Telegraph Feature on XM

[casalingua]

How long were CXs viewed as worthless bangers? Thirteen years ago I bought my first XM for £700 and it only had 65,000 miles on the clock (and a mis-painted nose cone). My next XM has 120,000 on the clock and was in lovely condition and it cost me £900 in 2005. The car has been out of production for 13 years, going on 14 years. Will it take as long as the CX to emerge from banger status? And as I asked elsewhere, will demand for cars of this period ever be the same as for the ones from the decade before?

[robert_e_smart]

80s kind of retro is cool at the moment. I think the BX is the ultimate for that though.

I don't know when this article will appear. I will ask when I submit something to them. Many CXs and Xms are still worthless bangers! But there are a more and more cared for cars appearing out of the wood work.

[marc61]

Think it would be good to emphasise the hydractive a bit. That was a genuine step forward from the CX, maximised comfort and minimised roll.

CX drivers didn't like the XM at least initially, just like DS drivers didn't really like the CX when it arrived. A big sense of loss of design principles, with Diravi as the only compensation. But it was even more so at the end of the 80s because Peugeot had messed with Citroen thinking by then. Many thought it was a bland wedgy thing with retrograde steering, a boring dash and no character. But it got hydractive suspension and that was a major win for Citroenists.

Cheers

Marc

[robert_e_smart]

Thanks Marc,

I have been putting a few words together this evening. When I get it finished I will post it up here for further scrutiny!

[casalingua]

Indeed, there are always individual cars that remain cheap but what I was asking was how the price had spread. Initially the average price for a CX was very, very low and now it has gone up as the price for the best cars has risen. Initially there might not have been much difference between the price of a good one and the price of a mediocre one as all were lumped together under the one reputation. I expect that as time goes by the price for the better than average cars will begin to increase, the price spread will widen.

Having read at least twenty reviews in the motoring press from 1989 to 1995, I can say there were no loud accusations that the XM looked bland. Gavin Green thought the window-line awkward while Peter Robinson thought that despite the "bland" frontal styling the car overall was elegant. He was the only one to criticise the front end. It´s hard to see what he was getting at since the frontal aspect of the car is almost sinister and is quite subtly aggressive.
Some did call the dashboard conventional but all commented on the much improved quality. Of its peers only the Alfa Romeo 164 had a truly striking dashboard; perhaps the Saab 9000 was a runner up. The rest were unremarkable variations on the BMW driver-oriented cockpit or a horizontal slab with a pod on top. The XM´s does have an austere quality to it. An ex-girlfriend of mine was reminded of a macho French waiter.

With hindsight, the front of the car seems to me to have two conflicting themes. One is the band of black plastic rub-strip running all the way around the car. It´s there to make the car look long in side view and to break up the height between the rear wheel and the side glass. At the front it disrupts the flow of the profile from the bonnet down past the nose to under the bumper. They really wanted an strong horizontal theme at the front but there was also this residual CX profile that ran from the mirror, down the wing, to the nose cone and then under the bumper to the air intake aperture. I think that when they colour-coded the bump strip they revealed that profile but then made the car look short/too tall in side view. Given the choice, I prefer the first version. To avoid the whole problem of the black bump strip, you´d need to re-work the whole car by lowering it a few centimetres and lengthening it about 10 cm. The problem isn´t trivial.

[casalingua]

I found these undated photos on the net. The white car looks longer than the silver one (but oddly the white V6 seems somehow more CX-esque). the silver car looks taller (and not merely because its suspension is up). If you have to have a late model car, then I´d say get one in a dark colour. But earlier cars look better in a light colour. This also shows off the window graphics better. All in all, the car was conceived with light colours in mind. The later modifications were not in keeping with that concept. I can´t believe I own a car this interesting looking....It´s like owning my own space ship.

http://auto.aggress.ru/images/18/XM/cit ... etgert.jpg
http://worldcarslist.com/images/citroen ... -v6-05.jpg

[russ92xmsed]

I prefer the black bumpers. It breaks up the body and it seems to make the overall design more delicate. I agree with you pointing out the colour coding.....it makes it seem heavier, more solid maybe. That could be a conscious thought by Citroen, as well as making it look more modern. But the crease that runs around the whole car, really helps to add some interest in the design. It too breaks up the panels. It opens out and lightens up the rear panel, which without it would overwhelm the rear wheel and look very heavy. It Helps emphasise the wedge stance, making the car look more dynamic. It also carries the eye around the whole design, tying everything together. Something i was taught is an important feature in successful car design.
One criticism I read, was the car looked like two designs stuck together. I don't agree with that at all! I think it is very successful piece of automotive design. But then I am biased. My old Uni tutor was not a fan. But then he was part of the BL design team!

With regards to the front design. It was more discreet, but at that time, car design was going through a strange bland phase, where the fronts of cars where kept quite neat and a little predictable. But it works, it mirrors the SM front very cleverly. Infact I hated what they did to the mk2 when it was launched.

Cars have faces.....
The DS in covered headlight form, looked demonic, very aggressive and quite cross looking.
The CX looked a happy car. It had gleeful looking headlights, and was not that threatening.
The XM seemed to look unimpressed. Quietly aggressive but not an overtly angry looking car. The SM looked more aggressive with its six headlights.

That's how I have always thought of them. Anyway sorry to repeat a bit....just agreeing!

[CitroJim]

Cars have faces.....

They do!!

I see it all the time. The Pug 206 looks a bit crafty, as if it's just pulled off a fiendish trick. A bit foxy..

The MK III Fraud Fester and it's Escort partner of the same age look terribly sad and unhappy.

I quite agree with what you say about the XM. It knows it's superior but is saying nothing. S1 Xantia the same.

S2 Xantias look like they've had a flash facelift that's not quite worked out as expected...

[casalingua]

I also had an ex-BL staff member for a tutor and without wanting to be unkind, BL was not a hotbed of brilliance, was it? And in the case of my tutor, his work was a very long time in the past and I feel in the end, he didn´t know a lot more than I did but since he was a lot older and very tall, he imposed his views as if they were conclusive.

The idea that the XM is two design´s stuck together can be rejected without hesitation. It´s as wrong as saying bananas look like space robots. The design is incredibly coherent and very rich. I´ve spent an absurd amount of time looking at it, playing with variations on the specific solutions and there are few cars that invite or can sustain this kind of study. That´s not to say many aren´t good in their own way. The Mk 2 Ford Focus and the Mk 2 Mondeo, for example, are really very good bits of work. I can´t fault them but they are not (and should not be expected to be) able to sustain a good, long, hard look. A Saab 900 does, so does a CX and Jaguar XJ-S. You could write dissertations about these cars but not about say, a Peugeot 406 (great car though it is) or a Lancia Thema, or many, many others.

[russ92xmsed]

That will be David Browne then!!! Or Ned Flanders as we used to call him.
As a year group, we did become quite used to designing for him. I don't really agree with that, and it frustrated many. He knew his stuff, but was quite adamant what worked and what didn't. Incidentally he is or was a Citroen driver. He owned an SM whilst at BL. CX and 2CV too i believe later on.
I disagree with BL not being a hotbed of automotive design. The design department was quite forward thinking. The actual economics and lack of component development is really what killed the designs proportions...which is everything really. the Allegro was meant to be quite a good looking car, but the engines and associated components where so big, it blew the design up to accommodate them. But then a clever designer would still try to design around this issue. anyway thats BL. we all know what happened to them!!


I totally agree with the XM being a coherent design. I think it is one of the most complete and pleasing designs out there.