[Curbside shots by CC Cohort glen.h]
Before we embark on our very comfortable ride in the Citroën XM, consider this: Since 1934, Citroën has built only five generations of full size/executive class sedans–and the three before the XM were all legendary, to put it mildly. The Traction Avant pioneered FWD; the DS is simply the Goddess, and needs no further explanation; and the CX managed to follow in her hallowed footsteps quite successfully. Understandably, the expectations for a new Citroën to replace the CX were huge and, in some regards, the XM met them.
The XM was also a disappointment, in part due to a rocky start whose issues included reliability, a cheap dashboard and a few others. But its biggest challenge was a changing world in which the German marques were in ascendency, and conventionality, consistency, and brand cachet trumped eccentricity and innovation. Citroën’s big-car star was in decline.
While the XM’s design may have had its exotic and unconventional aspects, it wasn’t quite in the same league as its predecessors. Designed by Marcello Gandini, of Bertone, it shared the platform of the Peugeot 605. While the body design provided superb visibility and comfort, the front end was generic and bland, and the kicked-up rear was a bit hard to take. In any case, the XM certainly had a distinctive profile, even if it did try a bit too hard to look unconventional.
The XM’s dynamic qualities were another mixed bag. Its suspension was (again) truly brilliant; In response to the CX’s tendency to lean and wallow in turns, the XM used a very advanced, electronically-controlled active version of Citroën’s famous hydro-pneumatic suspension, now called Hydractive. Offering both Sport and Comfort modes, as well as continuous active intervention, the XM’s ride remained unparalleled; what’s more, its handling was now much improved–factors that undoubtedly made it the European COTY in 1990.
But besides those nasty teething problems, which mostly involved its complex electronics and barely average power plants, the XM suffered from the thrall that Audi, BMW and Mercedes had cast upon the executive class market in the ’90s. Being odd just didn’t cut it anymore. The XM sold well below projected levels, and was a particular disappointment in the UK, where its predecessors’ sales had always held their own.
There was a five-year gap from the last XM to its C6 successor’s arrival in 2005. In many ways, the C6 continues the XM’s qualities, notably a (still) superlative ride and non-cookie cutter design. But its sales, too, have been modest, and its future hardly bright. The European market is contracting, with both Peugeot and Citroën (which are co-owned) being squeezed hard; maybe even by a death grip. Will there be a sixth large Citroën sedan?
I have to say, regardless of the big shoes these cars had to fill, they are both great designs in my eyes. The C6 is just a stunner, and the XM appeals to my 80’s sci-fi lovin’ inner 10 year old. It would look right at home on the Death Star.
The XM appeals to me in the same way the Subaru SVX does, and harkens back to the SM, one of my all-time favorites. (Needless to say, I have a thing for weird cars. 🙂 )
I would love, love love to own one of these.
But I would love, love, love, LOVE to own a CX.
Alas, neither is particularly practical here in the US.
I often wonder about the positioning of the big Cit these days. It’s silly to imagine that a V6-engined fwd car could compete with the Germans. (I know you can get a V6–or even 4-cyl–fwd Audi A6, but the platform is engineered to handle AWD and an enormous V8). Anyway, could a big Citroen find a role like French Acura–not a true luxury brand, but still with a sizeable niche? Or does Citroen simply charge too much for its big cars?
Please, please, PLEASE bring Citroen back to the US! Not all of us want to go thru life driving boring Panthers, Camrys and Malibus.
I would be very excited if Citroen came back to the US. Peugeot too, for that matter. I like uncommon European cars. It’s why I have my ’06 V50.
A friend of mine had one of these (probably still does) that came into the country via Ireland. He rescued as it someone sent it to the scrapyard for a very minor issue. Looked a little daunting under the hood but I don’t think he’s had any issues with it.
pic of it with the suspension in off road position. http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveseven/3467417640/in/photostream/
Nice car! A full CC on one of these would be great if you can get a full set of pics. I doubt I’ll ever see one in the metal.
Now I have to go check out the Citroen section of my library…
It is possible. I’ll have to ask him if he still has it. He has probably 30 collector cars – mostly British in rough shape.
I’ve a feeling there are one or two of these lurking around Edinburgh – will keep my eyes peeled & shutter finger ready…
The CX was infamous. Interesting to look at but a real pos. Ask a man who owned one, and will never have a second.
