XM entry at Wikipedia

[marc61]

My Turbo 2 was stage 1 250hp with Cosworth clutch. Huge blast of power between 2000-4000rpm, huge torque from low down then when the turbo cut in scenery distortion until the next gear was grabbed, great stuff! Had it for 7 years must have done 100,000 in modified form, great engine. Mind you I remember having a ride in a certain Maikonics 6.5:1 CR Turbo 1 with lightened flywheel, a different cam etc which was making something approaching 400hp - that was proper scary!

Marc

[casalingua]

I didn´t really want to start a discussion on the XM versus the CX. I´d have one of each if I had the space and money for them. About the Wikipedia entry, I´ve added the part called "Critical Appraisal." If you think the details in the section below that are in error, you can can correct them if you have reliable data. I was hoping to find out what you all thought about the press write-ups in comparison to your experience of the cars.
About the comfort, the XM is suppose to be wider and have more shoulder room; and in terms of legroom the XM has more than the standard CX. But perhaps the CX seats are softer: this is another of those quantitative (measurable) versus qualitative (subjective) differences I hinted at at.

[citroenxm]

I see, or more, I couldnt see your review of CARs test of the V6 24v PRV Manual car.. I have the review, and against the Saab 9000 Turbo and I Think a BMW, it came top.

In the table, PRV 24v Manual figures are wrong. The actual accelleration figures AND they are because I know, are 0-60 in 7.5 seconds, and they will actually go off the clock at 155mph...

But, quite an informative write up.

Paul

[casalingua]

Could you scan the review and send it to me? That would be great if you could. If the magazine and month aren´t shown on the scans, you could add that. I´ll add that to the Critical Appraisal. It would be the one review where the XM actually came top. Maybe there are others but I haven´t read them. As I said, my mission is not to idolise the car, just put the data out there for others to read. My view is that no amount of arguments will shift peoples´opionions of the car. The reviews are a Rorschach test and people will take from them what they want.
casalingua@hotmail.com

Thanks in advance,

Richard

[Duke]

My Turbo 2 was stage 1 250hp with Cosworth clutch. Huge blast of power between 2000-4000rpm, huge torque from low down then when the turbo cut in scenery distortion until the next gear was grabbed, great stuff! Had it for 7 years must have done 100,000 in modified form, great engine. Mind you I remember having a ride in a certain Maikonics 6.5:1 CR Turbo 1 with lightened flywheel, a different cam etc which was making something approaching 400hp - that was proper scary!

Sounds like you enjoyed it then Marc! Nowadays I definitely know there is one Maikonics converted car out there with a Cosworth clutch to cope with the immense power/torque it brought on. 320 FT/LB of toque is a lot when you compare it to a Ferrari 360 Spyder with 'just' 275 FL/TB...

Ah, I have heard about Simon's Series 1 Turbo. Unfortunately I don't think it exists anymore but a certain CGAT owner managed to get all of the Maikonics stuff from it many years back. Series 1 Turbo-wise, there is just the one left that I know of in Maikonics-guise. This one's had the Stage One Kit fitted but also had an intercooler fitted too. The original literature states up to 270BHP for those...

[marc61]

Franklin

Yes, the torque was phenomonal. I never found a hill I couldnt accelerate up! The clutch wasn't very progressive, it could have done with a longer pivot arm or hydraulic actuation, but oh boy did it grip the flywheel. Wheelspin in every gear apart from fifth!

When Simon took me for a ride in his car it was running 28psi boost and had a fierce paddle clutch but with a light flywheel any overtaking manoeuvre was just a matter of steering reflexes - think it and it's done! Seem to recall him saying it was effectively mapped to 35psi, wonder if anyone has run one at that level. CGAT perhaps?

Would be nice to get some Maikonics cars at the next CXM rally if there are a few still on the road? Do you reckon there's much chance of achieving that?

Marc

[Duke]

I believe that someone did run at 35PSi some years back but this was only with some other futher modifications including the air inlet hoses being replaced with aircraft refuel hoses! I think I'm right in thinking that CGAT runs 2 bar so not too far off 35 PSI. Having been lucky enough to be a passenger in CGAT the only way to describe it is immense! And it had a headgasket gone at the time at a CX Rally a few years back. What Neil has done to that car is absolutely amazing!

I unfortunately doubt it Marc as there's so little. Shame really...

[Dieselman]

How do these CX engines cope with such high boost pressures, lowered compression ratio's?

[Duke]

How do these CX engines cope with such high boost pressures, lowered compression ratio's?

Stage one Maikonics which for the T2 is 250BHP, 320FT/LB Torque with 15 PSi is fine and the only 'real' weak spot is the clutch. If you've got a weak clutch it'll be toast, especially if you're doing lots of Y0 DRAGSTRIP starts and ride the clutch. Common mod is diesel clutch I think and also the Cosworth clutch. If they're fine though and you are considerate the clutches are fine. If you go tweaking boost etc over this then things can start to go pop on the standard engine (the injectors will be on the max over 250 though I think)...hence why forged pistons, high CC injectors, twin fuel pumps (8 Injectors too!) etc are in CGAT. Stage one is enough to make you happy though and frighten people with! However I have heard people run at those very high pressures without too many problems...

[citroenxm]

CX 2.5 engine, OHV made of IORN metal, NOT tin foil metal...

A properly engineered unit that I think can date back to late DS years?? (Am I correct??)