of the diesel engine at high speeds. I never expected wonderful economy around town but I was hoping for good economy when travelling quickly and, in that respect, it has been a let down. Owen Snell wrote ... Additionally, if you are comparing auto with manual, there will be some transmission losses in the auto when cruising, reducing the benefits of the diesel engine further. This is probably my biggest gripe of all. Bl**dy automatics! If Citroen had allowed a 6 speed manual option, the car would have had reduced CO2 emissions and dropped under the high VED bracket, plus it would have been more economical and quicker, too. Although it's a 6 speed auto on the C6, it's far too hesitant and doesn't know when to change up. The economy plummets in town when it stays in 3rd and could easily change into 4th, for example. Even the tiptronic mode is limited because the gearbox overrides the selection when it sees fit! If you then add in the transmission losses you mention and the additional weight of the gearbox, it's a real downer. I'd rather have a manual - or a 7 speed DSG. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
michaelb
|
|
||
|
Member No: #14
Location: London |
tonyrome wrote ... I'd rather have a manual - or a 7 speed DSG. Not when it comes to paying to replace clutches. You read some horror stories about the way sequential semi-automatics can eat clutches, even when driven considerately. Even a traditional clutch and gearbox has fairly high consumables costs when there is a large engine and a heavy car involved. On the Alfa forum clutch replacement always seemed to be a major and quite frequent expense but those of us who had sealed-for-life Sportronics never had any costs nor troubles in that department. I have to admit I'm biased, I've driven hydraulic autos since the nineties (with the exception of one brief and painful interlude with a 156 Selespeed). I love 'em and would never go back to pumping clutch pedals again. |
||
|
|
|
||
Go to page >>
|
|
 User Colour Key:Head Administrator, Administrator, C6 owner, Technical Expert, C6 Premier Discount Club |
|
Privacy Policy | Cookie Policy | Site Disclaimer | Contact Details | Warranty | Sitemap | C6 Insurance | Quick Facts | Re Call Info | Downloads | Error Codes
| Site and Graphics created by: C6Dave Forum Icons by Axialis Emotes by Seb | 
|