By the way the C6 is deeply discounted (54,000 e) and still sales for more than a benz or BMW. Think 650 examples were sold last year….majority to government fleets. Long live the republic!
Citroen driving dynamics are far ahead of Benz and BMW the XM is built on the Peugeot 406 chassis and untill youve driven one of those you aint driven a real car impeccable ride and handling and its fun to blow past hard driven BMWs in the twisties
XM was…sort of missed opportunity. Too complicated, for no real reason, unreliable through out its life. But station wagons made great ambulances or big family cars, especially with later 2.5 turbo diesel.
By the way, as article said, it was roughly based same platform as Peugeot 605. 406 came in 1995. (I owned one, really great handling, especially in snow!)
CX was also mixed bag considering reliability (great durable diesels, bad petrols), but amazingly confortable, especially in Prestige/Limousine version, with longer wheelbase (also shared with station wagons). However….yes, there is also a question mark…it was too ‘floaty’, second car ever that gave me mal-de-mer (seasickness) in just few minutes.
So, an advice to all potential Citroen owners: they are peculiar, quirky cars, and even with same model range you can find utterly great ones and total rubish.
Peugeots are safer bet, especially 504.
Sorry the 406&406 have the same chassis the XM is only an up market Xantia but the later XMs shared the 2.1 diesel that my 406 had a very grunty but brittle engine
🙂 So, to clear this chassis/platform question – 605 and XM share the same one Xantia and 406 came few years latter, on their own dedicated chassis.
My 406 was 2.1 SVDT, Nausica Green with biege leather interior, and very unusually, rear wiper option! Actually, it was quite reliable engine and powerfull engine, towing occasionally one-tone trailer without a fuss. We had done 170,000km without any mechanical problems and a friend who bought it another 50,000km, again without big problems.
However, electronics did give us few headaches, so we did last 40,000km without speedometer or odometer 🙂 It was quite interesting judging a speed only by tacho and surprisingly, we didn’t get a single speeding ticket 🙂
Sorry. You are wrong. The XM NEVER shared its platform with the Xantia and 406. It shares its platform with the 605 only and both models were produced at the PSA Aulnay-sous-Bois plant north of Paris. The 406 and Xantia utilized the XM/605 platform only as a starting point, but the finished platform for these cars was so substantially different that they shared nothing in common. This practice is common in the auto industry and would your comment be true, then it would also be true to say that the E Class and C Class share the same platform, which they do not.
The Phase I (we say “pre-face lift” or “as introduced”) XM and 605 models had electronic issues surrounding a very innovative perimeter bus wiring harness (whereby all electronic wiring were tributary off-shoots feeding into a common perimeter bus harness). An interim fix made the system actually work very well, but PSA lost confidence in the idea and decided instead to accelerate introduction of the Phase 2 models. With the Phase 2 models, this new system was stripped-out and replaced with a conventional system. Phase 2 cars became stone-cold reliable but, of course, the sales damage was done. A shame because the XM and 605 were truly great cars.
Flash ahead to today. The C6 is a striking, fantastic car that has never had any reliability problems whatsoever. It’s 6 cylinder, 270hp diesel is extremely powerful, smooth and very, very quiet (my mother owns a dark blue C6). Jaguar fits this engine into its XJ flagship car. The C6’s build quality equals, maybe even betters, German standards. Though not a sales success, trust me, even in France everyone stops to admire its beautiful looks. It has TGV-style reclining seats in the rear that are very comfortable.
If cars that look like the C6 are called “odd-ball”, then maybe we need to examine our collective and perhaps off-course aesthetic sense, because the C6 in the flesh just looks so right. It will soon be replaced by the new DS6 which will be the largest member of Citroen’s extremely successful DS luxury sub-brand which includes the DS3, DS4 and the DS5. The success of the DS line in Europe has demonstrated for the very first time that a non-German car company can charge German prices and actually get consumers to gladly pay those prices without some sort of back-end discount or rebate.
🙂 I apparently missed a comma.
So, as I said,chassis-wise, XM and 605 shared a same one, Xantia and 406 came few years latter on their own dedicated one.
