Big hydropneumatic Citroëns died out in the 2010s, but at least they went out on a variably high note. The last cars to have the system that Citroën pioneered in the ‘50s were the C5s, but these were also available with other suspension setups. The last luxury barge the marque attempted to date, the C6, was the last Citroën that was only available with the famous green spheres.
For whatever reason, I’ve been running into a number of these lately. There couldn’t have been too many imported into Japan – there weren’t many built to begin with, but I had a close encounter with a very interesting gold example one evening about six months ago. It was in motion, but I followed it and was able to take a few more snaps once it parked nearby.
And recently it happened again: I found a parked one, a superb blue car on a crisp morning. And really, this post is going to be more about the photos than anything else. I have a bunch and these are unusual-looking cars – perhaps the last Citroëns to really try to look different.
Big Hydro Cits, clockwise from top: 15-H (‘54-56); DS (‘55-75); SM (‘70-75); CX (‘74-91); XM (‘89-00); C6 (‘05-12)
The absolute killer detail, as far as I’m concerned, is the rear door. No hydro four-door Cit worthy of the name should ever have the fullness of its rear door compromised by a lowly wheelarch. The XM is the unfortunate exception to that golden rule, which is another reason why I’m not keen on these. (The Traction Avant is exempted due to its prewar lineage, and those windows did wind down all the way).
This individualistic streak even extended to the rear end, with those curious looping lights and that CX-like concave rear windscreen. But the whole rest of the car is just as unique. Even back in the mid-naughties when these came out, the notion of a low beltline to maximize the amount of light in the cabin was completely out of kilter with prevailing automotive trends.
The C6 was unveiled at the 2005 Geneva Motor Show; sales started (timidly) by the autumn of that year. The new flagship spaceship made its way to Japan by late 2006 and was saluted by an “Imported Car Of The Year 2007” award. Only the 211hp 3-litre petrol V6 was imported, as the Diesels (170hp 2.2 litre 4-cyl. and 204hp 2.7 litre V6) that were fitted to most Euro-spec cars were apparently not compliant with Japanese emissions regulations.
When the PSA Rennes factory stopped putting anything but Diesels in the C6s they were still (slowly) putting together starting from 2009, Japanese imports were compromised. The last Japanese-spec cars were sold through to the end of 2010. By that point, production was down to two cars per day anyway. Even Rolls-Royce make more!
Citroën looked at the numbers and figured that there wasn’t much point in bothering with a revamped petrol V6, so they ushered in a 3-litre HDI V6 instead in 2009. That became the most prestigious and performance-oriented option of the lot, with 241hp on tap. A small number were imported in Japan, as those were emissions-compliant.
Uncharacteristically for big foreign cars, the Japan-spec C6s were RHD. Truth be told, there are a few details in this one that lead me to wonder whether it’s a Japan-spec car or, likely as not, a more recent import from either the UK or Australia / NZ.
The nighttime car was definitely a Japan-spec model, on the other hand: they had to change one of the central HVAC vents into a mini screen for the Japanese-language navigation (don’t ask why). Although the six-speed manual was available, nearly all cars got the automatic.
The rear quarters seem spacious enough, though anyone who sampled the back seat of a CX or a DS would probably find the legroom a tad underwhelming. The semi-circular door pockets are a great design touch, harking back to the wilder quirks of the CX.
The C6’s designers channeled grandma CX more than any other car, in my opinion. The concave rear windscreen, the half-moon door cards – even the front end, with that odd mix of sharknose and razor-cut lines, looks like a callback to the ‘70s icon. After all, the CX was the last really successful big French car, with over 1 million made.
Famously enough, the C6 was the complete opposite of that. PSA dreamt of 30,000 units per annum (but would have settled for 20,000), but immediately saw that the C6 was never going to reach even half of that. Peak production only reached just over 7000 units in 2006 and 2007, after which it fell from a (small) cliff. The XM sold 330,000 units in just over a decade (1989-2000), and that was widely viewed as a disappointment. When Citroën finally closed the book on the C6 in late 2012, just over 23,000 units had been made, of which only about 10% were not Diesels. The C6 was the Titanic of flagships and it blew billows of black smoke as it went down. A sad and undignified end.
