Citroen C4 Picasso

Squatman

Hi guys, looking at the e-HDI 1.6 C4 picasso at hte moment, and it is quoted on internet as returning 78 - 85 miles per gallon. Can anyone confirm that? what are they like to run / reliability & servicing wise? citroens of old had a terrible reputation, thanks all.

NIMAN

I don't have one but can tell you for a fact it doesn't get 85MPG.
Or likely not near the 78 either.

TheQuietBeatle

What year is the car?

deandean

ROFL that's a good one!
They're not too bad, you'll prob get mid-late 40's mpg overall.
The killer with these cars is the nonspecific emissions faults, caused by DPF / additive /whatever that seems to be very difficult to diagnose, and has led many of these cars to the scrapper.

bazz26

Take manufacturers figures with a pinch of salt as upto recently these figures were not from real world testing.

Mad_Mike

Where are you even seeing figures of 78-85 mpg for a 1.6 C4 Picasso? I doubt even Citroen themselves would quote those kind of figures. In reality, I know someone who had a 2009 e-HDi 1.6 for about a year, and they reckoned they averaged around 45-46mpg, although would get around 50-51 on long motorway runs

Squatman

Mad_Mike wrote: »

Where are you even seeing figures of 78-85 mpg for a 1.6 C4 Picasso? I doubt even Citroen themselves would quote those kind of figures. In reality, I know someone who had a 2009 e-HDi 1.6 for about a year, and they reckoned they averaged around 45-46mpg, although would get around 50-51 on long motorway runs

Found on a google search. Its a 2015. Passats of old were all doing 50mpg, so.its really disappointing to hear that 20 years on citroen cant match what vw were doing in 1999

CJhaughey

Honest john has a real MPG guide for most cars.
https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/citroen/c4-picasso-2013

bazz26

Squatman wrote: »

Found on a google search. Its a 2015. Passats of old were all doing 50mpg, so.its really disappointing to hear that 20 years on citroen cant match what vw were doing in 1999

Applying a once size should fit all approach is a flawed logic. Cars have grown in both size and weight in 20 years. All those extra safety features that you don't get in a 20 year old Passat weigh more too plus engine capacities have dropped. In other words comparing a saloon from 20 years ago with a bigger engine to a people carrier with a smaller engine is like comparing apples with oranges.

Squatman

bazz26 wrote: »

Applying a once size should fit all approach is a flawed logic. Cars have grown in both size and weight in 20 years. All those extra safety features that you don't get in a 20 year old Passat weigh more too plus engine capacities have dropped. In other words comparing a saloon from 20 years ago with a bigger engine to a people carrier with a smaller engine is like comparing apples with oranges.

is not a people carrier - but thanks for your help

bazz26

So what do you call them then?