Citroen XM Forum

Thanks Chris, and also to Derek (who was first to mention C5s above - sorry Derek, got mixed up! ).

And to everyone else who contributed. Interesting point about estates John. Is that estates generally or a particular issue for XMs? I suppose the extra weight in the vehicle and loads would put more pressure on the suspension. I would need an estate and can't see myself running two cars any time soon.

I think I'll probably keep swotting up on XMs as you say (and a good idea to actually see some rather than just read about them) and try an pick up a decent C5 in the meantime. Are the pre 2004s best avoided then?

Joe

I think that most people would say that all C5s before the X7 are OK, but the X7 (2008-on) has a couple of expensive design defects which cause the steering racks and front struts to fail often.
The facelift (2005-2008) version seems to be the one to get.

Hi Joe

My comments were XM specific as I have no relevant experience of other cars.
The XM car was wind tunnel designed for air flow including the back end.
The XM estate is the same basic body shell right back to the "C" post.
It has a slightly raised roof line with front and sides fully air smoothed.
So virtually all the same including wheel spacing.
Then an extra 250mm is added to the rear panels to get the estate shape and length.
Larger bearings and brakes are fitted to the estate rear suspension arms.
It is mainly the under boot floor panelling and support members that suffer badly from rusting.
I suspect that body shape and airflow in this area traps much more moisture on an estate.
In this country in the winter the moisture will have a high salt concentration.

John

Interesting, thanks Xantia V6. Yes i have picked up that the facelift model seems more favoured but that just makes me wonder if the earlier version might be a bit of a bargain. Or is it actually inferior? I dont really care how it looks.

I'm quite tempted by the earlier 2.2 136 as it should be a pretty tough and smooth engine. 6 speed from 2003 i think. Do they have the hydractive 3+?

Cheers John, ok so another point against an XM for now. Maybe a saloon some time in the future when estate size no longer required might be the answer.

The facelift did not change the C5 much, so the 2001 and 2003 versions are just as good. The 2.2 has a reputation for the injectors getting stuck in the head, but other than that seem to be OK, but try to find one that has had the clutch and DMF replaced.

Only Exclusive trim level got HA3+.

Hi Joe
I'm in NZ...but very much a similar position to you -zero mechanical skills [but open to learning] , tight budgets in which i cant really justify any major car expenses-but bought an XM in really good condition with fingers crossed. I go through times of thinking I should get something less complex..etc etc -[ i also have an older hilux ute] and then I drive it ...and all doubts disapear -its such a pleasure!! Life is short!
cheers, Dave

Hi Joe & Dave

I agree totally about the driving experience with an XM that is in good condition.
Unfortunately my evaluation put that quite low down on the list.
I would love to encourage anyone interested to try and then buy an XM.

The order may not be perfect but the things that led to my advice were:-
The chances of now finding a good cheap XM in the UK are very low, most will turn out to be a bit of lemon, often over time for multiple reasons.
No off road parking so self repair gets very difficult.
Critical spare parts often take days or weeks to obtain so very few UK garages happily risk an XM blocking their working space.
Many XM's will need some chassis welding to keep the going, few UK garages want that type of work.
Sole reliance on an old vehicle that must be available most of the time.
A partner that has doubts about the choice of an XM so may find it difficult not to mention about large bills or an immobile car.

John

Yes it's a tricky one and i still haven't fully decided. But I'm leaning towards John's view and it has been very helpful to get a realistic insight on here.

Dave life is indeed too short but sometimes that means opting for an easy life!

My wife likes the idea of the ride quality and has all but given me her blessing but yes i can definitely see trouble ahead if the car is taking up lots if time and money I/we don't have. She earns a bit more than me and while we don't generally watch each other's spending this would be a rather obvious money pit if it (the plan to buy an XM) went anything less than perfectly!

But Dave in slightly different circumstances I would agree with you 100%!

I still can't quite figure out, despite lots of reading, whether the hydractive 2 in the XM gives a similar ride to the 3+ in the higher end C5s.

My impression is that the 3 (no +) has significantly more body roll than the 2.

And more than once I've read that 3+ in comfort mode is most comfortable, but that body roll is only reduced in sport mode which eliminates many of the benefits of the hydractive system. Which seems not to be something the XM suffers from - it seems to have the best of both worlds in most driving conditions.

Does that sound right? I guess the system in each case has to be working well for a fair comparison.

As has been mentioned there's reading online is no substitute so I'll try and check a few out.

Checked out a C5 1.6hdi with H3 today that's for sale locally. Impressive over speed bumps but quite wallowy. I'm not convinced. Will keep an eye out for one with H3+! And for an XM of course.

XM's don't wallow. Lumpy and crashy if neglected, yes . . . but wallowy, never . . . unless it's Ray's, with the CX spheres. (Don't ask!)
Good hunting.