There were plenty of reasons not to buy one, it turns out. The interior was a particular point of contention. It was nowhere near as comfortable as its predecessors: the seats were Teutonic tough, not the supple armchairs of the CX, and legroom was just average. There was no trace of the wackiness of yore in the design of the dash or controls. The same issue (among others) had plagued the XM, but PSA did not dare to think outside the box.
Some people were not too keen on the exterior styling either, apparently. I find that hard to believe – I have yet to find anyone who thinks the C6 unattractive. It’s not conventional, but then that was Citroën’s only solution. If they tried to design an Audi, they would have been ridiculed. And if they had designed something a bit too weird, like the Renault Vel Satis or the Lancia Thesis? Same result. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t, so at least they did. Kudos for that.
Another big issue was the gap between the XM and the C6. For five long years, Citroën were absent of a key market segment that they had had a major stake in, for prestige reasons if nothing else, since the pre-war days. Five years was a pretty long time, it turned out. The buying public was also less forgiving due to the C6’s hefty price. This was true both at home and abroad: the car was very expensive – not a typical Citroën feature.
The expense might have been acceptable had the performance been up to snuff, but the many toys, safety equipment, ersatz-Volvo wood’n’leather trim and all that made for a very heavy car. The C6 tipped the scales at nearly two tons, yet had to rely on PSA’s rather underwhelming choice of engines to move its front wheels.
For its part, the Hydractive III suspension was very good, but was not as pillow-soft as older versions of the famous Citroën suspension. Plus although it kept the car level in pretty much all cases, it could not replace the missing cavalry under the hood, nor counter the heaviness of the whole. And of course, fuel consumption was well below par as well.
What remains is a fatally flawed flagship, now depreciated to near-worthlessness despite its rarity. The workmanship, according to folks who own these, is apparently pretty decent – miles better than the CX or XM, in any case. And there are claims that reliability is better than average for a European luxury car. But there just wasn’t a market out there for a big Citroën any longer, even at home. Still, it’s a far better-looking car than most of its contemporaries, and even turns heads today.
Related posts:
Curbside Classic: 2006-12 Citroën C6 – Classic French Luxury For The 21st Century, by William Stopford
Future Classic: 2007 Citroen C6 – Une Limousine Française Excentrique, by Scott McPherson
I have had an XM for 20 years. That´s my benchmark. The C6 is too heavy and not spacious enough. The saloon format is too limiting as well. The XM has fabulous rear seats and feels incredibly spacious (because it is). The rear seats fold flat to allow the boot to carry a huge amount of junk. With seats up it holds 460 litres which is plenty. The XM and CX were subtly Citroen in their styling, sharing themes. The C6 seems like a development of the CX and brings nothing new to the party other than those wierd rear lights which are too me shaped like that to justify a ridiculously huge rear bumper which, in any case, is not nicely fitted to the metal body – the highlights don´t flow well across from metal to plastic.
That said, with hindsight, the C6 is a lot nicer than its peers, which perhaps says a lot about how dreary cars are today. If I had to choose, I´d pick the Lancia Thesis instead. But really, the high water mark of size, comfort and complexity was reached in the previous generation of large cars. After than complexity and weight overboiled. You can run an old XM easily enough and not fear huge bills. The C6 is up there with the S-Class and 7-series for promising huge costs to run.
The C6 lacks the originality and inventiveness that we came to expect from Citroen. Yes, it has the magic spheres in the suspension, but there is nothing really special about the exterior, interior, drive train, or much else. It looks like they started with the C5 (1997-2004) generation Audi A6, gave it to Mitsuoka, and told them “don’t forget the chevrons.”
The Citroen C6 does look very much like an alt-world C5-generation Audi A6 to me.
The green spheres are now grey. I had a set fitted to my XM a few years ago. I assume they thought grey looked cooler than green. Citroen have no idea of how to retain their heritage. The green meant something symbolic and also had a functional role (to show the important component. It was a act of design illiteracy to change the colour.
“design illiteracy” – love that!
+1
I might nick that…
And this switch from green to gray, which I wasn’t aware of, is quite dispiriting. Nobody knows how to waste their heritage like Citroen.
