XM antipathy

[MTXM]

I know much has already been said, but I too must speak out for the XM. Firstly it seems strange that any CX owner would want to abuse the XM, unless they felt insecure or threatened by the later car. I think many XM owners either had or still have CX's, for which they maintain respect and affection. Although I have neither owned or driven a CX, I consider the XM superior in many respects, which is perhaps not an unreasonable claim, given that one model succeeded the other. In my personal opinion the XM is a more attractive looking car, again perhaps not surprising with the involvement of the Bertone Studio and a multi-national design competition. The XM has vastly improved build quality and generally does not rust, plus even some basic models have electrics windows etc. as standard and the more sophisticated hydractive suspension was surely a big breakthrough. In the engine department the XM 2.0 petrol turbo and V6 also take some beating. I get the impression that much of the appeal of the CX comes from its greater age and increased quirkiness, and maybe also the challenge of keeping one on the road!! There seem to be many prejudices against the XM, maybe all the initial hype followed by some teething troubles played a part. In terms of reliability and being difficult to work on, I might have been lucky, but of the ten XMs I have owned where used and maintained there have been no serious problems, taking into account the ages of the cars. I acknowledge that it is a slightly unfair comparison, but I have posted a photo on 'Members Cars' showing a late CX and early XM, from which I think it would be hard to claim that the XM is not better looking. Regards, Matthew T.

[Dean]

I have to admit i would really like a CX but looks wise the XM wins for me, maybe its because it was a car of my childhood i always admired, i dont know, lots of people probably still look at the XM as a New car and then there is the pug thing, people of a citroeny persuasion see it as a 605 pug rather than a true Citroen but i do like them both.

D

[andmcit]

Cx versus Xm?

Were there one, the 'vote' on this forum will inevitably landslide towards the Xm as it is after all an
XM owners forum!! I could give a point for point dissertation on the merits of Xm v's Cx but we'd all
just be getting into the realms of subjectivity and opinion of which is 'better looking' etc and we'd
all be here 'till Hell freezes over. I wouldn't bother going there as these debates of usually polarised
extremes get ugly to no good result only engendering bitterness and pettiness - not me BTW ,
though I frequent many forums and currently the F1 boys seem hell bent at the moment on which
'favored' driver is "best" etc etc...

FWIW, my vote would be for the Gs anyhow!! Cx a close almost tied second, XM 3rd and Xantia 4th
from my prolonged personal multi-vehicle ownership of all above mentioned. Frankly, at the moment
with my TCT Xm I'm not very impressed with the damned thing (see other post) despite all my hard
efforts, intentions and expenditure and yes my Cx got me to work this morning to help me earn the
damned salary to feed the Xm some more...

I genuinely feel sorry for those who slight or condemn the Cx (on looks alone?) without driving it first.
Try one, you're missing out on something very special if you don't. Likewise in the instance of the Cx
"individual" responsible for the act which is the subject of this discussion I feel pity that a Cx owner
whom I assume is an enthusiast has such a skewed value system/moral compass that is so far off track,
Like I said earlier, they do the Cx and it's owners no good whatsoever and are a total idiot being purely
juvenile in their behavior, especially within a single marque owner's Club.

Andrew

[Aerodynamica]

+1 for the XM!

I'm a well known CX fanatic but I adore XMs. I'd have one in a shot if I could.

It would have to be a Mk 1.5 in a narrow band of colour choices and trim levels but I can't muster up much enthusiasm for the so-called 'better' Mk2 XM simply due to that dashboard! but otherwise, on the rare occasion I spot an XM on the road I'm all: "XM! XM!" (rarely get a wave from them though)

I was also miffed at the above photo at the time as I'd happily take the car off their hands if they didn't want it.

There really is no 'CX vs Xm' but the only thing a true citroenist would note is that ANY model of CX is something to behold - even the lowest spec. CX Reflex or something, whereas XMs appear less appealing unless they're the higher spec. models such as the SEi and SED etc. I'd happily drive a good condition XM 2.0 Si in a nice colour myself.

BTW, the child implicated in the above also declared a dislike of Diesel CXs and Estate CXs and indeed shows lukewarm enthusiasm for anything other than a CX GTi T1 or T2. Mere observation.

I'm on good terms with the people in question but this display was wholly unpleasant, wasteful and fairly tactless.

[Peter.N.]

