Comfort Wars: Xantia Vs Xm

I think it's an SX. Any car in that segment feels the same to me - pretty sure it's mostly in my mind. But the seats really are s***

One of my XMs is an SX and I think that the seats are exactly the same - except for the electrics.

Speaking of CXs, would anyone be interested in an S1 2220 Pallas? Needs collecting from Scotland mind you...

Ciarán

I agree the basic Xantia is a little boring when compared to an Xm, although compare the Xantia with its rivals of the time (first Mondeos, Vauxhall Cavalier, 405 etc) and i think the Xantia was a far more interesting proposition.

The Xantia is a good looking car, i even think the S1 has become even better with age, its a nice size compared to its current match in the Citroen range - the C5. Ive heard a few Citroen faithful who now own the last C5 model saying its a little too big for what they want, but its the only new Citroen with the hydraulic suspension, so they still buy them. Why do manufacturers insist on making nearly every new model bigger than the last!

My parents bought a brand new 1.9TD LX in 1994, it was a great car, not without its problems though, but a very nice car. I dont think my dad liked it quite as much as their previous BX TZD estate but it served us well for four years and was replaced by something not at all citroen or economical . Since having that ive always liked Xantias.

The Activa is the best there is, i hope ill have one of those in the near future. As ive said before, my dad did have one a few years ago, I didnt appreciate them as i do now!

Ive always liked Xms more than Xantias, i would really like a nice HDi exclusive for a daily car, thats very appealing. From being in many over the years when my dad was a Citroen specialist, id say the Xms interior wears slightly better than the Xantias, although the basic Xantias hold up very well.

The Xm has armchairs, where as the Xantia has seats, very comfy though but not quite as nice.

Because if you read a LOT of press magazines which I did in my youth and still do they ALWAYS and I mean ALWAYS have the words some where ".... prehaps a bit small and cramped for rear passengers......." so hey presto they make the next a bit bigger!!

Look at the Renault clio, and Vauxhall Corsa... First car was small, next a bit bigger the third a lot bigger so much as its about the same size as the Old Renault 19, which used to be the next car up in the range, so a new small model has to be introduced...

Its the market ploy!!

Rgds
Paul

I'm convinced the outside 'envelope' is getting bigger but the inside cabin space remains the
same as the poor old car needs to accommodate a tonne of additional 'hidden' tat to get 4
or more ncap stars to ensure it stands a remote chance of selling in any serious numbers!

Andrew

I agree with Andrew. Have you seen the new C5 estate (Sorry Phil)? Its a very big car, but the boot is smaller than the older C5 and i find it difficult to get into the back seats, once im in there is not a great amount of room for me, much less than then Xm. This has been compensated by with calling it a tourer and not an estate!

Some cars are massive but small inside, others are small but bigger inside than you would expect.

All of the space seems to be taken up by very thick seats with airbags and the rest of the safey kit which goes with the 4-5 start euro ncap. Most cars now you sit in the middle of them, as the front is all for crumple zones.

So in a way ive answered my own question.

Although …

As cars get bigger other cars are made to fill the gap. Take the VW range, the original golf was the size of the current polo, everything has grown so much that VW needed another car to fill in at the small end and made the lupo. Its the same with the Citroen range and the C1 etc. Although those smaller cars still have a 4 start euro n cap, proves you dont need a big car to be good in a crash.

So my question is still unanswered.

I dont agree with press testing either, they are forever on about handling, so now a lot of cars are set up for that and offer no ride comfort at all, which, lets face it, not everyone feels the need for pin sharpe handling, they woulc sacrifice a little of that for some comfort.

New cars are bigger and much heavier than older models, which does sacrifice handling, economy and performance, but you dont often get that much more space inside with the newer models. Its all about safety.

I do like big cars, so im not sure where I was going with all of that

There's a certain logic in pin sharp handling, it comes under the heading of primary safety features - avoid the accident rather than relying on the secondary safety features, crumple zones, ultra strong passenger cell, belts, airbags et al at the subsequent coming together. Such a pity the rest of the world has to sacrifice comfort.

Aren't we lucky?

Derek

Yes, big Citroens give the best of both worlds

I am not against 'pin sharp handling' but to put it in perspective, the only car I have had in my 50+ years of motoring that I considered dangerous was the first one, a 1939 Ford prefect which had transverse springs fixed to the axle one end and the chassis in the centre, even with only about 35 bhp that was scary.

The 1951 Hillman Minx that I replaced it with was by comparison a 'super car', with independent suspension and hydraulic brakes and gave a feeling of complete confidence. In all my years of driving I have never had an accident due to lack of 'pin sharp handling', and I had some fast cars, for their day, mostly Vauxhall Cresta's. The problem with those was trying to get them to stop, not due to lack of brakes but lack of adhesion and I must admit I did bend a few front wings in my youth.

I agree, the XM has it all, superb comfort and excellent road holding and is far superior in that respect to the majority of modern cars but I think the suspension on that could be softer. I drove a CX Safari for over 150,000 miles without an accident and the suspension was somewhat more supple than the XM, I thought it was a brilliant car.

I've just driven the estate I bought for £150.00 a couple of weeks ago and it still feels fantastic, I wouldn't swap it for any new car - well only to get the money to buy some more XMs.

Peter.N.

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to do a direct comparison between a petrol Xantia 1.6 and my trusty XM 2.1TD - both of which had their suspension in fully working order. The reasonI was driving the Xantia for 130 miles was because it was Renard's loaner car, and Renard were doing up the XM's suspension (and getting the wobbly web wheels on).

Renard is a Dutch Cit diesel/hydraulics specialist. They use a substitute for LHM which is often called "smurf oil" - because it is (you saw this coming) blue.
Both LHM and smurf oil are minerals, but the base mineral properties of smurf oil are supposed to be better. Needless to say, the Xantia was running on blue blood (it had been recently serviced), and so is my XM as of yesterday. The suspension service made a *huge* difference (whoa, wait... does this thing actually have wheels that reach the ground, or is it a hovercraft?)

Both cars are very smooth to drive. I truly believe an XJ-S wouldn't do any better. But the XM has the edge, supposedly because of its sprung weight advantage.
I would definitely not say that the Xanta had less rattles and squeaks; in fact, I would say that it out-rattled and out-squeaked my (very late Series 2) XM by a fair margin. Also, there was considerably more engine and tyre noise.

All in all, I found the Xantia a nice, very smooth family car - but it's not the cocoon of peace and quiet and sheer unadulterated luxury that the XM is. Plus, the Xantia seats were indeed a disappointment.

This post has been edited by peterh on December 21, 2008 10:35 pm