Reply to Peter and Tatra: Thanks! And yes, Citroen have a unique skill in pouring their heritage down the latrine. Thank Peugeot. I love Peugeots in their own right (I run a 406 and it´s just brilliant – they have made a lot of good cars). However, Citroen is Peugeot´s sad wife locked in the cellar or allowed out only under strict orders. It´s very sad. I´d rather Citroen closed than carried on to make the rubbish they do now.
quite a few C6s seem to have landed in NZ though Ive not seen a petrol engined one there is a 2.2 twin turbo diesel manual for sale on trade me right now the only manual trans Ive run across too my C5 HDI manual has turned out to be quite rare with automatics making up most of the sales here.
Citroën made three mistakes that doomed C6.
First, it took five years from the concept car in 2000 to the fully realised C6. During the long gap after the end of XM production, many buyers who traditionally drove CX and XM were offered the frumpy Xsara/C5 as the “stop gap measure”. One look at Xsara/C5 and “you gotta be kidding? That’s pushing us downmarket! No thanks!” My father’s best friend drove DS, CX, and XM, trading up every two years for more than three decades. In 2002, he was ready to trade up but had lot of unholy thoughts about Xsara/C5. He ended up switching to Audi A6 ever since.
Second, Citroën initially offered V6 engines only at launch as to give C6 the “prestige image”. Yet, many British, French, and Italian buyers wanted smaller four-cylinder engines for fleet tax purpose or for lower engine displacement tax. So, no sale. Citroën grudgingly added four-cylinder engines one year later.
Third, C6 didn’t look any prestigious or luxurious enough to justify the higher price above its platform-sharing sibling, C5. The lack of longer wheelbase option probably hurt the sale, too. I prefer sexier Citroën Metropolis concept car over C6…
Indeed: the XM and CX came with a better range of engines at the start. Since the C6 was based off the C5 it was easy to make sure the L4 engines were there at the start.
Some the price and complexity problem started with the XM when Citroen tried to sell it in the E-class sector. Car tested it against the Jaguar XJ and Mercedes 260E, for example. That lost sales for that generation. The C6 continued this fault and made it worse. CX´s weren´t expensive cars at the base end of the range. XMs and C6s never had a bargain-basement version for those who wanted a large but basic car.
The Xsara was a C-class car like the Focus and Golf. The C5 was a C/D class car. It was probably as big and as comfortable as an XM but seen as a car from the class below. Most XM buyers would feel like they were in a Xantia-class car, no matter it was bigger.
I hadn’t seen the Metropolis concept before. I’m with you, it looks more Citroen.
Never really warmed up to these. The front overhang is awkwardly big and the interior -especially the dashboard- is just plain boring. I have owned several CX’s and those cars were a pleasure to the eye, inside and out.
The CX was also more comfortable than the C6. The latter was equipped with a digitally controlled active suspension system (Hydractive 3+) that was first used in the C5 and had a considerably firmer ride than the analog “green” suspension system (LHM) that was last used in the XM and the Xantia. Only when it comes to build quality the C6 is the clear winner. They were very well put together, something that can’t be said about the CX.
A long overhang at the front is a Citroen hall-mark and crash regs demanded a metre ahead of the front axle. I don´t know how the Germans get around this though.
Nothing to do with the distance between the front axle and front end for better crash protection per se. It’s matter of packaging the front-drive cars, especially with the transverse-mounted V6 and V8 engines. Citroën tilted the four inline engine toward to clear the space underneath the low bonnet for improved aerodynamic. Thus, long overhang.
Even the early Audi cars (1970s to 2000s) had a long overhang to give room for the longitude-mounted engines and clutch/torque converter housings ahead of front axle. Eventually, Audi figured a way to move the engines further back, leading to the shorter overhang and balanced side appearance. The trick is to shift the differential gear to the side of the clutch/torque converter housing on the outside and a short driveshaft from the end of gearbox (or the direct drive gear in some models) to the differential gear. The drive shaft for the left side goes through a very small space between engine and clutch/torque converter. That moved the front axle ahead without moving the gearbox back.
I got my information from Paul Horrell who was reviewing the Peugeot 407. This car was related to the C6 and C5 so I guess the rationale carries over. What you say is generally true: in the case of Citroen I think they did stiil consider crash performance but also styling. The one thing I don´t mind about the C6 is its proportions which are elegant.
