Citroen XM Forum

I'd agree with all that except it being as pure a Citroen as we were going to see in the 70's and 80's. In my eyes at least, the GS was purer, being (as far as I know) the last all new, all Citroen designed car, while the CX carried over engines and other parts from the DS (ducks and runs for cover!)

Fantastic car, better than the XM in many respects, certainly the centre steering knuckles and Diravi, it was like nothing else to drive. I had three diesel CX safaris, the last one which was a CX25 DTR turbo I drove for over 160,000 miles. The XM had a better heater and parking brake but I can't think of any other advantages.

The turbo 2 diesel was a record breaker with 120bhp at 3650rpm giving 0-60 in just over 10 seconds and 120 mph - this was in 1987! They were the first really refined diesel car.

Peter

The CX was a great car, I had 2 one was a 2.4 petrol enging safari very nice runner had that one electicral problem the electrics use to go dead sudden, then I had the 2.5 diesel safari another great car damn good at towing think it was the best car for towing, it use to tow my 22 foot boat that i use to have and the mpg stayed the same, would still have it today if it was not for a Customs reforce escort van I stop at Redbridge Roundabout the Custom Van did not smash in to the read end of the car that hard the floor pan under the driver seat buckled up wards and the chaiss was buckled up also, the car was a write off, still it took out the Customs reforce escort van also.

CX - utterly brilliant, last example of the Citroen design ethos unadulterated by Peugeot. Classic citroen design, everything coherent, excellent attention to design detail, but had to make do with DS engines - one of the longest produced engines known to man! Most car manufacturers of the era developed a good engine, then slapped some pressed steel and springs around it; Citroen paid attention to everything else, then popped an existing engine in!

Bought my first CX in 1982 and have had about another seven since, now on my third GTi turbo. Citroen made over 1 million of them, almost as many as they did the DS. Totally contradicts this modern preoccupation that good engineering design that's expensive wont sell. The French, Dutch and Germans loved them!

Diravi steering 2.5 turns lock to lock is stupendous, tracks dead straight hydraulically, very safe in any conditions, self centring makes manoeuvring and three point turns much faster - no steering system since has ever come close. Then there's the GTI Turbo, way way better than the Saab turbo of the same era . The turbo petrol engines last almost forever, the turbo diesel ones will as well if they don't go porous. The layout of the cabin is great apart from the vertical radio, the layout of the switchgear is absolutely brilliant, well thought through, intuitive, ergonomic. In my opinion a Series 2 CX is one of the nicest places to be, prefer it to an XM personally. Only real problem was rust, most of mine rusted away, but if you can find a good one they're great and still not too expensive to buy, unlike the DS.

There's only four things where it is weak compared with an XM in my opinion. First it doesn't have the upper part of the doors fitting into the roof because they hadn't thought of that yet, so wind noise is high at motorway speeds. Second, heat leaks into the cabin from the exhaust silencer. Third the ventilation system is poor. Fourth, the gear change is so rubbish compared with an XM 2.5! Apart from that it's better in most respects. One of the best and most ignored cars that Citroen has ever made.

Cheers

Marc

You had problems with rust, both of my cx never had any rust, but then again i do use the old engine oil brushing it on any rusty parts i even put it in the bottom of the inside of the doors, like i all ready done to my xm that i am driving about now, I blown out a piston doing 120 mph it was a bugger to replace as the oil sump did not go across all four big ends it only covered 3 and the one with the hole yup your right the one that could not be easy to get at.

I had a few rust problems with the Mk 1s but the later one was almost exempt, apart from the roof above the tailgate I had the dreaded porous block problem with my DTR turbo, I had to replace the head gasket about every 15,000 miles which amounted to at least 10 gaskets while I had it I had two replacements heads and eventually took the block out and had it machined - made no difference but it gives you an idea how much I liked the car, had it for 7 years and used it every day for work.

Mind you changing the HG on those was a doddle, the top of the engine was facing you when you opened the bonnet and by the time I had made a few modifications I could get the head off in about 1/2 hour, although it had a cambelt the valves were pushrod operated so that saved a lot of hassle, the longest part of the job was adjusting the tappets on reassembly.

I still think it was the best car I ever owned and I agree the Mk 2 was the best model. Apart from the handbrake which required frequent adjustment and the useless heater my only other criticism was that 1st gear was to high, you had to slip the clutch to pull away - very un diesel like. They probably upped the final drive ratio but kept the non turbo gear box. It had done 262k miles when I sold it and still drove beautifully.

Peter

Yes it's a shame about the Turbo 2 diesels and the porosity. The original 2.5 diesel was so sluggish, only 75hp, but you could pull away in second and third if it was just rolling. Then they turboed it and made it more reasonable, then they fitted an intercooler and boosted it to 120hp. Remember it was a revelation, winning prizes for fastest diesel car etc and then the porous block issues emerged. Great shame as they were years ahead of the rest at the time, then I as I understand it someone decided to source the metal from India and dealers ended up doing loads of engine replacements for unhappy customers.

Meanwhile the petrol Turbo 2 was pretty mega. They took no risks initially with the T1 keeping the compression ratio way down, which made the mpg lousy. Typical Citroen, cautious about engine power. Then once the intercooler was fitted they raised it to 8.5:1 and got improved efficiency, excellent performance and better mpg. Then Maikonics did the clever bit and a lucky bunch of us got to drive T2's around with 250hp instead of 170 odd. That gave it the performance it deserved, transformed it into a sub 7 second 0-60 car. Mine lasted 7 years and did 100,000 miles after that conversion, briliant engine. Then I sold it and apparently it rusted away soon after - the sills rust secretly to destruction under those black plastic trims.

Amazing Citroen design was so good 40 years ago, a decade ahead of the rest!