Citroen XM Forum

casalingua wrote:Has anyone read the Citroen XM book from 1989 by Jan P Norbye? There is a test drive of the V6 at the very end of the book. The car shown has no repeater indicator in between the front wheel arch and the front door. Are we to assume that when Norbye tested the car for a 1989 book that he was in fact testing a pre-production model? Similarly, were the cars used in the very early journalist tests real production cars or slightly special pre-production ones? I wonder this because all the early reviews are complimentary about the ride but later reviews are not.

A number of markets didn't specify side repeaters, so I suspect the cars tested were for those markets.

citroenxm wrote:but before that.. the 168bhp was pre intercooler years and just a small turbo.. then the t2 was a bigger turbo plus an intercooler which resulted in an un publishised 200bhp!!!

Your gonna tell me adding a bigger turbo AND an intercooler will leave the quoted BHP at 168bhp?? I dont really think so?

You're quite right Paul - both the GTi Turbo and the GTi Turbo 2 had the same quoted power! I would say a conservative estimate for a GTi Turbo 2 power is around the 180BHP mark - I think they didn't change the official numbers due to tax reasons etc back in the day. ALL CX GTi Turbos, be it 1 or 2, have their own personality. NO two cars drive the same and some are faster than the others. The slow ones are still very quick though... Torque-wise, they "officially" quoted 217 FT/LB, but once again, "unofficially" higher for the Turbo 2.

I was under the impression that they had both had the same Turbocharger - the Garret T3. However, the GTi Turbo turbocharger did allow for a higher boost pressure for some reason - IIRC there is some differences in the compressor housing orientation between the two as well as some other differences I think. There is a difference as I know of a GTi Turbo 2 that had a GTi Turbo turbocharger put on it and was noticeably a 'faster' car. There were other differences such as higher CC injectors on the GTi Turbo, slightly different ratio gearboxes and different pistons (high compression in the GTi Turbo). Figures-wise, back in the day Citroen wanted to obtain the highest torque at the lowest possible engine speeds. To do this they have made the turbocharger work harder at lowers revs and slackened it off slightly at the top end. The pressure curve peaks at 8 psi (0.57 bars) at the point of maximum torque (3250 rpm) and then drops off to 6 psi (0.43 bars) at maximum power (5000 rpm).

Add Maikonics, and it's 250BHP and 320FT/LB Torque.

It's worth remembering that the Turbo 1 had a lower static CR than the Turbo 2, 7.5:1 versus 8.5:1. So the Turbo 1 engine efficiency off boost is lower. Citroen were very conservative when they turboed it initially - the Saab turbo of similar vintage made more power from a 2 litre engine. If you drop CR you lose power especially low down and fuel economy, but the turbo will boost peak power alot - by 30hp in standard form. Maikonics view of this was that it was a paltry increase, and they safely raised it by well over 100hp for the Turbo 2. I drove one for 7 years and respect what Simon achieved!

On boost if the Turbo 1 and 2 both ran 8psi they're going to make similar peak power, the Turbo 2 a bit better. But lower down the Turbo 2 is going to be more efficient and fuel economy better because it's got a higher static compression ratio. Also because the Turbo 2 drops the temperature of the compressed air entering the engine with an intercooler it can make a bit more power at a given throttle opening. If you run the Turbo 2 on 98 or 99 octane fuel, this cooler charge will make significantly more power across the rev range than the non-intercooled Turbo 1 will on normal unleaded.

After Maikonics had done their bit the power difference was as Franklin says 230hp Turbo 1 versus 250hp Turbo 2 as pushing the boost much above 15psi led to detonation even on super unleaded. That difference in power won't be as much in standard non-Maikonics form, but enough to notice. Slight differences in boost pressure between cars of 1-2 psi, or people fiddling, would amplify the difference but both types have the standard T3 Garrett turbo.

Marc

Casalingua doesn't seem to be getting much feedback in this thread.

Anyhow, some time ago I added some info to the Wiki page but haven't felt the need to add any more. I suppose some photos of critical parts would liven things up a bit. Donating the photos is easy enough but I've never added photos to a Wiki page and the place from which I access Wikipedia most often is now blacklisted so I can't edit even if I wanted too.

Steve.

"Casalingua doesn't seem to be getting much feedback in this thread"

No, I didn´t. I thought maybe the gathering together of a large body of XM reviews might provoke some insight from owners.

owners views never seem to count.. if the press say a car is bad orchas electrical gremlins then thatd it.. it never shakes off... thecowners get looked on as pppphhhewww yur brave having one of those with all thosexelectrical problems....

Lol you're exactly right Paul, I've had people say exactly that to me.
'You're mad, crazy driving one of them'
'Why?'
'Sure don't they have loads of problems'

But the best one ever was someone from work who actually had a 2.5 XM when they were new, he loved it, but sold it on the advice of his (Renault mechanic) nephew, who told them they were bad news, bound to screw up etc, sell it while you still have the chance. So he sold it in favour of a new Laguna at the time. I had known this guy for years but he works in a different division so I never really knew he had an interest in XMs until I encountered him by chance, in the carpark of one of our other offices one day when I was driving the grey SEI.

'Jesus christ, an XM!! where did you get that? '
'Ach I've had it a fair few years, bought it off a friend'
'Well I'm surprised its still working, friging hell its an early one too! How do you keep it going?!'
'It is indeed, everything in it works, I just look after it, its no more complicated than any other big car that age'
'Bloody hell you're a brave man kid I tell you that, is a brave man who drives one of these, I can't believe it still works!!'
'Brave eh, so what would you say if I said I had 3 of them?'
'3??? Jesus christ you must have the heart of a lion son, and you actually drive these things places, on long journeys?!?'
'Yep, I'd drive it anywhere right now, and have done, I drove it 1500 miles up and down England last week and it didn't miss a beat'
'Christ, you're a madman!! '

At that point I was thinking of saying 'You should meet my friend Robert he has about 7 of them' but I don't think this guy would have coped with the excitement

Your colleague is the mad man Ciaran!

When I lived in England I was mostly pitied for driving my first XM. Admittedly those doing the pitying were Essex guys convinced nothing better existed than a 3-series. When I revealed how easy the car was to live with people simply didn´t believe me.

In Germany the reaction was that I was crazy to drive a French car. I told them I drove the car 550 miles x 2 every two weeks without it ever missing a beat. Again, disbelief. It´s really hard to change people´s minds once they have a misconception lodged there.

From my trawl of the reviews the main problem seemed to be the ergonomics and the disappointing ride. It´s not until you get to the later years that the comments become dominated by the received wisdom that the XM was a disaster on wheels. Richard Bremner´s "parting shot" essay was particularly unfair and also dumb. If he thought the car was such a bag of crap then why did he want to buy one (the article began with him considering buying one used). If one had the time one could probably find similar articles for the DS and CX. Strangely the mechanical complexity and expense of Merc S-Class and Rolls Royce Silver Shadows is never held against them. Much as I admire the 1970s Mercs, I could imagine living with one of those precisely because they would be as temperamental as people imagine the XM is. Yet the the Merc is viewed as a rock-solid sensible motor while XMs languish in back lots and or get sent to the crushed without a second thought.

Which markets didn´t require side repeaters? And since most countries seem to require them why did the test and photo cars not have them? I notice also that the spoiler appeared very late in the day. Few of the photos in the Norbye book have one.

casalingua wrote: Which markets didn´t require side repeaters?

France in the late 80's very early 90's when these pre production models would have been about.

I remember seeing early 90's Fords in France with Fiesta badges etc on plastic plugs instead of side indicator repeaters.