I always thought of this as the Gerard Depardieu of cars but in context with the other five in the combo pic it actually fits right in for the most part with one or more aspects taken from pretty much each of them.
I too saw a lot of C5 Audi in this. I like it, but I don’t know if I’d choose it. Which seems to be what happened to a lot of people, unfortunately for Citroen.
A sad tale, but mostly self-inflicted. Too much Audi influence, too much front overhang, and an anonymous interior. But the market for French premium sedans was doomed before it ever showed up. Not enough brand image in an increasingly brand-image conscious world.
Someone tell me how to pronounce this name Citroen. Is it Is it Site-row- In? Or Sit row in? Help.
I am not sure the low profile, wide tires of recent decades even allow for the sort of cushioned ride of the Citroens of yore. A soft suspension, combined with balloon tires having generous sidewalls, and a pneumatic system designed to keep the tires on the ground and not oscillating in the air over the rough patches in the road, all worked together. Introduce wide, low profile tires into the mix, and everything changes.
The curious looping taillights remind me of the 1955 Cadillac.
They remind me of the 1962 Chrysler!
The first time I saw a C6 was at the Lane Motor Museum last year. Not knowing how much they cost or anything else about them, it rekindled a desire to own another French car, but alas it will never be.
I had a look at the Lane Museum collection. They have an astonishing hoard of 2CVs and one CX among their many Citroens. There is a Multipla among the Fiats. No European Fords though – I´d have thought a Sierra, Ka or Focus M1 were worth including. The museum looks like my ideal example as there is a lot of space around the cars. Nice.
When I was A LOT younger I always went for the off beat car…well, somewhat within reason, anyway. My cousins bought Vega hatchbacks and Mavericks, while I bought a Vega panel express is bright orange no less.
As I got older, my taste in cars got a bit more mainstream, a tiny bit. I still wanted weird but bought with the idea that I didn’t want to risk money on a wacky, soon to be orphan make or model.
Which brings us to this car. If I wasn’t paying for it, even though it is a French make, I could almost see owning one. However, it would have to have the most powerful diesel engine (as the write-up says, this was a heavy car for its size) available with a manual transmission. And I think that I would have to have a dark red example, or at least a dark color to keep the rear lights from looking quite so odd.
Where on earth are you going to find a C6 Citroen mechanic in Japan ? And you do need someone who understands C6s. Truly Citroens’ last hurrah.
At least in Tokyo there is a Citroen specialist:
https://citroenvie.com/preserving-classic-citroens-in-japan/.
I am sure their services don´t come cheap but I would guess they are very good at their job. I wish I had as good a mechanic for my XM. Most of them seemed to hate seeing the car turn up (or else it was me).
Has the fad for LHD cars in Japen fade I wonder. Back in the nineties it was considered up market to have LHD even in British imports?.
I’ve got a story about one of these, but in the middle of typing it up here it struck me as substantial enough for its own COAL entry. So for now I’ll just say I like these. I’m pretty sure they’re the only Continental European-brand car built with front and rear side marker lights—amber front and rear, with no reflectors.
I had a Japanese import Mx5 that had originally 2 back up lights !. One was converted in to the obligatory fog lamp. Better than just screwing a cheap auto store real lamp in the rear bumper.
Still one of my favourite 21st century cars, and for my money preferable to many other premium or semi premium products in that part of the market.
Just stunning to look at, especially when they’re like the blue one, an interior that still gets me and that great air of “doing it our way, try it!” that Citroen can (could?) pull off when they tried.
But the market had moved on, the name did not have the cachet in that part of the market, and to some, it was too French. Claret’s French as well, and that seems to be OK…..
Roger: wouldn´t a Giant Test with the Vel Satis, Thesis and C6 and maybe Chrysler 300C be an interesting one? For me it´d be a toss up between the Vel Satis and the Thesis. I suspect the Thesis might get ahead by a nose (it´s quite a lovely drive).
Has CC ever done something like that? You´d need four cars in one place and I expect Germany or France is the only place that´s possible (or maybe Holland).
Those wrap over tail lights look like they would put a big red glow in the side view mirrors at night… making them worthless…
I’d like to test drive some of these cars but we don’t have much in the way of European dealerships around here… a big new fancy Jaguar dealership was built, but gone in a year or two…
No, there is no such stray light from the taillights.