As for their reliability, not up to W124 or ’90 Camry/Maxima standards.
and still sales for more than a benz or BMW
um… for more than a small benz or BMW, it’s priced lower than a 5 series or E class (those marques’ equivalent models) but a hair higher than a 3 series or a C class (smaller cars, targeting a different audience).
The order in which I want them:
1. DS
2. CX
3. C6
4. Traction Avant
5. XM
There was a hopeless variation of the XM built in Denmark by the way. It was launched under its own name: Jensen One. Jensen is the most common name in Denmark but it seems nobody really knows how they were allowed to use the name – Danish Jensen enthusiasts were certainly very angry.
Designers Jacob and his son Timothy Jensen are most known for designing watches and some of the well-known Danish Bang & Olufsen hifi systems. It shows on the car as you can see.
The car was an absolute flop. Only one was built. It was sold to Germany but has now returned and rests in a museum. The asking price without Danish taxes was in the region of 70,000 USD and there’s your first hint to why it failed.
If you ask me, I would go for very rare BX Sport, sold 1985-87. Very special car, with usual driving traits even for Citroen
Citroens are seductive and wonderful to drive…when they are running. The problem is to keep them running. Even in France this was a difficult proposition. Our two and a half year-old DS19 rejected the hydraulic pumps and other hydraulic components Citroen mechanics installed on a continuous basis. My father finally got tired of pouring money into the thing and traded it in on a used Simca 1000. The Simca wasn’t nearly as much fun to drive as the Goddess but I never saw it in the morning looking like a lowrider with a pool of expensive hydraulic fluid beneath it.
The XM was a liability in the UK. It was so complex that you really needed to find a specialist to look after it – most Citroen dealers simply couldn’t cope with it.( by the time it came to market, cheaper Citroens had been “dumbed down” to make them more mainstream ). For the determined and fortunate few it was a very special car, but generally it was best avoided.
The C6 was never expected to sell in any volume – I’m not sure I’ve ever seen one.
One unique feature I remember reading about the XM was a second rear window inside, so that the cabin was not disturbed by wind or cold when the hatch was opened. I agree the styling on this is not particularly successful, being a bit bland – perhaps even a 1989 debut was a few years too late. Quasi-futurist styling had had its day.
These large Citroens and the Renault Vel Satis/Avantime have basically shown that if you want to build a luxury sedan, then the ‘German model’ is the way to go (Lexus and Cadillac CTS would also validate this). The French alternative prioritises comfort over ‘sportiness’ or at least firmness. I haven’t experienced these cars, only more conventional fwd Peugeots which are much more ‘German’ in feel, so I can’t give a worthwhile opinion as to which I would prefer, but it is an interesting philosophy and the cars certainly have their fans.
At least part of the reason for the lack of success is a vicious circle where nothing is in its favour – car is not buff-book ‘trendy’ which might kick-start sales, poor dealer network, poor resale, poor consideration – most of these are both a cause & symptom of poor sales.
The second window, courtesy of trademe:
We got the XM here new from 1990, and quite a few more have arrived since as part of our influx of ex-JDM used imports. Still see them around reasonably regularly, and there are always several to choose from on trademe – manuals or autos, V6s or 4 cylinders, cloth or leather. I was highly disappointed in them when they were released here, because they weren’t ahead of their time like their predecessors; rather they were of their time – and at the tail end of it too. And the interior was as bland as bland can be.
The C6, on the other hand, looks absolutely divine, especially the weirdly shaped tailgate window. The interior isn’t as stylish though. I saw a C6 a few times recently on my commute to work, such a great, great looking car. There were just 5 C6s sold new in New Zealand since release, the low number possibly due to the NZ$100,000ish price – although that was less than BMW 5-Series money, it was a lot of money for a large Citroen. I’d have been tempted though!
Since I came to the UK in 2003, I’ve sampled a number of Citroens, 2 GSA’s, a mk1 CX Pallas (with the 2.0 Renault engine,) and a 1992 XM.
The XM wasn’t as ahead of its time design wise (although the CX was actually nothing more than a reinterpretation of the Austin 1800 farina prototype of 1967). However, to put them in perspective, both the CX and even the legendary DS used the ancient 1930s engine from the Traction Avant. It was only their Exner-like space age design fripperies that gave the aura of futurism, although the suspension/steering was the only main advance. The DS’s semi-auto gearbox and later C-matic were technological dead ends.
