The XM

[Chris570]

imo the reason the xm doesnt handle as well as the xanita is nothing to do with the rear axle, it's the setup of the car, its' suspension is set more for comfort.

Before you knock changing a rad in a xantia go and do it on an XM

If you spend more time cruising than in a town buy an XM
If you spend more time in a town/short hops up a motorway buy a Xantia

You'll see that the XM is built not with the same parts as a Xantia, just the same principles, there arent a huge amount of parts shared.

If you want an XM, get a good one and you'll love it

[Captain Slow]

The 2.5 is only available in Series 2 XM

[messerschmitt owner]

I'd agree with Chris's comments regarding 'people who say XMs are ...'

I've the best of both worlds, a 2.1TD SX manual which I have put 40,000 miles onto in two years and a VSX auto petrol turbo estate. I like them both but the manual box is my preference.

MY estate hasn't had a hard life - it spent it's first couple of years underground near Canary Wharf, then the rest of its life in a garage, covering most of its mileage in the first five years.

One thing XMs do have over Xantias is owners who have been fastidious with maintenance and maintaining history. Every XM I have owned has come with a history pack with receipts and invoices - it isn't coincidence. One even had a titled first owner.

Buy a well maintained car, expect to carry out regular maintenance and keep on top of any faults and it will be fine. If you're passing my way (Gloucester) drop in and I can show you the XMs and take you for a drive in one or both. We can even talk about Hebridean islands, especially St Kilda.

[Spaces]

Thankyou for your lind invite messerschmitt owner, actually driving an XM is next on my list of priorities. I did drive one ropey one years ago, and banished the thought from my memory!

Interesting that the parts are quite different - are Xantia bits better designed I wonder? And that XM rads are even more of a pain! I suppose the nose comes off, how bad a job is it? Bizzarly, I don't mind some long-winded jobs if they're interesting and not full of bits of plastic which were intended to never come apart! (Which is probably exactly what the front of an XM is full of...)

We all enjoy an engine which is on top of its job - but I've driven many cars which are unecessarily powerful (taking into consideration the chassis), a result of asking the consumer what they think they want, perhaps. I prefer a car where the engine is well-matched - the performance will be more satisfying and often driving will be smoother and quicker with better economy. To me, the 2.1 is just on the powerful side of right for a Xantia (whereas many 1.9s feel sluggish), so since an XM seems to be 70-100kg heavier, like-for-like, isn't a 2.1 manual well-matched to the car? I imagine the chassis copes perfectly with the extra horses of the 2.5. Is the bigger engine/gearbox much heavier?

As to comments about 'handling', I measure handling in the real world, my world, which is the measure of how accurately a car tracks and corners at speed on a variety of surfaces and foundations. I don't subscribe to the TG test-track view - it's entirely artificial. (Many would say a CX has wallowy understeer, but that's if you're used to a Focus or similar or never drive really quickly on real roads - something like a Focus is dicey at speed on many roads round us. Equally, a regular journey over a fast moorland road leaves Xantias struggling for suspension travel and body control where a GS or CX just gets on with it, plus they never alter their attitude mid-corner without asking. )

[Chris570]

Best thing to do, is drive it.

I think you'll like it. HA2 doesnt change attitudes mid corner, the only (i do i mean just once) time i've felt the state change is on a long sweeping corner where you're on the edge of being gentle enough to not trigger hard mode. Hardly an issue when it does engage though, barely noticeable.

[Spaces]

Wasn't so much thinking of the HA suspension than the self-steering rear axle. Am I right in thinking the first XMs didn't have a passive-steer rear end? How poor are the dipped headlamps and what is done about them?

[Deanxm]

All XM's had passive rear steer and for that length of car it works very well, the headlamps are ok but obviously if the reflectors are aging and the diffuser is all yellowed they are awefull.

D

[Chris570]

^^^ what he said

[Spaces]

All XM's had passive rear steer...

D

Somebody better alter wikipedia's page then, it reads "In mid-1994 the XM was revised in order to improve competitiveness. All models were fitted with driver's airbag (signalling the end of the single-spoke steering wheel), belt-pretensioners, a redesigned dashboard and upper door casings. The suspension was redesigned to reduce roll, pitch and dive. Most noticeable was the adoption of a passive rear-steering system similar to that on the Citroen Xantia. This sharpened the steering without inducing a nervous twitch."

