xm2.5 vsx estate versus volvo v70 d5se

crooser · Post by **crooser** » 10 Aug 2005, 01:42

xm 2.5 1998 vsx estate 55000 miles 1 owner £6000--v70 d5se 02 estate 81000 miles £13000.i can't afford either one but one of them i will have.both cars have good points and both have bad ones so someone please help me to make a decision.i would rather not hear from anyone who uses common sense and sensible reasoning because that will spoil the whole exercise,after all when did citroen lovers ever use their heads in a logical way?

Post by **Peter.N.** » 10 Aug 2005, 04:27

If you want ride comfort there is no contest, although Volvo have got their act together more now, there is still no sustitute for hydropnumatic suspension. I would imagine though that the Volvo is probably more reliable and easier to work on, although I havn't had any experience with modern Volvo's.

Post by **Peter.N.** » 10 Aug 2005, 04:29

PS. Try them and see which you prefer, I know which one I would go for but its not based on logic!

jeremy · Post by **jeremy** » 10 Aug 2005, 12:43

I believe some Volvo's are not very comfortable with a harsh and bad ride. This is probably a consequence of making estates go 160 MPh with semi Porsche engines and I know little about the one you are intending to buy but make sure you test it thoroughly.
jeremy

fastandfurryous · Post by **fastandfurryous** » 10 Aug 2005, 12:51

Volvo's still haven't become interesting to drive. Even the modern ones are about as much fun as a cold.

bxbodger · Post by **bxbodger** » 10 Aug 2005, 15:19

Not sensible answer= buy the XM as its a fine looking car, still the prettiest Citroen for years!!!
Sensible answer= If you ever want to sell the car on in a few years buy the Volvo, because someone will want to buy it!!!

crooser · Post by **crooser** » 12 Aug 2005, 00:26

in a way i wished i had asked for logical answers only,what a quandary to be in.

yangreen · Post by **yangreen** » 12 Aug 2005, 01:21

I've driven a V70 D5 but not an XM. The Volvo really surprised me as it was comfortable and had more than enough grunt to cause tons of torque steer in the damp. 5 cylinder engine sounds great too. Have only driven it through Stratford which doesn't really give a chance to get a real feel for it but I like it.
I really like the looks of the S60 (pre facelift) too. Do I need help?!?!?
Of course, the Volvo will lose loads and loads of dosh in value whereas the XM has already lost most of it!

NiSk · Post by **NiSk** » 12 Aug 2005, 01:57

Buy TWO XM 2.5 td breaks - that way they don't cost any more than the Volvo and you will always have one in reserve!
//NiSk

yangreen · Post by **yangreen** » 12 Aug 2005, 02:43

Now that is good advice! You'd also have somewhere to live if you became homeless as they are Huge!

chaseracer · Post by **chaseracer** » 12 Aug 2005, 02:50

XM, obviously - though my bias is evident.
That said, I did have a Volvo about eight years ago and - Ian Green will never let me forget this... - it was rather good! It ended up in a straight swap for two garages-worth of Dyane spares...[^][:D]

Post by **Peter.N.** » 12 Aug 2005, 13:46

If you want a sensible answer........I have run CXs and then XMs for 20 years because I have never found a more comfortable and refined car and I've tried a few. The CX was in some ways better than the XM, certainly for handling and stability and the space in the Safari was awesome. The XM estate has better creature comforts, a lot of space, superb ride and the 2.1 td that I have has brilliant economy, 40 + mpg average and easily exceeds 50 mpg driven sensibly on the motorway, what other car has all those qualities? Reliability, well thats something else, but if you get a good one or a cheap one get it up to standard they can do very high mileages, the last one I sold had covered 292k and was still going strong.

crooser · Post by **crooser** » 12 Aug 2005, 14:05

i am off to try the volvo d5 this morning so i will post my impressions.i should mention that i am driving to the garage in my 95 2.5 xm estate that i have had for 4 years.ithink that the only serious setback with the 2.5 xm is the head problems that can arise[i know because i've had them].i would be very interested to hear from anyone who has had the xm 2.5 diesel for a long time and done high mileage with no engine problems,if there is such a person.

NiSk · Post by **NiSk** » 12 Aug 2005, 14:39

I've had both 2.1 and 2.5 td XM's. Both have travelled far - the 2.1 540,000 km and the 2.5 345,000 km. Both have had one HG blow. Both due to failure of a coolant hose at high speed (the 2.5 before it came into my ownership). So these engine can manage high milages, give very good fuel consumption and show no signs of wear even after many, many miles. BUT you must watch coolant temperature, both cars have absurdly late warning systems for overtemp - by the time they have started screaming, its too late! The 2.1 also suffers from rattly hydraulic tappets, although they dont seem to effect the performance much. If I had my choice, I'd love a tuned 2.1 with either mechanical Bosch injection or a later 2.1 with something other than Lucas disasterous EPIC fitted - maybe get a Bosch VP36 modified to suit. The 2.1 engine seems almost unbreakable although the torque of the 2.5 is incredible - but I do worry about all those long drive belts and there's no room at all under the bonnet.
//NiSk

shezads · Post by **shezads** » 12 Aug 2005, 16:36

Is it just me but £6k for a 98 xm? Isn't that a bit high? I know the mileage is low - but for an eight year old car.....
Also - there must be a mod that you can carry out to stop the xm over heating? Surely - either by fitting a water temp guage in a better position or by introducing better cooling - more ducts / direct air to the radiator - having the cooling fans permanantley on. Having a head gasket blow on a 2.5 TD XM - dread to think of the cost on that! Some one mentioned water wetter, supposed to drop coolant temp by up to 15c.