As someone who has done a considerable mileage in both (160k in my last CX) I have to say that the mechanical design of the CX was superior, the steering and front suspension on the CX were streets ahead, it handled like a mini, albeit a nearly 17' one (Safari).

The front wheels had central steering knuckles which gave the car directional stability second to none, as the wheels were pivoted centrally there was no sideways deflection when a backwards load was put on the front wheels ie. hitting water, it continued to drive straight. I was driving up the newly built M5 one day and thought I had hit a patch of poor road surface, a lot of vibration, nothing else, it continued for some time so I stopped to investigate and found I had driven several miles with a flat front tyre, it was actually smoking - try that in an XM.

The diravi steering was brilliant, giving high speed precision with surperb low speed lightness, you could turn from lock to lock with one finger.

I think that because of the non mainstream design it was to expensive to incorporate these features in the XM so a compromise was reached, still hydropnumatic but with conventional McPherson struts and steering. A couple of the bad points of the CX, usless heater and parking brake were addressed on the XM to make it a more user friendly car.

I liked them both, in fact the CX was the best car I had ever driven, and I've driven a few, the XM although going backwards in technology was a giant leap forward in comfort and for my requirements the best car on the road today.

Peter

[citroenmad]

Ive not driven a CX so i obviously cant comment. On looks alone i like both cars, especially in S2 design, copmaring the saloons i like them both, if i had to decide id go with the more sleek looking Xm. However in the estate cars i much prefer the Xm, which i find is a very handsome estate car. Unlike the Cx Safari which i dont much like, i dont like the step in the roofline and the boot looks very shallow. Its an interesting car but Xm it is for me.

I would comment that id guess they would be difficult to compare directly between the two, as they are actually hugely different cars. A while ago i thought a Xantia would be like a small Xm, its not, totally different cars. The CX is more quirky than the Xm, ive no doubt in that, its looks, with the concave rear window, single front wiper and that futuristic dash is excellent. Though the quality of it i found to be poor.

My parents had a very late Greg CX 22TRS, a very nice one owner low miles example. It was a lovely car and rode with a real floatyness. As a passenger i really didnt like the ride as i always felt ill with it. I think the overall quality is much higher on the Xm, especially in the body. This was then replaced with an Xm, which i liked much more than the CX. I preferred the ride as it was soft but I felt enough to not feel unwell (still a passenger at this time). As this was my parents car and at the time i was unable to get on the insurance for it I didnt think too much about it. I knew it was a extremely nice car to be in and seemed to handle the bends very well when my parents would push it around contry lanes.

It was only when i drove the Xm for the first time that i realised what it was about and ive been hooked on them since. Ive since driven a large variety of cars and still find the Xm hard to top. Nothing feels like an Xm does to drive.

The spec of an Xm i couldnt care less about, they all have enough spec for me. Air con would be nice but its not that important, maybe if i used it everyday and didnt have a car with AC then i might favour one with this, but thats the only luxury i would want. So spec isnt a worry for me, neither is the engine, so long as they provide enough performance im not too bothered again, im not into big engines either.

CX S2 mirrors are obviously an extremely effective design, as so many car manufacturers use them. I was at a classic car event this evening in thr traction, quite a few kit cars, TVRs and even a rare sight Jag XJ220 had the S2 CX mirrors.

[Peter.N.]

The CX Safari is even bigger inside than the XM estate

[andmcit]

Yep, like, what he just said ^^

I love the step in the Cx roof! I like the longer wheelbase, the bigger loooonger rear doors, the longer
rear wings, the beefed up unique to the Safari trailing arms, hubs, discs & pads and rams & spheres.

Quite frankly, the Cx estate is the best estate you can get for any money - that ebay one for £1350
is a real bargain!! The Xm estate is a saloon with a longer higher arse end granted - but with the
compromise of the same saloon wheelbase and the same rear saloon doors just with a wadge of
plastic glued on to the hide the step between the rear 1/4 window and the door glass.

Mind, I still have x2 of them...

Andrew

[andmcit]

Oops sorry, you've started me off and I really don't want to get into a "this versus that" chat!
I just can't stand by and hear a Cx estate described as pokey inside though...

Let's see what Clarkson makes of his with it's modern Condo attachment shortly on TG!

Andrew

[Aerodynamica]

Let's see what Clarkson makes of his with it's modern Condo attachment shortly on TG!

Er, will I give you the bad news?