XM entry at Wikipedia

[casalingua]

There are now 4000 words on how the press viewed the XM ("Critical Appraisal"). You can read them here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citroen_XM
. I wondered if any of you had comments on the text. I´ve tried not to do a hagiography, just report what was written. If anyone has any road tests from Which? or Autocar, I would be very happy to add these to the XM article. Most of my work is based on my CAR magazine archive and what is available on the Internet.


My personal view, is that as an XM owner of ten years I find it hard to fully reconcile the car as described (patchily competent with odd styling) with the one I own (comfy, efficient and visually fascinating). Most puzzling is how in 1989 the car was said to ride like a Rolls Royce (Gavin Green in 1989) and yet, most commonly, reviewers were disappointed. In the same year, in the same magazine, the XM rode better and worse than a 5-series. And while the impression you get is of perhaps a car of mixed abilities, LJK Setright in 1994 (roughly) still thought it good enough to be ranked along with Jaguar and Honda, just below Mercedes and Rolls-Royce. Both Green and LJKS knew a bit about cars.

One thing I have learned from reading so many reviews is that motoring journalists forget that people can get used to things that are less than ideal. I recognise some of the faults attributed to the XM but these days I never notice them. Is this true of the other cars they review? How many perfectly good cars are pasted because on a given day, a given writer didn´t like the way a gear lever worked or where a button was positioned? Yet the feature they complain about is one most people would just get accustomed to, as I have.

This raises a tricky question: is much of car reviewing so hopelessly subjective that it´s not worth the paper it is printed on? And if you focus solely on measurable aspects, you lose the qualitative. It´s my view that quantitatively the XM is a better car than the CX,but qualitatively the CX is much nicer. And this same set of fundamentally incomparable parameters exist in all cars. It´s a well known fact that GM engineers place a lot of emphasis on quantitative factors. They build unloveable cars. Jaguars tend to be more flawed but these car people aspire to and admire. BMW seems somewhere in the middle.

The XM seemed to have been designed by people who rigorously quantified a set of rather conflicting requirements, some of which were whims. A Jaguar XJ-6 is the same thing at a higher price point.

The other thing I´ve noticed is that over 20 years the reviewing in CAR has changed. In 1993 a review was a comprehensive examination of engineering, styling, ride´n´handling, accomodation and practicalities. The the latest style of reviewing is to forget much beyond the driving seat. In a way, the more the focus is on handling at 9/10ths, the more the car seems to disappear. Do modern cars have boots and rear legroom any more? I really wanted to know how McLaren packaged the boring stuff in their latest car. We were never told. And the upshot of all this focus on the subtle differences in behaviour of cars in extreme conditions is that the descriptions become inevitably very, very subjective. Can you really write 700 meaningful words just about the on-the-limit handling of a car? If we took five writers and made them test the same car would their 700 words be similar or difffernt or comparable?

Take home lesson: read the reviews and then go and test it yourself. Only you can decide what you like and what you don´t.

[Duke]

Having had a quick read through of it there does seem to be a lot of comparison to the CX! Obviously everyone has their own opinions but there's some things I just have to disagree on - I know I shouldn't really be saying this as it's a forum for XMs, but anyhow...

"the XM is a much better car than the CX...faster, sharper, roomier, better made and more comfortable;

I definitely don't agree with Xms being more comfortable - the CX seats are a world apart to the XMs. They are IMO like sitting on a park bench in comparison to some of the S1 seats! Suspension wise too, the CX is much softer and generally 'nicer' IMO. I distinctly remember dad and I dropped off his 20-odd thousand mile XM and came back in a CX GTi Turbo 2 - even with the CX being a Turbo and thus having a stiffer ride (slightly different spheres, thicker ARBs etc) it was much more comfortable. And yes, the spheres were all good on the XM, and no it wasn't stuck in Sports mode either... Faster? Well just one model I suppose (the S1 24v), I'd agree there, but they're like hens teeth nowadays! Sharper? Each to their own I suppose... Roomier? Mmm, step inside the CX Prestige please Sir!

