Citroën XM 

A reproduction of the 1991 UK brochure which comprised a reprint of Car Magazine's test of eleven executive cars

DRIVER APPEAL
SELECTION, ACTION, RESPONSE . . . how the automatic gearboxes of these cars behave greatly influences driver appeal. The single-mode transmissions of the Alfa and Saab are the least satisfactory and entertaining; neither can be slapped down from D to 3 without pressing a detent on a clumsy lever. The two French cars can - with delightful short-travel, unfettered stick movements that give the 605 and XM a points advantage over non-switchable rivals. The stiff, graunchy lever of the Ford discourages manual over-ride, though the gearbox itself shifts smoothly.
The rest have more versatile gearboxes. The precise, short-travel movement of the Mercedes' selector is bettered only by Rolls-Royce’s electronic stalk. However, the 260 is unresponsive to kickdown pressure, even in sports mode. The three-mode Vauxhall box. which will start in third (to avert wheelspin on ice) and lock out top if so commanded, is particularly versatile. but marred by a clumsy selector.
The Volvo’s Japanese transmission is equally versatile (it will even change down when descending steeply) but its shift action, particularly on kickdown, can be jerky. The switchable Honda box of the Rover performed well in all departments.
The Jaguar does not have fancy switching, but then it does not need it. The unique J-handle selector, providing DIY shifts in one plane, fully automatic ones in the other, is a brilliant alternative, flawed only by a long-throw movement. Even this, though, is outranked by the multi-mode BMW, which changes gear more eagerly - and no less smoothly - than any rival when switched to its responsive sports setting. The effect on economy of five gears cannot be overlooked, either.
All 11 cars scored well for driver comtort, though you sit too low in the Jaguar, peering over its big steering wheel. Only with optional power adjustment (£800 extra) can the 3.2’s seat be raised. The Jaguar's switchgear is also flawed - its stalks are too low, the ignition keyhole inaccessible. The wooden spoon, though, goes to the Alfa’s central control panel, vvhich looks impressive but is awtul to use.
Even worse, the test car had a freeze-or-fry heater, which prevented cool-up, warm-down airstreams, obtainable in all the other cars.
The Saab took top marks for its heating and ventilation, not least because its controls are so simple and accessible. Little things - such as the brilliant facia-vent regulators - reflect Saab’s concern with driver satisfaction, starting with a commanding position behind a low-set wheel. The dash layout and switchgear are equally impressive. Ditto BMW, notable for some lovely detailing (but also a nightmare of tiny inaccessible knobs for the radio and optional trip computer), and to a lesser extent the Mercedes, flawed by wipers that cannot be flicked on; you have to take your right hand from the wheel and twist the only stalk. The Merc’s switchgear is as simple (too simple) as the Rover’s is elaborate (too elaborate). That of the Ford, handily deployed around the wheel, is easier to use, if not so attractive as its rivals’.
The two PSA cars overcome the problem of audio selection, which can be dangerously distracting, with fingertip controls - wheel-mounted on the Citroen, stalks on the Peugeot. Both have pushbutton heating/venting controls (too distant in the 605) that are less satisfactory than simple slides and rotaries; neither has switchgear that feels as crisp as the Merc’s or BMW’s. Nor, for that matter, does the Vauxhall or Volvo, down-graded for the drabness of its dash, controls and instruments. The BMW, Jaguar and Saab have the clearest, most attractive dials, the Vauxhall the worst if you dislike its optional digitals; for the short-sighted, though, the speedo’s big-figure readout is especially clear.

CONCLUSIONS

JUDGE THESE CARS FROM THE BACK seat, and the Citroen and Ford vie for first place, closely followed by the roomy Saab. The Mercedes and BMW would come last. Defer the issue to the company accountant, and the slow-depreciating 26OE would be the victor, probably followed by the 525i. The low residual values of mainstream executive cars - big Rovers, Citroens and Fords, for instance - make them more expensive to own in the long run than costlier thoroughbreds.

These and other considerations are taken on board, but it is from the driver’s seat that we made our final assessment. On a scale of 10, nothing here warrants a score of much below six, so there’s no real duffer in the pack.

Plush and comfortable though it is the dynamically weak Scorpio comes last. It has many good features, the well-equipped Ford, but its looks and languor weigh against it.

The Volvo 960, next up, belies its drab appearance with lively performance and sound handling. It rides well, too, but is uninspiring to live with, and its dash and controls are mediocre.

We expected the Rover Sterling (ninth) to do better, but for a £26,000 car, it just isn’t special enough, even allowing for all that opulence and equipment. The trouble is that for £10,000 less, you can get an 820i that looks just the same. Dynamically, too, it’s unexceptional.

Alfa and Peugeot are hard to separate in seventh and eighth spots, the 164’s advantage on driver appeal offset by the 605’s superior comfort; better steering would improve the Peugeot sensible controls - and snazzier cabin -the Alfa.

The Vauxhall Senator 24V, sixth, has the measure of both in several ways. That it won admiration rather than hearts says much about its character.

The BMW, Mercedes and Saab are also closely matched. The two German cars are better made (the test CDS was not without creaks and rattles), but both give best to the Saab’s blistering performance and lovely interior. With a more versatile gearbox, sharper turn-in and less torque steer, the third-place Saab might have won this contest. That it marginally outpoints the superbly accomplished BMW, and beats the Mercedes - still tops for quality - by an even bigger margin, says much for this entertaining Swedish flyer.

The Citroen in second place impressed us enormously. The XM is the most advanced car here, the precursor of even better things to come. Such are the Citroen’s accomplishments that we’d have put it first had refinement measured up to that of its Peugeot stablemate.

Victory, then, goes to the Jaguar, arguably the most dated car in the group, certainly the least modern to look at. That it can transcend such shortcomings, even capitalise on them, says much for the XJ6’s breeding and presence, never mind its innate ability, After driving the other cars, the Jaguar, fast, refined and wieldy, always felt that extra bit special.

The word 'Citroën' is spelled throughout without the dieresis except in the comparison table. Again, I am surprised that Citroën UK did not insist that this be corrected.