RE: SOTW: Citroen CX Familiale
Discussion
OK, I have to take the MGJohn/BG/300bhp et al “defending the Montego turbo” role here....
Most of you who say these are awful have never owned or driven, or quite likely, even seen one. I owned one of these (actually the chrome bumper/drum speedo 2400 version – Y registration, so 1981/2-ish I suppose), bought for shed money in the mid-1990s (most people didn’t get them then, either) simply because I needed a large, cheap estate car to haul around bits of my boat. It served me very well, and lead me to own a CX25 GTi Turbo 2 a few years later (which was fabulous..), and planted sufficient love of odd French cars that I now own an Alpine GTA (which is utterly different in every way apart from odd-French-ness, but still great).
First, the indisputable facts about CX Safaris... The internal space is colossal – made my V70 feel like a Smart (OK, I am exaggerating a bit, but it is very spacious indeed); it is a fantastic load carrier: I used to put huge oak beams, cast-iron winches, etc., into the back of mine until it was virtually full (suspension lowered to aid loading of course), start it up, and with a slight hiss it would come up to normal height, and crucially, drive perfectly normally with a vast load on. Further, they are very comfortable indeed, with soft but well shaped seats, and a ride the quality of which you don’t get if you have not experienced it. Not for nothing did Rolls Royce adopt the Citroen Hydropneumatic system. Also indisputable is that they look, at least, different. I agree that the later plastic bumper ones are less elegant than the chrome bumper ones, and that the Safaris are not nearly as sleek as the saloons, but they can’t be accused of being just another box-shaped thing.
Then, it gets a bit more subjective. My 2400 needed a new air filter and plugs, I seem to recall, and heater blower didn’t work until my father spent half an hour fiddling with it. Otherwise, it ran faultlessly for 4 years at least (I forget exactly), hauling huge chunks of boat and a partially dismantled Moto Guzzi 1000SP motorbike among other things, doing lots of miles (my daily commute alone was 120 miles then...), and routinely cruising at (harrumph) mph. It was also genuinely enjoyable to drive – not in any way a “sporting” car, of course, but compared to most barges of its era (an early 1970s design remember), and even to lots of more recent big beasts, it was nimble, grippy, and had stupendous brakes. When one got used to the roll, the lack of steering feel, and adjusted to its ways, it could really be hustled. I loved it... I could go on for hours, but I will save further defence to responses to the inevitable onslaught.
Oh, and I even have £750. Eeek.
PS: The non-estate CXs, looked like hatches, but weren’t. All saloons.
PPS: None of my “unreliable” French cars have ever cost me nearly as much as one of my Volvos...
Most of you who say these are awful have never owned or driven, or quite likely, even seen one. I owned one of these (actually the chrome bumper/drum speedo 2400 version – Y registration, so 1981/2-ish I suppose), bought for shed money in the mid-1990s (most people didn’t get them then, either) simply because I needed a large, cheap estate car to haul around bits of my boat. It served me very well, and lead me to own a CX25 GTi Turbo 2 a few years later (which was fabulous..), and planted sufficient love of odd French cars that I now own an Alpine GTA (which is utterly different in every way apart from odd-French-ness, but still great).
First, the indisputable facts about CX Safaris... The internal space is colossal – made my V70 feel like a Smart (OK, I am exaggerating a bit, but it is very spacious indeed); it is a fantastic load carrier: I used to put huge oak beams, cast-iron winches, etc., into the back of mine until it was virtually full (suspension lowered to aid loading of course), start it up, and with a slight hiss it would come up to normal height, and crucially, drive perfectly normally with a vast load on. Further, they are very comfortable indeed, with soft but well shaped seats, and a ride the quality of which you don’t get if you have not experienced it. Not for nothing did Rolls Royce adopt the Citroen Hydropneumatic system. Also indisputable is that they look, at least, different. I agree that the later plastic bumper ones are less elegant than the chrome bumper ones, and that the Safaris are not nearly as sleek as the saloons, but they can’t be accused of being just another box-shaped thing.
