RE: Citroen CX25 GTI: Spotted
Discussion
TooMany2cvs said:
Thirsty...!
The other three CXs I had were Douvrin-engined cars (albeit all 20, rather than 22). In some ways, it's actually a much nicer package. They handle much more nicely, because with the ally block they're a lot less nose-heavy than the pig-iron pushrod boat-anchor, and they're MUCH more economical. They're probably also more relaxed as motorway cruisers than the GTi auto, too, simply because the auto's so low geared - it's an old-tech 3-speeder. They're certainly quicker top-end, simply because the auto runs out of revs.
But I never did much like the clutch and gearchange in manual CXs. It's so damn heavy, especially compared to everything else being fingertip-light and minimal-effort. For that alone, the auto wins, for me.
The autos are indeed quite low geared in top - around 22/mph 1000 rpm.The other three CXs I had were Douvrin-engined cars (albeit all 20, rather than 22). In some ways, it's actually a much nicer package. They handle much more nicely, because with the ally block they're a lot less nose-heavy than the pig-iron pushrod boat-anchor, and they're MUCH more economical. They're probably also more relaxed as motorway cruisers than the GTi auto, too, simply because the auto's so low geared - it's an old-tech 3-speeder. They're certainly quicker top-end, simply because the auto runs out of revs.
But I never did much like the clutch and gearchange in manual CXs. It's so damn heavy, especially compared to everything else being fingertip-light and minimal-effort. For that alone, the auto wins, for me.
As you say, an 3 speeder slushbox that rather blunted performance, and drank fuel.
By contrast my 2.4i manual Safari fairly flew along.
I personally didn't find the manual transmission that bad - unless you had to replace a clutch that is
I love CXs. I rate them with the best.
I have had experience of a few CXs models. I certainly like some models more than others.
CX2.5D - non turbo 1980 ish. manual, metallic grey air con. LHD. Grandads car- he lived in France. Used to go all over Europe in it. Sounded like a tractor. Lets face it, a pretty nasty engine for a beautiful car. slow acceleration but would cruise all day at 80-90 mph and do 37mpg. Not really recommended not much fun.
CX 2400 C-matic Safari. 1979 , Carb. Bought as a dare at an auction for £90. When the hammer came down everyone laughed at me (I was 19). Brush painted pink emulsion. Terrible. Broke down all the time on my various early 20's road trips (rusty tank). Thirsty. I am biased on this one because my car was scrap really but all the same-Not recommended no fun.
CX 2.5 Intercooled Turbo diesel 1990 7 seater estate. Mums car. She hated it. Dad and I loved it. Broke down all the time, pipes burst and it went. It must have been 6 years old when dad bought it. Not recommended- no fun. Continued porous block issue.
CX 2.5 TRI Auto 1983. Bought new by neighboring farmers and used heavily through the 80's. A brilliant fast car with the torque converter gearbox. Fast, smooth economical, maybe the pick of the bunch? Recommended Fabulous. Great fun.
CX 2.0 TRE Suitcase engine (alloy block). 1983 metal bumper manual but flared wheel arches. pov spec, Carb engine. I bought a silver saloon on holiday in France. One owner from new, 60,000 miles, stored for 10 years in a dry garage. Rust free. LHD. Brilliant car. Light engine, handled superbly, quick enough, economical, I really liked it, would go along the motorway even today with everything else. Recommended Excellent. A fun car you could rely on.
Citroen CX 2.2 Pallas Saloon 1977. I bought this from storage where it had been since 1978! Rust free and metallic bright green with tan leather and working Air con. Once it was sorted out it was nice, but I would far prefer a later TRE saloon as they felt "sportier" whilst still being very comfortable. Sort of recommended if you could find another in that condition (which I doubt). Better power to weight ratio would make it more fun.
I have had experience of a few CXs models. I certainly like some models more than others.
CX2.5D - non turbo 1980 ish. manual, metallic grey air con. LHD. Grandads car- he lived in France. Used to go all over Europe in it. Sounded like a tractor. Lets face it, a pretty nasty engine for a beautiful car. slow acceleration but would cruise all day at 80-90 mph and do 37mpg. Not really recommended not much fun.
CX 2400 C-matic Safari. 1979 , Carb. Bought as a dare at an auction for £90. When the hammer came down everyone laughed at me (I was 19). Brush painted pink emulsion. Terrible. Broke down all the time on my various early 20's road trips (rusty tank). Thirsty. I am biased on this one because my car was scrap really but all the same-Not recommended no fun.