Of these, the XM was by far the best quality car of the lot. Unbelievably reliable, fast, and with a ride nearly as good as the CX. It was a typical Citroen, capable of turning cobblestones into an autoroute at speed, yet when you get to the twisties, the Hydroactive magically sucks the car down and gives lotus-like handling. It was really amazing. More than that, everything worked, the velour upholstery was thick and didn’t fray like cit’s of old, and the space was amazing. Previously, Citroens were known for their tissue-paper interiors that dissolved even more quickly than the monkey metal on the outside.
It had a ‘double glazed’ tailgate so rear passengers wouldn’t get cold when the hatch was opened, amazing legroom and supreme comfort. Plus, even my hatchback was able to carry a washing machine with the hatch closed, a real advance over the ‘porthole’ trunk on the CX.
For anyone going from a CX or DS, they will be surprised to see that the XM is galvanised to within an inch of its life, as they were made in that rare window after car makers started to eradicate rust but before they used the modern paint systems that led to a reccurance of rust in most post-97 cars. The XM’s you see today are in far better condition than most Mercedes on the road of the same era.
XM’s got a bad press for having a terrible electrical system in the first two years, but this was down to a hairbrained ground system with push on connectors. Once this was changed over, they were great cars, and real bargains. The problem is, that real Citroen enthusiasts know that the cars depreciate like nothing else, and we are all counting the days and pound signs off the calendar until we can get a C6 for pennies. Needless to say this does nothing for Citroen, as the people who want the cars the most don’t want to buy them new.
The secret, like everything, is to get one with a full history and to use an independent garage who knows the foibles and re-engineers them. There is a specialist dealer who sells good XM’s in the UK for upwards of £5K today. If you get a diesel, it will go on for 300K miles or more.
And, if an XM is too big, the Xantia give 80% of the citroenness of an XM in a 3-series size package, and they are the real bargains of the day.
Thank you for your comment. Unfortunately, I’m very limited in what I can really bring to a discussion about certain cars. We are jack-of-all-trades here, and not masters of XMs.
I do think that any comparison of the XM to earlier Citroens has to be from the vantage point of when they appeared. To compare directly to a 1955 DS or 1975 CX is a bit unfair, but your points are well taken. Citroen needed to make more reliable cars, that could be competitive across all fronts and not just on their avant-garde looks and features.
But in a way, that’s the trap Citroen has found itself in, right? Folks want them to be/look avant garde, but most buyers gravitate to the German brands.
Great to hear about how true Citroen aficionados like you have embraced the XM (and C6), and are enjoying them.
Thanks Paul- and for all of my Citroen love, I now drive a Volvo 245- that’s what happens when the other half finds out how much of my paycheque has gone to supporting (simultaneously) a Rover SD1, Lancia Gamma Berlina, and mk1 CX Citroen!
But what a driveway it was- all three interpretations of the classic Pininfarina BMC 1800, and a classic car comparison test if there ever was one.
… the Citroen won hands down, of course.
PSA could’ve conceivably partnered with a Japanese company, swapping chassis/diesel know-how for some decent large displacement gas engines and production know how. If you look inside some French cars from the ’80s and ’90s, it’s easy to see why someone would choose any number of large, similarly priced German cars over a 605 or XM.
What’s also strange is that Peugeot abandoned rear-wheel drive for its 604 and 505 replacement when their reputation for excellent FWD chassis execution was only firmly established after the debut of the 205 and 405. Cars like the 104 and 305 were certainly good, but the company was known more for durable and supple cars like the 504. I would how successful XM/605 and succeeding large cars from PSA might’ve been had the company developed a RWD platform upon which to base the cars. If the powertrains and quality were going to be disappointing, at least the prestige might’ve been greater in such a case.
RWD Citroen? 🙂 They stopped making those in 1920’s…:)
I think the problem with a lack of sales of big and expensive French cars is more complex, lack of really prestige image certainly hurting them all…
If I recall correctly, Peugeot 504 was the last one to be sold in really great numbers (and it was an excellent car!)