[/controversial]

Nice write-up on it though!

[citroenxm]

I cannot compare to the CX, Ive never owned one, though I have riden in one!

I agree the CX will always be softer, due to setup, theres no hydractive to go wrong which most S1 systems did and the car got stuck in Hard Mode. The CX is likely to be a heavyer car, again this will factor against a Better ride... The heavyer the bady and car the hydraulic system is carrying the better and smoother the ride.. The hydraulics was designed for the DS, a heavy car, I do not think it works in the lighter cars, like the BX or GS.. The Xantia is only just heavy enough, but personally should be heavyer...

The S1 24v (And we mean STANDARD SPEC cars, not modifued cars..) is faster and quicker firstly being a V6 has a smoother power delivery but the weight of the CX will haper it a tiny weeny bit.. Arent both the CX GTi T2 and the S1 24v XM 200bhp each??

XM Seats are firmer but from what I remember, I recall sitting in the CX and thinking WOW these really are nice!

As for 24v S1 XM's Yes I have a spare one!! BUT it needs a bit of body work dooing... and some life putting back into her..

I own, but none currently on the road, a 2.1 Turbo D S1 manual, a 2.1 Turbo D SED S1 Manual, a V6 SEi Auto S1.5, a V6 24v S1 Manual, and a V6 24v S1 manual.

Paul

[Dean]

That wiki page has some major errors, ALL of the performance 0-60 times are out, for instance i know my auto 2.0i does 0-60 in 12 seconds dead with a full tank, i also find it hard to believe that the auto psa 24v goes from 0-60 quicker than a prv manual 24v, it just isnt going to happen is it.......
Also a lot of the bhp info is out, i know the 16v petrol is 135bhp and the last bosch 8v was 130bhp with the magnetti being 121bhp.

TCT engines were also 146 or 150bhp depending on piston type.

D

[robert_e_smart]

CX VS XM.

An interesting debate.

The CX steering is better, the brakes are better, the ride is good in the CX, but the suspension travel isn't long enough. The Hydractive on Xms is a waste of time in my opinon. Seats, all down to opinion, I like the seating in both cars for different reasons. Series 1 CX seats don't offer enough support, they are that soft. Xm ones are firmer, but could offer more lumbar support also.

Xms are bigger inside, smaller on the outside, and much, much better built than CXs. I haven't checked figures, but my money is that the Xm is heavier than the CX.

I love the CX, its a great car to drive. I love the steering, I love the anti-dive braking, I love the series 1 pure interior design, the CX design hasn't aged bad at all, and still looks fresh.

I like the way the Xm is made, and the PSA era part sharing makes them easier to live with in this respect.

I'm a big fan of both cars, but the XM edges ahead of the CX slightly for me, its more user friendly, and they are cheaper to run.

[marc61]

I went through about 5 CXs starting in 1982 ending in 2001, and the last one was a Maikonics turbo 2 from 1994 on. Since 2001 I have had 7 XMs, and I've had my DS since 1989. Must like Citroens I guess! They're all about the same kerb weights in the range 1300-1500kg, the XM feels heavier. The D is from another planet so best not to describe that, but between the XM and CX I think the article is on the whole a reasonable description.

IMO the CX seats, the seating/steering position, the Diravi, the interior, the ergonomics of the dashboard and the feeling of being protected are superior to the XM, but the lack of lateral support, the roll, the door clonking open and shut, the lack of a centre armrest probably compromised it's comfort in the eyes of the XM road testers. The CX that first made me go wow was a 1985 Turbo 1 that I bought in about 1990, back then it was so much better than anything else - bit like the equivalent of getting to drive Concorde if you were an airline pilot! The next car that did that for me was an XM 2.5 I bought in 2002 after a 2.1, it had such a smooth gear change, great economy for the performance, no wind noise and it went round bends faster than a CX - all of which contribute to a sense of comfort.