Then, it gets a bit more subjective. My 2400 needed a new air filter and plugs, I seem to recall, and heater blower didn’t work until my father spent half an hour fiddling with it. Otherwise, it ran faultlessly for 4 years at least (I forget exactly), hauling huge chunks of boat and a partially dismantled Moto Guzzi 1000SP motorbike among other things, doing lots of miles (my daily commute alone was 120 miles then...), and routinely cruising at (harrumph) mph. It was also genuinely enjoyable to drive – not in any way a “sporting” car, of course, but compared to most barges of its era (an early 1970s design remember), and even to lots of more recent big beasts, it was nimble, grippy, and had stupendous brakes. When one got used to the roll, the lack of steering feel, and adjusted to its ways, it could really be hustled. I loved it... I could go on for hours, but I will save further defence to responses to the inevitable onslaught.
Oh, and I even have £750. Eeek.
PS: The non-estate CXs, looked like hatches, but weren’t. All saloons.
PPS: None of my “unreliable” French cars have ever cost me nearly as much as one of my Volvos...
not sure on the hearse like back end of the estate... but for some reason i have always loved the looks of the saloon version. It reminds me very much of the old DS and i have to say these old barges are great and go on forever.. quality shed... well worth a look if you can find a decent one. But this one in a nasty colour best avoided... i would have the saloon version in mirror black.. looks like nothing else on the road..
NLB said:
OK, I have to take the MGJohn/BG/300bhp et al “defending the Montego turbo” role here....
Most of you who say these are awful have never owned or driven, or quite likely, even seen one. I owned one of these (actually the chrome bumper/drum speedo 2400 version – Y registration, so 1981/2-ish I suppose), bought for shed money in the mid-1990s (most people didn’t get them then, either) simply because I needed a large, cheap estate car to haul around bits of my boat. It served me very well, and lead me to own a CX25 GTi Turbo 2 a few years later (which was fabulous..), and planted sufficient love of odd French cars that I now own an Alpine GTA (which is utterly different in every way apart from odd-French-ness, but still great).
First, the indisputable facts about CX Safaris... The internal space is colossal – made my V70 feel like a Smart (OK, I am exaggerating a bit, but it is very spacious indeed); it is a fantastic load carrier: I used to put huge oak beams, cast-iron winches, etc., into the back of mine until it was virtually full (suspension lowered to aid loading of course), start it up, and with a slight hiss it would come up to normal height, and crucially, drive perfectly normally with a vast load on. Further, they are very comfortable indeed, with soft but well shaped seats, and a ride the quality of which you don’t get if you have not experienced it. Not for nothing did Rolls Royce adopt the Citroen Hydropneumatic system. Also indisputable is that they look, at least, different. I agree that the later plastic bumper ones are less elegant than the chrome bumper ones, and that the Safaris are not nearly as sleek as the saloons, but they can’t be accused of being just another box-shaped thing.
Then, it gets a bit more subjective. My 2400 needed a new air filter and plugs, I seem to recall, and heater blower didn’t work until my father spent half an hour fiddling with it. Otherwise, it ran faultlessly for 4 years at least (I forget exactly), hauling huge chunks of boat and a partially dismantled Moto Guzzi 1000SP motorbike among other things, doing lots of miles (my daily commute alone was 120 miles then...), and routinely cruising at (harrumph) mph. It was also genuinely enjoyable to drive – not in any way a “sporting” car, of course, but compared to most barges of its era (an early 1970s design remember), and even to lots of more recent big beasts, it was nimble, grippy, and had stupendous brakes. When one got used to the roll, the lack of steering feel, and adjusted to its ways, it could really be hustled. I loved it... I could go on for hours, but I will save further defence to responses to the inevitable onslaught.
Oh, and I even have £750. Eeek.
PS: The non-estate CXs, looked like hatches, but weren’t. All saloons.
PPS: None of my “unreliable” French cars have ever cost me nearly as much as one of my Volvos...
Lovely car - best suited to a 100 mph cruise across France spending the entire journey in the outside lane of the autoroute with it's left hand indicator flashing ... Most of you who say these are awful have never owned or driven, or quite likely, even seen one. I owned one of these (actually the chrome bumper/drum speedo 2400 version – Y registration, so 1981/2-ish I suppose), bought for shed money in the mid-1990s (most people didn’t get them then, either) simply because I needed a large, cheap estate car to haul around bits of my boat. It served me very well, and lead me to own a CX25 GTi Turbo 2 a few years later (which was fabulous..), and planted sufficient love of odd French cars that I now own an Alpine GTA (which is utterly different in every way apart from odd-French-ness, but still great).
