After a trip in a Citroen Xantia, Ross Finlay understands why the
company has been steadily increasing its share of UK market sales.
IT is a common criticism of cars in the two-litre saloon class these
days that ''they all look the same''. This is partly a result of the
fact that, if you ask different manufacturers' computers to come up with
a suitable aerodynamic shape for that size and type of car, they tend to
produce similar answers.
However, look-alike appearance does not mean identical
characteristics. Performance, economy, ride and handling, interior
space, and convenience of layout are quite different in cars which look
outwardly much the same.
In any case, some stylists do manage an individual appearance. There
could be no mistaking the Citroen Xantia for any of its rivals. This is
a car whose sleek body design stresses its long wheelbase and also the
very high upper window line, which gives the Xantia such a slim-looking
roof.
Turbo diesels continue to make substantial inroads in this area of the
market, and the Xantia is well represented, with three versions all
using the 1905cc 92bhp engine. The LX is the entry model at #12,900, I
have been driving the better specified SX at #14,200, and the top model
in this mini-range is the VSX whose extra #2050 brings the computer
controlled Hydractive suspension system.
Once settled into the cruise, the Xantia's turbo diesel engine is
quiet and relaxed. In fact, the whole car is quieter than many earlier
Citroens, even ones with petrol engines. With this model Citroen has
gone to greater pains than ever before to insulate the occupants from
mechanical and road noise, although there are, of course, moments when
you are aware -- even if not annoyed by the fact -- that there is a
diesel power plant under the bonnet.
With higher overall gearing than its petrol equivalents, the SX turbo
diesel has its strengths and weaknesses, compared with rivals in the
class, in terms of performance. It will reach 60mph in about 13 seconds,
offer sturdy performance in the middle range of engine speeds where
turbo diesels are always at their best, and go on to a test track
maximum around 110mph.
Comparing its official economy figures with the unblown diesel car is
quite illuminating. Despite its much stronger performance, the TD is
only marginally less economical in the DoE tests. It should manage about
56mpg at 56mph, compared with 58mpg for the diesel. The 75mph figure is
37mpg compared with 38. And the urban cycle return is 41mpg compared
with 43. Really use the turbo diesel's performance, however, and it will
drink fuel at a noticeably higher rate.
A reader recently ticked me off for never, as he mistakenly thought,
giving the urban cycle economy figure, and for quoting a 75mph figure
which can be attained only at an illegal speed on UK public roads.
I find the steady speed returns give a more realistic comparison
between different cars, as well as a good indication of the different
gearing employed. And I think the urban cycle test is too artificial.
The steady speed mph figures selected are admittedly weird. Who in
their right mind would use 56mph as a benchmark? When the DoE tests were
devised, our bureaucratic masters obviously thought we would be going
metric -- 56mph is roughly 100kph and 75mph is 120kph -- and that the
top speed limit here would be raised to 120kph. Perhaps they have not
noticed that neither expectation has been fulfilled.
Another question to which all owners of diesel-powered cars should be
demanding an answer is: why is cheaper-to-refine diesel fuel so
expensive at the pumps here compared with petrol?
Back with the Xantia SX TD, it has individual looks, excellent ride
quality, quite ''sudden'' brakes, a gear change which seems to vary in
slickness from car to car, and a mile-eating ability out on the open
road. This is one of the modern Citroens which makes it easy to
understand why the company has been steadily increasing its share of UK
market sales.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article