CX 2.5 Intercooled Turbo diesel 1990 7 seater estate. Mums car. She hated it. Dad and I loved it. Broke down all the time, pipes burst and it went. It must have been 6 years old when dad bought it. Not recommended- no fun. Continued porous block issue.
CX 2.5 TRI Auto 1983. Bought new by neighboring farmers and used heavily through the 80's. A brilliant fast car with the torque converter gearbox. Fast, smooth economical, maybe the pick of the bunch? Recommended Fabulous. Great fun.
CX 2.0 TRE Suitcase engine (alloy block). 1983 metal bumper manual but flared wheel arches. pov spec, Carb engine. I bought a silver saloon on holiday in France. One owner from new, 60,000 miles, stored for 10 years in a dry garage. Rust free. LHD. Brilliant car. Light engine, handled superbly, quick enough, economical, I really liked it, would go along the motorway even today with everything else. Recommended Excellent. A fun car you could rely on.
Citroen CX 2.2 Pallas Saloon 1977. I bought this from storage where it had been since 1978! Rust free and metallic bright green with tan leather and working Air con. Once it was sorted out it was nice, but I would far prefer a later TRE saloon as they felt "sportier" whilst still being very comfortable. Sort of recommended if you could find another in that condition (which I doubt). Better power to weight ratio would make it more fun.
Edited by politeperson on Wednesday 20th June 20:42
Edited by politeperson on Wednesday 20th June 20:49
Edited by politeperson on Wednesday 20th June 20:55
confused_buyer said:
I'm currently tooling around in a 2008 C5 Exclusive (bought for a grand total of £1250). It is every bit still a Citroen (or at least as much as the Xantia ever was) and still drives like nothing else on the road in that when you get in it and drive, you assume it is broken but then after a day driving it you get in anything else and that feels broken.
We can play the 'last proper Citroen' game for hours, just as you can about Porches, Minis, Lotuses, Mazdas and any other car with a defining character that changes over the years. Some will say it was the CX because everything after that was compromised by the need to share platforms and suspension parts with Peugeot. Some will say it was the BX because it was the last properly 'wacky' Citroen with a daft steering wheel, silly dials and odd Dali-esque styling. Others will say it was the XM, as Citroen's last whole-hearted attempt to build a big wafty car bristling with technology to offer Mr. Mercedes and Mr. BMW a distinct and different sort of car. Some will say the Xantia, others the C5 since it was the last hydropneumatic car to be built. There is a key reason why the Xantia is a more 'proper Citroen' than the C5. Although it looks like every other generic family car of its time on the outside (as the C5 does) the Xantia is the last car to have the fully-implemented Citroen hydraulic system. A C5 has hydropneumatic suspension and that's it. It's a very clever evolution of the design, but it's just the suspension. The steering and brakes are conventional.
The Xantia's hydraulic system (like every previous hydropneumatic Citroen right back to the DS) runs the suspension, steering and brakes as a single centrally-powered and interconnected system, which is key to making them not only ride but drive like a Citroen should. There's 2500psi of hydraulic pressure sitting there all the time the engine's running, ready to be squirted into the brakes. Although the Xantia has a brake pedal it simply prods on the same floor-mounted button as on a DS and it has the same instant 'forehead-slamming-into-the-windscreen' response. The steering is more hydraulically powered rather than merely hydraulically assisted - it's a long way from the pure hydraulic DIRAVI system of a CX or SM but it feels very similar to drive, with very little feel and needing only very small wheel movements, more akin to pressure. You don't get that on a C5.
And, crucially, it all interacts with itself. On a Xantia (and before) the pressure for the rear brakes is bled off the rear suspension circuit. The more load you put in the back the higher the pressure and the more rear-bias the braking system has. Entirely automatically. The brakes and steering adjust to how much load is on the car, almost by the second. So just as the car self-levels for differing payloads (ensuring constant and optimal suspension and steering geometry) it does the same for the brakes and steering as well. So regardless of how heavily the car is loaded or how hard it's driven the car feels the same. That's why Citroens make such poor 'driver's cars' - they work against the laws of physics right up until the point that they don't. But that sense of serenity and unflustered progress even when bounding down a nasty French backroad at speed is what makes a Citroen feel like a Citroen. The Xantia still has that feel - the Activa is really the ultimate expression of it - but a C5 or C6 doesn't. They drive like very comfortable and beautifully set-up Peugeots. Which is no bad thing, and it's what they are.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff