Citroen XM Forum

Hi:

I´ve just read the Autocar review of the XM 2.0 SEi (Nov 1989). It was astonishing. In a nutshell, they said the XM was an extraordinary car capable of extraordinary things. But the engine was only average. So they handed the "class best" award to the Rover 820 Si because it had a nice engine and - cough - looked better. This put the Rover ahead of the BMW 525 and the M-B 200E, among other fine cars. Does anyone wonder about these road testers? The Rover 820 is definitely a pretty crap car for lots of reasons. But it was cheap and British. So it won the medal.
I noticed how the XM was more expensive than the M-B 200E. I know the Merc would have a more spartan spec but still, this is a surprise. Does anyone have a theory why Citroen could not make the XM or indeed the C6 a bit cheaper? Or at least cheaper than in Germany. I notice that the XM was heavier than the class average and I think this was because Citroen wanted to beat Mercedes and BMW for solidity. They didn´t have the engines to pull the weight though. The XM´s engines were all a bit coarse.

Richard

I drove a J reg Rover 820 today. It was a bland uninspiring car. It was perfectly adequate at being a large car. But nothing special. It didn't feel special.

I have never driven a W124 Merc, but have been in plenty of W124 Taxis in Morocco, and they are nice cars. Not like the Rover!

Indeed. Other magazines noted the Rover had a crashy ride due to the limited wheel-travel of the Honda donor car. The switchgear and detailing was off the pace too. It really is hard to see why Autocar chose as they did to overlook all the features the XM had the Rover didn´t just because it had a slightly better motor. And if history has been unkind to the XM, it´s been even harder on the Rover.

The rover swtich gear and ventilation controls were dreadful. The ventilation control reeked of the Metro, with those cheap flimsy sliding levers. At least the Xm's Pug 309 rotary dials were better.