Citroen XM Forum

Front suspension performance over sharp dips is as much affected by tyre type, wear and pressure as it is by sphere orifice changes.
The tyre sidewall stiffness is the first vertical spring in the suspension.
I would be interested in Dean's thoughts about how much difference thin sidewall tyres make to an XM.
In my opinion drilling out spheres is delicate engineering job best avoided because of the risks from residual swarf.
Particularly so where spheres to the chosen altenative spec are available new for around £25.

John

I know this is dependant on model and engine, but what is the best tyre and tyre pressure settings then for an XM?

My favourite is the Michelin energy saver at the correct pressure. I have driven xms with a variety of brands, and I find these a great all rounder.

Robert, I have Michelin Energy Savers on my Activa and they're bloody brilliant tyres...

If you're near a Costco then they sell them at a very acceptable price and their fitting bays look more like operating theatres... Well recommended.

I bought a pile of 205 65 15 s from a company converting berlingo vans for wheel chair users. They put a ramp up the back and sent them out with a puncture repair kit as there was no room for the spare. My activa had nexxens and in the short time I had it she scrubbed the fronts off pretty quick.

The worst tyres I had come on a XM were accelera alphas. Bloody dangerous in the wet.

Thanks to eBay I have a copy of July 1989 Performance Car magazine. It has a review of the V6. The author is John Simister. Of all the initial reviews I´ve read, his is the only one which is consistent with the car´s later reviews and general reputation. He notices the quality of the low speed ride which isn´t as nice as it should be and he spots a lack of refinement and outright performance from the V6. The one thing which puzzles me is that he claims the markings on the ventilation control panel are screen printed over a textured surface, giving the texta fuzziness he claims is at odds with the car´s claims to be in the first rank. I haven´t scratchd this panel so I can´t tell: the letters are translucent but I´d always thought this because they were a different material embedded in the body of te panel. If you look at the car in the photos, the indicator repeaters behind the front wheel arch are absent. These only appeared in the production cars and in one set of launch photos (the ones with the messy abstract painting backdrop.). Simister in the end said the car hada good chassis with capable handling, overall good but needed honing.
In the same issue the Audi 100 is compared to the Mercedes S-class and BMW 7. The Audi was still viewed as a pretender to the upper rank of prestige cars. And a 1975 copy of Car reviews the 100 with its 5 cylinder engine and notes that that car was a marked step up in price and quality, and was comparable to efforts from Mercedes.

I've just read Autocar & Motor's Feb 1991 review of the V6 XM versus the Alfa Romeo 164 Cloverleaf V6. The XM won the comparison but only on points. The testers called the interior well made but antiseptic. They reserved their hardest criticism on the ride which they faulted for its inability to deal with surface bumps and lumps. They did praise the silence and refinement of the car and so came to the reverse conclusion to CAR's giant test of the same month. I was surprised to be reminded how much more expensive the V6 XM was than a Jaguar XJ-6 3.2 V6, something like five thousand more. Here again is another article then, that shows how off the pace the XM was. It also shows how inconsistent the reviewers are too.

This is an interesting one. The Jag...most likely XJ40 model, cheaper than the XM is hard to believe, but clearly true. But it is old in style and has poor packaging. But this wouldn't effect price of course.

With regards to magazine testers, pinch of salt to be taken with them all. The only reviewer you can trust is yourself, by taking a test drive.

It's a pity, there were many reasons why the XM failed in this country.

Two reasons the XM failed in the UK was the price and engine capacity of the diesels. There was a penalty for an engine over 2.0 litres and another for a list price over £19,000 (iirc).
Those two penalties pushed the tax up significantly...

Very true. Also the under powered 2.0 did not help matters initially. I always thought the 2.1 was well received and clever for its day.

But it was a social change at the end of the 90's too..people were becoming more style conscious and wanted BMW's and Mercs. Image was and still is the important factor.
And never forget...there was a recession in the early 90's in this country which must have had an effect on sales maybe.