Citroen XM Forum

http://www.carandclassic.co.uk/car/C838700" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Im going to lay me neck on the line here and even though its a rubbish time of the year to sell a car i think this will be sold fairly quickly.

D

And if she IS a 1995 that be a prv in final cc guise too...

This car is indeed a PRV and used to belong to a nice chap in March whose name I have forgotten, friend of the Ruggs. It was then sold to Tony in Sussex I think who we have seen at the National and X rallies. The advert photo is taken at Burghley. As I recall a sale was being considered. Regards, Matthew T.

Does it being a PRV make it better. I would have thought the later V6 was a better engine. More power, smoother.

God no, the PRV is a rubbish engine in comparison to the later ES or any modern engines, even compared to a lot of other engines during the time it was in the XM, had it been released in 170hp form 10 years earlier it would of been brilliant but it came a bit late really.

The fact is though it sounds kind of nice and its in a very clean XM when there are no other clean ones for sale at the moment, also if you want an old (period) vehicle do you not want the period engine to go with it?
Thats my view anyway, it may have been more desireable if it was a MK1 shell as to my mind the MK1 should have a PRV and a MK2 should have an ES even though that wasnt the way it was.

Will be interesting anyway.

D

God no, the PRV is a rubbish engine

Really Dean I think that is a bit harsh!

It is worth remembering that the XM was developed from the mid-1980s, when the engine was only about 10 years old, so not that long in the tooth really.

The PRV in the XM is really quite refined and has truckloads of character in addition to making a great noise that you acknowledge. The ESJ engine, despite being an engineering marvel no doubt, in my humble opinion has about as much charisma as the very similar sounding Singer sewing machine - ducks for cover!!

I do, however, agree about a PRV in S2 XM being slightly odd and if I wanted a later car I would probably go for the ESJ.

With regards,

Matthew T.

Well it is a bit i suppose, the engine was never really a dsireable power plant, there were a lot better and more powerfull 4 and 6cyl units out there.

The high profile cars it went into were known for being under powered nd Volvo created a bit of an issue with fragility as the early engines used to eat their top ends though oil starvation.

There was some twin turbo units in the Alpine and the little known Safrane bi-turbo but the alpine wasnt a much takd about car and although the safrane was apparently good they had a reputaion for eating gear boxes. Then there was the 200hp 24v version Peugeot created but we all know what reputation that aquired and rightly so.

I rather like the PRV, i like its undeserved underdog image and chequered history, i love the look of it with that 1980's Tron style engine cover and clean engine bay layout but its not one of the greats and its not the sort of engine to hold its own against other 90's V6's and certainly not against any modern ones either.

D

All fair comment Dean I guess, but I also still love the PRV, which is the best engine to have in a XM at least for my money!! Regards, Matthew T.

Dean wrote:
I rather like the PRV, i like its undeserved underdog image and chequered history, i love the look of it with that 1980's Tron style engine cover and clean engine bay layout but its not one of the greats and its not the sort of engine to hold its own against other 90's V6's and certainly not against any modern ones either.

D

Couldn't agree more. I'm also a bit like you, series one should be PRV and series 2 should be ES9. Both have plenty of character.