Hello guys i am here for advice. At this tiem i am choosing wich car to buy. CX GTI turbo 2 '87 (168hp),or XM exclusive '95 (200hp). I can't sleep couse dont know wich desicion to make. Well Xm has more luxury but cx is faster, XM is cheaper to maitain (i think),but CX is more individual, XM is more reliable (i think), but CX is softer to ride.
So i have big problem, wich can't be solve by myself.
Both cars cost almost the same ~3500 euro.
Help me to choose please, i really need advice from you.
CX vs XM
Moderator: RichardW
Hi Igniukas, welcome in the EU community [8D]
Have a look here :
http://citroenz.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=12
Have a look here :
http://citroenz.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=12
-
Stinkwheel
- Posts: 562
- Joined: 28 May 2004, 01:02
- Location:
- My Cars:
- x 1
Dont you believe that XM's are cheaper to maintain, just as much goes wrong and they are just as expensive to fix, OK parts are more easily avilable cos they are newer but thats about it. I personally would prefer the CX. I like them better. But make sure the car has been well looked after in the past, Make sure all the electrical connectors are cleaned and greased. The CX will give you more smiles per mile also. The value of a well preserved CX will definitly go up with time, an XM still gets hit hard by depreciation. Ultimately up to you though.
-
DoubleChevron
- Posts: 622
- Joined: 22 Sep 2003, 18:06
- Location: Australia
- My Cars:
- Contact:
Having never driven an XM I can say with full confidence the CX is a MUCH better car, smoother, faster, proper steering, better suspension etc, etc... Gee's ignorance is bliss [:D] [:o)]
There's no way I'd swap my CX 2500 GTi Turbo for an XM. However I'd happily swap my wifes Xantia slugomatic for an XM turbo diesel 5spd [8D]
I'm willing to concede I *might* be slightly biased as I've been driving CX's since the day I obtained my license [:o)]
seeya,
Shane L.
There's no way I'd swap my CX 2500 GTi Turbo for an XM. However I'd happily swap my wifes Xantia slugomatic for an XM turbo diesel 5spd [8D]
I'm willing to concede I *might* be slightly biased as I've been driving CX's since the day I obtained my license [:o)]
seeya,
Shane L.
I guess I tend to agree with most of what has been said above, teh only problem is finding a CX that is worth saving - unlike the XM the CX is NOT galvanized. Also the XM has earned a reputation of running forever, given the simplest of maintenance (my own has covered 520,000 km in 10 years and is still running as well as ever).
The XM may not have the total comfort of the CX, but it's still miles better than any of the competition.
//NiSk
The XM may not have the total comfort of the CX, but it's still miles better than any of the competition.
//NiSk
Well I have owned 3 CX's and have just moved to an XM (2.1 TD). To my mind the XM is a more modern car that seems to do everything the CX does only better (and it pains me to admit that).
However the CX certainly had more style,
CX +ve
<ul>
<li>DIVARI (some LHD XM's had this) I really miss this </li>
<li>Anti-dive suspension geometry</li>
<li>Super soft suspension </li>
<li>Great style (single wiper etc)</li>
</ul>
XM +ve
<ul>
<li> No rust (galvanised) </li>
<li> Very quiet (much less wind noise than CX) </li>
<li> Modern safety features (seat belt tensioners) </li>
<li> Huge interior </li>
<li> Decent ventilation </li>
</ul>
As for maintainance, the CX is so basic you can do most things yourself. I had no great problem in getting parts (the internet helps here). The CX engine is old, simple and bullet proof and I never had problems with it breaking down. They can cover huge milages with reasonable care.
The XM has a much more rigid body than the CX and I find myself going faster over the same roads. On long trips the XM is quieter although you can feel cross winds. In the CX crosswinds vanish and I think is more stable at high speeds (DIVARI helps). Both are brilliant long distance cars.
So far the XM has been totally reliable. While I admire the features of the CX the XM does most things better.
I guess it depends on what you are looking for in a car, if you appreciate the enginearing of the CX then go for it- don't be scared of the reliablility as a well maintained CX is totally reliable. There is a lot of great info on maintenance for the CX on the web.
If you want modern features then go for the XM. I went for the XM because in Australia any CX will be close to 20 years old (except for the odd private imports) and I wanted a more modern car.
Best advice I can give is to drive as many CX's and XM's as possible to get a feel for what they should feel like. When I was innocent I drove a CX with flat spheres for almost a year before I found out about re gassing! [:D]
regards
sean
However the CX certainly had more style,
CX +ve
<ul>
<li>DIVARI (some LHD XM's had this) I really miss this </li>
<li>Anti-dive suspension geometry</li>
<li>Super soft suspension </li>
<li>Great style (single wiper etc)</li>
</ul>
XM +ve
<ul>
<li> No rust (galvanised) </li>
<li> Very quiet (much less wind noise than CX) </li>
<li> Modern safety features (seat belt tensioners) </li>
<li> Huge interior </li>
<li> Decent ventilation </li>
</ul>
As for maintainance, the CX is so basic you can do most things yourself. I had no great problem in getting parts (the internet helps here). The CX engine is old, simple and bullet proof and I never had problems with it breaking down. They can cover huge milages with reasonable care.
The XM has a much more rigid body than the CX and I find myself going faster over the same roads. On long trips the XM is quieter although you can feel cross winds. In the CX crosswinds vanish and I think is more stable at high speeds (DIVARI helps). Both are brilliant long distance cars.
So far the XM has been totally reliable. While I admire the features of the CX the XM does most things better.
I guess it depends on what you are looking for in a car, if you appreciate the enginearing of the CX then go for it- don't be scared of the reliablility as a well maintained CX is totally reliable. There is a lot of great info on maintenance for the CX on the web.
If you want modern features then go for the XM. I went for the XM because in Australia any CX will be close to 20 years old (except for the odd private imports) and I wanted a more modern car.
Best advice I can give is to drive as many CX's and XM's as possible to get a feel for what they should feel like. When I was innocent I drove a CX with flat spheres for almost a year before I found out about re gassing! [:D]
regards
sean
Must add that there is a series 1.5 on the XM - stretching from mid 1992 up until the proper series 2 came in '94. On the 1.5 most of the nasties from the series 1 removed (mostly electrical, and the unsuccesful front suspension mounting)). So don't be worried about buying a late '92 or a '93 XM.
//NiSk
//NiSk
-
DoubleChevron
- Posts: 622
- Joined: 22 Sep 2003, 18:06
- Location: Australia
- My Cars:
- Contact:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Thanks to everyone! Weith a little help of you, i just ordered Cx from Germany, and i am going to be it's (or maybe his:)))) owner.
Thanks again<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
You realise it will get lonely all by itself. CX's enjoy having a DS or two for companionship [:D] [:o)]
seeya,
Shane L.
Thanks again<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
You realise it will get lonely all by itself. CX's enjoy having a DS or two for companionship [:D] [:o)]
seeya,
Shane L.