[Deanxm]

you have no idea how tempting it was to edit that post to something inappropriate after seeing yours Chris, notice how i resisted though...............

The passive rear steer was achieved by suspending the rear subframe on rubber bushings that allowed it to turn by a degree or so under cornering load as you know, all XM's used this setup from the start so i believe the author may have been mis informed. same goes for suspension, there were many ecu versions for the xm that played with the switching perameters throughout production there was no single switch point to correct dive and roll, i think he is refering to the change to hydractive two that does the same job as H1 but uses a system in line with the Xantia, which brought some slight long term reliability issues with it not found on H1.



D

[Spaces]

Even Citroenet is quoting the XM as having passive rear steer from the mid-nineties:

In the event, a simplified version of Activa’s suspension was fitted and passive rear steer, originally introduced on the ZX was not fitted until the mid 90s.

http://www.citroenet.org.uk/passenger-c ... xm-12.html

[Deanxm]

That quote again looksa bit odd, "simplified version of the activa suspension"? what they mean is the xm came fitted with Hydractive suspension the same as the Activa, so far as im aware ALL PSA cars from the late 80's onwards came with the same rear subframe mounts and setup, i have a MK1 xm and many spare MK1 and 2 rear subframes and there is no difference at all between them.

D

[citroenxm]

The Xantia was built to a higher standard then the XM I found through the years.

S1 and S2 subframes are the same and completely inter changable, I shall be fitting an S2 (1997) rear subframe to my S1 (1990) SED XM next year due to a flakey frame and a problem with the anti roll bar mounting bolts...

I dont find engines as Muted in the XM as much as the Xantia, but agree the S2 XMs are more prone to rust then earlyer cars, but floors and cills are poor on ALL Models... As for the rusting on S2 cars, I beleve its down to a poor galvanising process then earlyer cars.. Bumper braket areas are poor on all cars.

[addo]

I believe the suspension changes were at the front, although this could affect the car as a whole. Rear mounting blocks for the wishbones changed.

[Citroenmad]

To me, the 2.1 is just on the powerful side of right for a Xantia (whereas many 1.9s feel sluggish), so since an XM seems to be 70-100kg heavier, like-for-like, isn't a 2.1 manual well-matched to the car? I imagine the chassis copes perfectly with the extra horses of the 2.5. Is the bigger engine/gearbox much heavier?

As to comments about 'handling', I measure handling in the real world, my world, which is the measure of how accurately a car tracks and corners at speed on a variety of surfaces and foundations. I don't subscribe to the TG test-track view - it's entirely artificial. (Many would say a CX has wallowy understeer, but that's if you're used to a Focus or similar or never drive really quickly on real roads - something like a Focus is dicey at speed on many roads round us. Equally, a regular journey over a fast moorland road leaves Xantias struggling for suspension travel and body control where a GS or CX just gets on with it, plus they never alter their attitude mid-corner without asking. )

The 2.1TD with a manual box in an XM is fine, I know it to be exactly the same out and out performance as a 110 HDi in a C5 and so are not underpowered. The 2.5 would be nice and it is full of torque, but I say this every time an XM purchase comes into question, buy on condition and NOT engine or spec level. Obviously if you need the economy of a diesel then it has to be a diesel, however I wouldnt be holding out for you most desired choice, either diesel is very good.

XMs handle well, they cover ground well. I have often found myself driving along country roads in the estate without taking too much notice of the speed, when looking down I find im very much the wrong side of the limit. The suspension is very capable, the grip is good and its an easy car to hussle along too. In my opinion the Xantia hydractives and XMs are built for real roads, they both cover ground very fast on real, undulating and flowing country roads. As said, the XM is that bit softer, larger and slightly more cruiser orientated than the Xantia.

I do agree with Chris in that the Xantia is a great car to dart about town in, compared to the XM and C5 they are very nimble through traffic. But even with the massive XM estate it is a doddle and compared to modern cars they are no longer a wide car.