I am looking at a nice auto 1996 S2 XM TD (2.1). The car is located interstate from me so I can't see it in the metal.
I have had 3 CX's over the last 10 years so Citorens don't scare me however the XM is all new.
What are the traps/weak points on the XM ?
I do basic work on the CX myself, but not sure about the more modern XM.
This car was origionally English- private import to Aus.
thanks in advance
sean
Advice on 1996 XM TD 2.1
Moderator: RichardW
Sean -
If you happen to know the ins/outs of a BX - then you may consider the XM as an enlarged BX model.
Having had CX & BX'es myself - I'd say that the XM is placed somewhere in the middle between these 2 in complexity to DIY maintain.
The largest differences to XM's from CX'es are :
1) Enlarged versions of the wellknown BX engine types (XU engines) - much more modern & very different from the CX engine types (which basically were the old ID/DS engines).
All types genuine OHC engines - cam acting directly on the valve stems.
2) The front suspension design on XM is McPherson hydraulic struts - exactly same principle as on the BX (& Xantia). This also detoriates somewhat the very comfortable double wishbone inherited suspension comfort as found on the CX.
3) Finally you'll get rid of the insane handbrake mechanism from the CX [:D]. On the XM it's a rod acting on the main piston - just like on the BX. Much more reliable, efficient & longlasting.
4) You'll see that basically a lot of the chassis body structure still have remnants from the CX construction - but there is no separate underframe construction as found on the CX - except from the usual front & rear subframes.
5) You no longer have the DIRAVI servo - but a simpler PAS servo - as found on the BX. To your luck - from ´95 models this was refined by removing the dredded FlowDivider valve - instead incorporating a 2 circuit hydraulic pump - with a separate output for the servo.
Known problems falls into 2 main categories :
1) Usual corrosion problems as found on any car. Special points are weak upper mounting areas for the front suspension struts.
2) Wellknown electrical problems - all over - as usual on Citroens.
3) XU engines are somewhat reputated for their hunger on head gaskets - but in my opinion due to a smaller tolerance margin on service neclects. Especially on engine oil & cooling system.
The old CX engines seemed more sturdy & tolerant to neglects.
A lot of owners here will surely add to the list of known problem areas - but mainly I think that specific XM problems are few - problems seems to be scattered all over - like on any other modern car.
Few problems will be wellknown from the CX : the hydraulics - but again mainly caused by neglect of timely service.
If you happen to know the ins/outs of a BX - then you may consider the XM as an enlarged BX model.
Having had CX & BX'es myself - I'd say that the XM is placed somewhere in the middle between these 2 in complexity to DIY maintain.
The largest differences to XM's from CX'es are :
1) Enlarged versions of the wellknown BX engine types (XU engines) - much more modern & very different from the CX engine types (which basically were the old ID/DS engines).
All types genuine OHC engines - cam acting directly on the valve stems.
2) The front suspension design on XM is McPherson hydraulic struts - exactly same principle as on the BX (& Xantia). This also detoriates somewhat the very comfortable double wishbone inherited suspension comfort as found on the CX.
3) Finally you'll get rid of the insane handbrake mechanism from the CX [:D]. On the XM it's a rod acting on the main piston - just like on the BX. Much more reliable, efficient & longlasting.
4) You'll see that basically a lot of the chassis body structure still have remnants from the CX construction - but there is no separate underframe construction as found on the CX - except from the usual front & rear subframes.
5) You no longer have the DIRAVI servo - but a simpler PAS servo - as found on the BX. To your luck - from ´95 models this was refined by removing the dredded FlowDivider valve - instead incorporating a 2 circuit hydraulic pump - with a separate output for the servo.
Known problems falls into 2 main categories :
1) Usual corrosion problems as found on any car. Special points are weak upper mounting areas for the front suspension struts.
2) Wellknown electrical problems - all over - as usual on Citroens.
3) XU engines are somewhat reputated for their hunger on head gaskets - but in my opinion due to a smaller tolerance margin on service neclects. Especially on engine oil & cooling system.
The old CX engines seemed more sturdy & tolerant to neglects.
A lot of owners here will surely add to the list of known problem areas - but mainly I think that specific XM problems are few - problems seems to be scattered all over - like on any other modern car.
Few problems will be wellknown from the CX : the hydraulics - but again mainly caused by neglect of timely service.
XM TD12 plus and minus:
+ v. good fuel economy - around 45 mpg (UK Gal)
+ galvanised body and chassis
+ amazing engine - mine has lasted for 490 000 km so far and plenty of guts!
+ very comfortable long distance mile eater
- Lucas injection (presumably since it's a '95)
- front suspension turret inserts rust away (might have been fixed to '95 - replacements aren't nearly as bad).
- stupid location of relays over headlights invites winter salt to play havoc with electrics
- rear suspension trailing arm bearing should be fitted with a grease nipple to stop the dreaded bearing wear (as BX!)
- poor rubber quality in two small cooling hoses can cause disaster if they burst (which they did, of course)
I'm not saying that the minuses outweight the pluses - the other way around actually - I've never had a car that was as frugal and reliable as my XM TD12 and I've never driven a more comfortable car either (have owned a couple of BX's but no earlier Cits')
You can learn a lot more about the Xm and the TD12 on the following web site: http://www.tramontana.co.hu/citroen/engine/diesel.html
//NiSk
+ v. good fuel economy - around 45 mpg (UK Gal)
+ galvanised body and chassis
+ amazing engine - mine has lasted for 490 000 km so far and plenty of guts!
+ very comfortable long distance mile eater
- Lucas injection (presumably since it's a '95)
- front suspension turret inserts rust away (might have been fixed to '95 - replacements aren't nearly as bad).
- stupid location of relays over headlights invites winter salt to play havoc with electrics
- rear suspension trailing arm bearing should be fitted with a grease nipple to stop the dreaded bearing wear (as BX!)
- poor rubber quality in two small cooling hoses can cause disaster if they burst (which they did, of course)
I'm not saying that the minuses outweight the pluses - the other way around actually - I've never had a car that was as frugal and reliable as my XM TD12 and I've never driven a more comfortable car either (have owned a couple of BX's but no earlier Cits')
You can learn a lot more about the Xm and the TD12 on the following web site: http://www.tramontana.co.hu/citroen/engine/diesel.html
//NiSk