Citroen XM Forum

I'm going to chip in here. Don't waste your time with petrols. Only the 2.0 16v is worth considering. Series 2 only. The reason you have of looking at the xm is to trade up from a bx. I would suggest a series 2 XM being a good choice. Much more modern than a bx, and more refined than series 1 cars. I have ran all xms except v6. If I was going to do it all again, I would go for the daddy 2.5! There are pros and cons with them all. If you have managed to get 6 points in a bx, you will love the 2.5!

Yes you do, once you have one, you need another to keep it company.

Ive currently, including the projects, got 6 ...

I agree with the 2.0 16v engine being VERY Good...

S2 are more refined, but the S1 more original and I find more spacious.. S2 cars seem to suffer rust more, though all are prone...

robert_e_smart wrote: If you have managed to get 6 points in a bx, you will love the 2.5!

LOL...

Base model Turbo D XM...



Ill get some more pics of it together...

Hi welcome to the forum. Love your BX GT.

To answer your question a 2.1 should do between 45 to 50 mpg if it is a manual. Autos slightly less. I believe that's what other 2.1 owners are getting. I have an auto SED...my first XM too.

Hiya Tom. Next meet that we are both at, I'll let you have a go in my XM. On your commute you should get around 45 mpg. My best on a long run is 54 mpg.

TomSaintJames wrote:Ah yes! I remember the seller mentioning your username. It's a good BX, rides lovely, bit rusty in some places but not any of the common bits. Piintwork is a bit interesting in places but it runs very well (except for the leaks). It's no slouch either, a couple of weeks back the BXC had a rolling road day, 90.5 was the average flywheel BHP, wheel BHP was rather less (low 70's) so just above book figures, not bad for 170000 miles and 20 years.

It was a good car, and I remember a particularly fast example; your rolling road result does not surprise me. A family mechanic friend replaced the head gasket and clutch, and I remember my dad did some decent welded repairs to the back end. I remember repairing the passenger side A post myself. It did have some speedlines on it when father sold it but I guess the previous owner kept them. No great loss; they weren't particularly round...

If you like BX's you will love the XM. XM's are just like the BX but more; more comfort, more road holding, more performance and more difficult access to the mechanicals. You'll never look back. Must warn you though, the underbonnet of the 2.5 diesel is terrifyingly packed and parts are difficult to get/most expensive. The 2.1 is plenty fast and has far better parts availability whilst being less awful to work on. That said, the PRV V6 is an excellent choice but I think you'd struggle to see 30mpg.

In terms of the great economy debate, in my previous XM 2.1 auto I struggled to top 40, but that was in a combination of heavy urban traffic and high speed work; worst of both worlds. Although many do not rate the auto, I enjoyed mine a great deal and really liked the way it drove; if you can live with the economy disadvantage I think I would go as far as recommending the auto over the manual car

Hi Tom and welcome to the XM forum, 'The Citroen Disease' is really getting to you now (If your looking @ XM's)

TomSaintJames wrote:Ah yes! I remember the seller mentioning your username. It's a good BX, rides lovely, bit rusty in some places but not any of the common bits. Piintwork is a bit interesting in places but it runs very well (except for the leaks). It's no slouch either, a couple of weeks back the BXC had a rolling road day, 90.5 was the average flywheel BHP, wheel BHP was rather less (low 70's) so just above book figures, not bad for 170000 miles and 20 years.

Dieselman, i'm not looking to buy until November at least, so got plenty of time to save up/look and do some homework. Thanks for your advice!

I'm not too worried about toys, but I do like a nice interior. I expect an XM regardless of spec will be a nice place to be inside however, being citroes luxury flagship model. Neither am I fussed with ABS, as with early cits it always seems to be a bugger! BX ABS systems are also interesting I hear, their fine until they go wrong and then you cannot get any parts to sort them. So 2.5 td's are out then, if they're complex and only S2. Do the petrols LPG well? Aside from the 2.5, the TCT was my next earmarked engine - but i've never driven or been in any XM so... The 2.1 manual does sound like the best compromise, but most of the XM's seen are 2.1's and I like to be a little different! Do you have a link to your J reg base model that you're doing up citroenxm? Thanks for you advice.

"2.5TD's" - are 'The one for winners' Tom, there not really that complex than other XM's, I'd say that there more interesting than the others IMHO

However I suspect the 'Larger Engined' 2.5TD/3.0 petrol XM's may be off the radar for Tom due to insurance costs ?

IYCR, I was with Tim when you came over to 'Taunton' with your uncle in the Range-rover to pick-up Tims new 'BX Estate'

XMX

.

I would think that the 2.1 TD auto will be about 25% more economical than the 2.0 16v and will be able to tell you soon.
The 16 valve is a lot faster and they are very good on LPG but it's not cheap to put the right system in, as far as I know.
2 liter 16 v. SeriesII, I can recommend, the engines are very reliable.
My 1.6 BX about used the same amount of petrol by the way, the only disadvantage I do remember of that car. And worse on LPG of course.
It is true though, you don't look back on the BX after any XM.
Go for it if you can!

XMX is right.
Get the insurance prices for the various XM models.
That could well kill your interest in the bigger engined XM's.
In my experience 2.5's cost roughly 10% more to insure that V6's.

John