First, the indisputable facts about CX Safaris... The internal space is colossal – made my V70 feel like a Smart (OK, I am exaggerating a bit, but it is very spacious indeed); it is a fantastic load carrier: I used to put huge oak beams, cast-iron winches, etc., into the back of mine until it was virtually full (suspension lowered to aid loading of course), start it up, and with a slight hiss it would come up to normal height, and crucially, drive perfectly normally with a vast load on. Further, they are very comfortable indeed, with soft but well shaped seats, and a ride the quality of which you don’t get if you have not experienced it. Not for nothing did Rolls Royce adopt the Citroen Hydropneumatic system. Also indisputable is that they look, at least, different. I agree that the later plastic bumper ones are less elegant than the chrome bumper ones, and that the Safaris are not nearly as sleek as the saloons, but they can’t be accused of being just another box-shaped thing.
Then, it gets a bit more subjective. My 2400 needed a new air filter and plugs, I seem to recall, and heater blower didn’t work until my father spent half an hour fiddling with it. Otherwise, it ran faultlessly for 4 years at least (I forget exactly), hauling huge chunks of boat and a partially dismantled Moto Guzzi 1000SP motorbike among other things, doing lots of miles (my daily commute alone was 120 miles then...), and routinely cruising at (harrumph) mph. It was also genuinely enjoyable to drive – not in any way a “sporting” car, of course, but compared to most barges of its era (an early 1970s design remember), and even to lots of more recent big beasts, it was nimble, grippy, and had stupendous brakes. When one got used to the roll, the lack of steering feel, and adjusted to its ways, it could really be hustled. I loved it... I could go on for hours, but I will save further defence to responses to the inevitable onslaught.
Oh, and I even have £750. Eeek.
PS: The non-estate CXs, looked like hatches, but weren’t. All saloons.
PPS: None of my “unreliable” French cars have ever cost me nearly as much as one of my Volvos...
NLB said:
OK, I have to take the MGJohn/BG/300bhp et al “defending the Montego turbo” role here....
Most of you who say these are awful have never owned or driven, or quite likely, even seen one. I owned one of these (actually the chrome bumper/drum speedo 2400 version – Y registration, so 1981/2-ish I suppose), bought for shed money in the mid-1990s (most people didn’t get them then, either) simply because I needed a large, cheap estate car to haul around bits of my boat. It served me very well, and lead me to own a CX25 GTi Turbo 2 a few years later (which was fabulous..), and planted sufficient love of odd French cars that I now own an Alpine GTA (which is utterly different in every way apart from odd-French-ness, but still great).
First, the indisputable facts about CX Safaris... The internal space is colossal – made my V70 feel like a Smart (OK, I am exaggerating a bit, but it is very spacious indeed); it is a fantastic load carrier: I used to put huge oak beams, cast-iron winches, etc., into the back of mine until it was virtually full (suspension lowered to aid loading of course), start it up, and with a slight hiss it would come up to normal height, and crucially, drive perfectly normally with a vast load on. Further, they are very comfortable indeed, with soft but well shaped seats, and a ride the quality of which you don’t get if you have not experienced it. Not for nothing did Rolls Royce adopt the Citroen Hydropneumatic system. Also indisputable is that they look, at least, different. I agree that the later plastic bumper ones are less elegant than the chrome bumper ones, and that the Safaris are not nearly as sleek as the saloons, but they can’t be accused of being just another box-shaped thing.
