I'd agree about the ZX... up to a point. Bought as a three owner, 85k mile car in 2004, I sold my '94 TD Estate with 168k miles in '09 and during that time it needed nothing but brake pads, two discs, a cambelt, tyres, filters, fluids and patch-welded sills and wheelarches. Bought as an 94k replacement that year, my 2001 Xsara TD Estate needed all of those plus a new clutch, wheel bearings, various suspension and steering items before I sold it last summer at 138k to be replaced by the XM. Engineering-wise then, the Xsara was not as robust or durable as the ZX. (And my neighbour, who has a 150k mile non-turbo 2000 example, would agree).Citroen XM and ZX build quality was streets ahead of the competition at the time,
Although I've undersealed my XM I am worried about the sills which due to the mangling of the front jacking points – how did Citroen let that into the design equation ?!?! - spewed oil onto the garage floor when I filled them as an anti-corrosion precaution. And we all know about the low calibre electrical components and the fragility of some of the hydraulics (and strut tops). So I can't really agree with the "streets ahead" claim in the XM's case! Tell that to Mercedes, BMW, Mazda, Honda, Volvo etc.

Cheers - Mark