Citroen XM Forum

Excellent Matthew She'll soon be on the road now...

One strut top on the 2.5 failed in exactly the same way. Chris and I noticed it in the same way as you.

That one had flat spheres when it first joined Team WFA too...

Here are some details of another early V6 brought to my attention by a nice chap from the XM Nederland Forum. Interesting the registration date is given as 23rd May 1989, ie. the day of the Lyon 1,000 car launch, so maybe this one was there! I would be fascinated to know the RP number, which might shed some light on when mine might have been registered and possible attendance at Lyon. We do not know whether the car has sold but the listing is now gone! Regards, Matthew T.

Many thanks for your comments Jim and it was interesting to hear you had the same strut top experience! I am just waiting for the droplinks now. With regards, Matthew T.

I have seen over 10 strut tops that have failed in that way.
More than half of those have come from early 2.5's.
Flat spheres may well help things along but I believe the initial cause was inadequate quality control of baseplate manufacture.
Rubber peeled from both sides of the raised cone show very considerable areas still bonded to rusty Millscale rather than torn from steel.
Flat spheres tend to cause axial tearing upward through the rubber cone.

John

Are there any symptoms to this kind of failure to look out for whilst driving? Clonking, or shuddering ect. Just out of pure interest.

Thats very interesting about the other early XM. But if it was built on the same day as the launch, I expect it wasn't there. More likely sitting outside the factory with the other stock piled XM's...all ready to go to dealers.

russ92xmsed wrote:Are there any symptoms to this kind of failure to look out for whilst driving? Clonking, or shuddering ect. Just out of pure interest.

Generally they're symptomless Russ. Certainly they were on the 2.5. We only noticed when the strut was dangling from them during the recent 2.5 clutch replacement...

We'd just gone all the way to Paul’s and back in it so you can imagine we were just a little moved by our discovery.. And not in a good way either - hence the urgent package to KingAS containing two sets.

My view is best have them done if only for peace of mind...

Right, so this is failure in stealth mode then, and something to keep an eye on when I change my wheels. Hmmm, I would like to change mine maybe next year as you say Jim for peace of mind. Jaap is going to be changing his, but not with Kingas, and not with old good tops.......

Perhaps it's worth keeping an eye on the vertical gap between the bottom edge of the upper metal dish and the wheel turret top.
Gap between the sphere and the scuttle above also gives a clue. If these gaps are not the same left-and-right, then it's a good prompt that something's not right.
Deterioration is slow, before disaster happens.

Yes, I keep a beady eye on that gap Chris. They aren't touching that lip, but one is ever so slightly higher than the other. And oddly it's the better condition one that is slightly higher. There has been no movement that I can tell since I have had the car.

In service the strut head is very seldom unloaded so this type of failure does not show by the normal visual checks.
The strut head still works with the strut rod and top nut retained so there is no visible sign from above.
It shows up as a definite fault if the MOT man uses a shaker rig for the test.
This test may actually be the last straw for the residual bonded rubber.
Fully separated in normal driving the only sign is on a rough surfaces a noise similar to that from a failed drop link.
On one of the cars I inherited from another member both strut heads were like this.
I found out after some months when I grew tired of the rough ground chatter and jacked it up to change the drop links.

John