XM entry at Wikipedia
Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:52 am
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.
. 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.
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! 