Then, it gets a bit more subjective. My 2400 needed a new air filter and plugs, I seem to recall, and heater blower didn’t work until my father spent half an hour fiddling with it. Otherwise, it ran faultlessly for 4 years at least (I forget exactly), hauling huge chunks of boat and a partially dismantled Moto Guzzi 1000SP motorbike among other things, doing lots of miles (my daily commute alone was 120 miles then...), and routinely cruising at (harrumph) mph. It was also genuinely enjoyable to drive – not in any way a “sporting” car, of course, but compared to most barges of its era (an early 1970s design remember), and even to lots of more recent big beasts, it was nimble, grippy, and had stupendous brakes. When one got used to the roll, the lack of steering feel, and adjusted to its ways, it could really be hustled. I loved it... I could go on for hours, but I will save further defence to responses to the inevitable onslaught.
Oh, and I even have £750. Eeek.
PS: The non-estate CXs, looked like hatches, but weren’t. All saloons.
PPS: None of my “unreliable” French cars have ever cost me nearly as much as one of my Volvos...
Good for you and a big thumbs up from me Most of you who say these are awful have never owned or driven, or quite likely, even seen one. I owned one of these (actually the chrome bumper/drum speedo 2400 version – Y registration, so 1981/2-ish I suppose), bought for shed money in the mid-1990s (most people didn’t get them then, either) simply because I needed a large, cheap estate car to haul around bits of my boat. It served me very well, and lead me to own a CX25 GTi Turbo 2 a few years later (which was fabulous..), and planted sufficient love of odd French cars that I now own an Alpine GTA (which is utterly different in every way apart from odd-French-ness, but still great).
First, the indisputable facts about CX Safaris... The internal space is colossal – made my V70 feel like a Smart (OK, I am exaggerating a bit, but it is very spacious indeed); it is a fantastic load carrier: I used to put huge oak beams, cast-iron winches, etc., into the back of mine until it was virtually full (suspension lowered to aid loading of course), start it up, and with a slight hiss it would come up to normal height, and crucially, drive perfectly normally with a vast load on. Further, they are very comfortable indeed, with soft but well shaped seats, and a ride the quality of which you don’t get if you have not experienced it. Not for nothing did Rolls Royce adopt the Citroen Hydropneumatic system. Also indisputable is that they look, at least, different. I agree that the later plastic bumper ones are less elegant than the chrome bumper ones, and that the Safaris are not nearly as sleek as the saloons, but they can’t be accused of being just another box-shaped thing.
Then, it gets a bit more subjective. My 2400 needed a new air filter and plugs, I seem to recall, and heater blower didn’t work until my father spent half an hour fiddling with it. Otherwise, it ran faultlessly for 4 years at least (I forget exactly), hauling huge chunks of boat and a partially dismantled Moto Guzzi 1000SP motorbike among other things, doing lots of miles (my daily commute alone was 120 miles then...), and routinely cruising at (harrumph) mph. It was also genuinely enjoyable to drive – not in any way a “sporting” car, of course, but compared to most barges of its era (an early 1970s design remember), and even to lots of more recent big beasts, it was nimble, grippy, and had stupendous brakes. When one got used to the roll, the lack of steering feel, and adjusted to its ways, it could really be hustled. I loved it... I could go on for hours, but I will save further defence to responses to the inevitable onslaught.
Oh, and I even have £750. Eeek.
PS: The non-estate CXs, looked like hatches, but weren’t. All saloons.
PPS: None of my “unreliable” French cars have ever cost me nearly as much as one of my Volvos...
jamiehowpasley said:
Sorry, I'm new to Pistonheads and I can't work out what the 'S' in SOTW stands for. Given that this week it's referring to an old CX , I can think of a few suggestions but I'm probably horribly wrong.
Can anyone elucidate?
Shed - before anyone else comes up with something more amusing/rude etc... Can anyone elucidate?
not my cup of tea TBH...poor SOTW. Yes it is shed money, but does it not also have to be usable? Leaking petty tank is one thing, but the size of it is another! If your going to go slow, at least be going slow in style. Granted not much stlye can be bought for £750, IMO.
This would have been a better choice. http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/2200216.htm Big and Wafty an probably more reliable.
This would have been a better choice. http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/2200216.htm Big and Wafty an probably more reliable.
Edited by ellisd82 on Friday 29th October 10:40
Faint whiff of Darth Vader to the front? Anyhow this is waftilicious!!
http://www.carandclassic.co.uk/car/C181495/
http://www.carandclassic.co.uk/car/C181495/
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff