Citroen XM Forum

Yes i can only remember around the early 70's , when me dad first car i remember was a corsair 2000 e, 'n' Triumph 2000 's, im not realy any good with motors pre say 1965, but i know the Renault your talking about , and yes it was a good looking car, but like you say a lot never lasted, but there are some interesting models on C & C.

There's lots of interesting stuff in this threaad!

As far as diesels go, my Dad bought a Pug 309 after years of Renault petrol motoring and I really couldn't believe how well this thing, with what I thought was a tractor engine, went. I think that at the time (early to mid 80s) I was driving a Volvo 122s and thought that was pretty cool but the ability of the diesel to go up hills was a real eye opener.

In the seventies I had a series of Renaults myself - several fours and an R10. This was rear engined and very square with a boy racer after market steering wheel. If the weather was good it was good fun but rain and snow brought out a different side to its character, especially for an inexperienced driver.

Of the many R5s I have owned, a Mark 1 Gordini Turbo was the best and worst. I bought it because the body was in superb nick; unfortunately the engine and gearbox were less impressive. The Boss refused to drive it - wisely. It looked fab but I was really pleased to trade it against anything else - an Astra Estate! Most recently, I had an R5 Monaco for a few weeks (I swapped it for my XM!). That was a cracker in many respects but I found it very hard to obey speed limits in it The XM, which passed its test today is more in line with my age and build, it is slow but it is very comfortable and makes me feel good.

When I feel the need for "POWER" I drive the Mitsubishi Legnum VR4 but if any of you chaps have a diesel XM estate you want shot of because it is just too good to keep; let me know, because that's where I think the future lies for me...

Rob

Hi Rob

There is nothing in my mind to better the XM and I have tried many, it depends what you want of course by my priorities are comfort, ride, space and economy and as far as I know there is no other car with this combination. Its not only since I got old I have desired this, years ago when I was doing regular long journeys my quest for speed turned to one for comfort. I have the beemer if I want to go faster, but it has one of those instant fuel cunsumption readouts - and it tends to put me off.

Peter

One reason why Dauphins didn't last long was their tendency to to tuck their outside rear wheel under themselves and fall over during hard cornering. Triumph Heralds had the same vice, both caused by the swing axle suspension. Generally speaking, a car that has bounced around on its roof is only fit for scrapping !

The quicker versions of both cars (Spitfire for one?) got by by lowering the rear end so there was considerable negative camber in the static position.

For those who are interested, yes I'm still around; just been so busy on other things this year.

Derek

Hi Derek

Thank you for your input, I remember the Heralds strange suspension but didn't know the Dauphine suffered similarly, most of the ones I saw just fell to pieces.

Peter

Peter.N. wrote:No I think it was somewhat rounded at the corners, quite a nice looking car I thought, it hails from the '50s so they may have all gone by the time you were taking notice

Peter

I have just had a look on ebay images and there are several on there I'm amazed to see, they appear to be from the early '60s and there was a 'Gordini' model

there's a dauphine a few miles from me - they didn't all rust - I also have a Henney Kilowatt brochure, while we're on the subject.

When I lived in Bannockburn, there were two droopsnoot Firenzas round the corner. I knew the guy who owned them both. He admired my PA, I admired his droops.

messerschmitt owner wrote: I admired his droop.

I'm not sure the local girls would think the same...

messerschmitt owner wrote: I admired his droop.

I'm not sure the local girls would think the same...

Peter.N. wrote: I had an HA van at one time, I think that was ex GPO, dreadful thing to work on, you had to remove the exhaust manifold to get the starter off! Maybe I just picked a particularly bad job.

Peter

Come on ---- as a man who has done 2.1 heads, there's nothing at all on an HA that rates harder than very easy !!! I would guess dropping a Perkins in the HB would have made it interestingly nose heavy ? It was very noticeable on the FD series, the difference between the fours and sixes -- the latter being much more inclined to carry straight on at corners. As a matter of interest, did you have any of the overdrives break -- they had a weakness on the mainshaft, just after where it pops out of the main box. Never went down the diesel route myself with Vauxhall cars (except Carlton / Opel Diesel -- a truly appalling engine), but overdrive and taller axles, yes. Tallest axle ratios of all were always in the autos and that, with an overdrive made areally worthwhile improvement. Rather over-egged it once, mind, in a CF camper --- overdrive top only usable downhill with a tailwind !

Mike.

Its all relative Mike, you dont expect cars made in those days to be difficult to do anything on most were easy, I found the HA a little difficult but not by modern standards.

With about 80lbs/ft torque there wasn't much chance of breaking anything as for nose heaviness, I never have been one for chucking a car about so didn't really notice, the performance was good for its day though. I often had stronger front springs made, if only to stop the front dragging on the ground - they were heavy those engines.

The CF used the 4/108 engine I think I scrapped one or two. I fitted one one these engines in a PC Cresta, quite a heavy car for the time, and then towed a 16' caravan with it, driving down the M5 against the wind - 30 mph max

Peter