I'm trying to get a 24V S1 restored and back on the road, will see how that compares with the CX in due course. Finally it's worth saying they produced the CX and DS for very long periods, so when comparing a car designed in the early 70s with one designed in the late 80s the time gap is a bit unfair; best to appreciate each generation for what it is and remember hydropneumatics beats all!

Marc

[citroenxm]

That wiki page has some major errors, ALL of the performance 0-60 times are out, for instance i know my auto 2.0i does 0-60 in 12 seconds dead with a full tank, i also find it hard to believe that the auto psa 24v goes from 0-60 quicker than a prv manual 24v, it just isnt going to happen is it.......
Also a lot of the bhp info is out, i know the 16v petrol is 135bhp and the last bosch 8v was 130bhp with the magnetti being 121bhp.

TCT engines were also 146 or 150bhp depending on piston type.

D

i agree dean.. The psa auto IS slower then the prv 24.. As firstly it has slightly less bhp.. And s2 is heavyer with all the extra safty thngs... Side bars, air bags, more sound proofing..

Theres obvious difference in knowledge between press and owners..

What i DO know is the Prv 24v manual gets to 60 just in one gearchange... 0-60 in 7.5 seconds. And my god they do aswell.....

[citroenxm]

Marc61... Are you in the uk??? Be good to hear of another s1 24v xm...

Im not disapointed with their performance..
** Edit.. Just realised who you are.. You have the lhd import...


Paul

[Duke]

The Xm is slightly heavier I believe - obviously depends on which engine it's got in it but I think the XMs look 'bigger' so to speak in comparison to a CX.

The S1 XM 24v have 200BHP and "officially" the CX GTi Turbo 2s have 168BHP. That is the same quoted power as the Turbo 1s but obviously the Turbo 2s have more and are "unofficialy" around the 180-185 BHP area. I believe that they did not change the quoted power output due to tax reasons or something along those lines. However each car is different and has its own personality and no two cars are the same. Some are noticeably faster than others, but they are still quick!

Didn't know you had two S1 V6 24v ers Paul - got any more hiding away over in deep dark Wales?!!

Sorry to divert this (slightly!) off topic but have you any more info on your Maikonics converted CX that you used to own Marc? They are mightily rare nowadays and having conducted worldwide research I have managed to pinpoint 10 Maikonics Kits. Dont suppose you can remember the reg number can you? (for those unaware, the base of Stage One it's a converted AEi Box and a modified Wastegate that boosts power to 250BHP and 320 FT LB. Less than half an hour to fit too!) Unfortunately I don't think your XM will be as good a fun...

[Dieselman]

I agree the CX will always be softer, due to setup, theres no hydractive to go wrong which most S1 systems did and the car got stuck in Hard Mode. The CX is likely to be a heavyer car, again this will factor against a Better ride... The heavyer the bady and car the hydraulic system is carrying the better and smoother the ride.. The hydraulics was designed for the DS, a heavy car, I do not think it works in the lighter cars, like the BX or GS.. The Xantia is only just heavy enough, but personally should be heavyer...

I would disagree about cars needing to be heavy for oleo-pneumatic suspension to give a soft ride. For metal springs this holds true, but for Citroen suspension not so as the spring rate and dampers are adjusted for each model variant.

A properly riding Xm or Xantia Xsx is a very supple car in soft mode. Older cars used larger damper orifices so ride very soft indeed and the GS is definitely in that league.

I would generally agree about the Xm being a better built car, the seats are excellent and possibly better than the Cx for longer journeys, as their seats are a bit too soft.

As said, they are cars of different era's and requirements. One requirement for the Xm was low body roll in corners, hence it has a stiffer setup.
In general, I think the Hydractive system works very well, especially on later cars, the change between soft and hard is almost imperceptible, but the body control is definitely improved.