In Europe, if you want a small car, buy French, if you want a big one, buy German. The French have always made wonderful small cars that are what keep the industry afloat. Every DS and CX cost Citroen money, which was made up with the 2cv, GS, BX, AX and Xantia.
In all honesty, the only reason French luxury cars have been made- from the ’80s on at least- is for patriotic government ministers who wouldn’t be seen in a Mercedes due to the Nazi connection.
Peugeot’s large cars were always also-rans, and were sold at knock down prices to fleets- either companies for executive perks, or rental fleets when you tick ‘luxury car’ on the form at the airport in Paris. Indeed, the 605 was the fleet special of the XM- the same platform without the design and technology. Design wise, it was just a picture of a 405 that someone typed “enlarge 120%” on their computer.
What’s interesting, is after the departure of the XM in 1998, and before the c6, the hole was filled by Renault of all companies with their Vel Satis. I believe Vel Satis is French for ‘automatic transmission failure’.
Regardless, this car based on a minivan chassis, was nearly strange enough to carry the double chevron, and attractive in its own way, in spite of rather pedestrian technology and unreliability that is far beyond what Citroen could muster even in its darkest years. The French government didn’t bite, preferring to nurse their XM’s along until Citroen got their act together to make something worthy of national pride. The C6 was never designed to make a profit, something Citroen learned from the XM, and is built on a line that is slower and with better quality control.
Its interesting to note that President Chirac would only use a 20 year old CX as his state car, all the way into the 2000’s, and became one of the most outspoken fans of it as a classic car. The same situation exists in the USA- even if (or perhaps ‘though’ is the more accurate word) Cadillac and Lincoln put out chintzy garbage, no American president would be seen in a Lexus or Mercedes. National pride does not follow the logic of economics.
My favourite Citroens were the DS, the 2CV, the CX, the Xantia, and the XM.
Too bad about that little troll ruining this beautiful photo.
At least he is not (yet) as criminal, as other French Presidents…
This cars are for not ordinary people.
May be somebody needs instruction for this Citroen XM on russian language:
http://letitbit.net/download/64208.6923bdc5df954e9c42ddbbde3f3b/Citroen_XM_1989_2000_to_rem_shemy_ru.rar.html
Well, the XM’s design is at least it’s own!
Its’s personal but fail in bringing a “non-anonymous”-personality to the car.
The C6 is hit by the same problem, but just even more.
They (the Citroën killers at Peugeot !!!) try to hard, to make everyone like the design, only to make sure, that no one really LOVE’s it.
Since they dont have any imagination, they should much rather make a retro-version of the DS.
BTW : I drive a Xantia (2.0), a scaled down version of the XM, and equally boring in design.
And I drive an Alfa 156 (2.0TS).
I drive the Xantia, when the Alfa breaks down (at the moment the crankshaft is broke!)
I thought the XM was one of Citroen’s best looking cars. If anyone were to build a worthy successor to the DS, I thought the XM was it. I thought its styling and appearance was modern at best. If I lived in Europe, and there was a big enough dealer network and service network for the car, I would’ve gladly driven the car.
The XM’s problem was that Citroen did exactly the opposite of what customers wanted.
Market research showed that the CX had about four times as many fans as it had buyers. What kept potential and wannabe buyers off buying the cars was the perceived lack of reliability and corrosion problems. In the end, what customers wanted, was a CX that didn’t break down and that didn’t rust.
What they got was a largely flair-free interpretation of a Peugeot 605 with lots of gremlins in the electrical system and suspension that was wrapped in a weirdly designed body loaded with styling gags like that large and unnecessary rear spoiler and black rear lights that made the car’s exterior age quickly and badly, something former big citroens didn’t.
That the XM had nothing even faintly close tot he legendary mechanical longevity and robustness of the DS or the CX didn’t exactly endear it to potential customers that simply took it as a given that a big Citroen would cover a quarter of a million miles without complaining.
That the XM hit a market where most of its competitors invested heavily in getting their dealer network more professional as opposed to the usually recalcitrant and not overly helpful, let alone customer minded, Citroen dealers did not help, either.
When satisfaction is fulfilling the expectations, then Citroen blew it wholesale. Sky high expectations and a full miss if ever there was one. The result was a deserved sales desaster
This makes the XM the first and only big Citroen without a cult following.