Citroen XM Forum

Its very true... the main thing was that the engine got smoother and smoother the higher it reved, and I dont think there was a limiter or over rev warning! The rotor tips did wear out rather quickly .... The latest upgrade repair is to fit MAzda B13 engine from Mk.1/2 RX-7s as they seem better sorted and longer lasting, and is far supeior then the stupid ford V4 that many got...

Always liked the Ro80.. Air stream.. semi automatic gearbox, manual leaver auto clutch.. and of course the engine made it very innotive

I think they looked very modern for their time. At uni a year above me we're working on a project of updating classic cars. Spiritual successor type of thing. Someone tried with the RO80 and gave up. They couldn't make it look more modern. Wasn't it you Paul, that mentioned that the 1983 Audi 100 was basically a new RO80.

I wonder how good the CX would have been if it got its rotary engine.

Knowing Citroen in the 1970's drivers would have had to take both hands off the wheel to indicate engine failures to other drivers!!

Rob

Oh that is a great looking car, seems to be in a good condition to, unfortunately i never have seen one a live, just pictures...

Thanks Alex and I also like the look of the Ro80. This is only the third one I have seen, with the first being quite a rough eBay project and the other at a car show, which was originally intended to include the full range of European Cars of the Year - I took an XM. The chap who owned the example at the show apparently had about 16!! Regards, Matthew T.

russ92xmsed wrote:I think they looked very modern for their time. At uni a year above me we're working on a project of updating classic cars. Spiritual successor type of thing. Someone tried with the RO80 and gave up. They couldn't make it look more modern. Wasn't it you Paul, that mentioned that the 1983 Audi 100 was basically a new RO80.

I wonder how good the CX would have been if it got its rotary engine.

Yes russ... the 100 was its 80s spiritual sucessor...

I confess that, like several other members of the forum, I find the R80 unattractive. It fails on my 2 tests of attractiveness: 1) Would I like it to stand on my forecourt (if I had one, that is)? The answer is no. 2) Would it turn heads if I was driving it? I think the answer would be : no.

What would be the answers in the case of an SM, an E-type Jag, a Ford Mustang ("Bullit" style)?
I rest my case.

The design, to me , is mediocre and run-of-the mill.

Sm.. no does little for me.
E type.. disgustingly ugly.. awful looking car.. cant stand them.. cant see the attraction.. so no..
Mustang.. nope.. also does nothing for me either...

I think part of the appeal of the Ro80 for me is that it is a little understated and not flashy (like the XM), and perhaps quite ordinary looking by today's standards, but in 1967!! It is just one of those seminal designs (for us anoraks) with the use of glass and technological advances such as the rotary engine and inboards disc brakes etc. If you need further persuasion watch the Top Gear feature mentioned earlier! Regards, Matthew T.

I agree with Matthew. I like the quiet, understated styling. It is like the XM, not shouty but lean and clean.

Rob