Talk:Citroën CX

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Cars Portal This article is within the scope of Wikipedia Project Automobiles, a collective approach to creating a comprehensive guide to the world of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you are encouraged to visit the project page, where you can contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as b-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Rant photos 2 The Look of the CX 3 Facts to add 4 Fastback sedan 5 Most Collectible CX models 6 1985 or 1986? 7 miniscule/minuscule 8 Teething issues? Difficult to drive? 9 CX in US 10 YouTube

[edit] Rant photos

Maybe we could do without all this anti-Peugeot ranting ? Hektor 20:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Article currently fills in some of the mystery around the CX - a hit product that was not exploited by the parent company for some reason. As long as we stick with historical facts, there is no issue here. 66.229.41.185 06:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Not exploited ? what you mean by that ? This statement is just editorializing to me. There is nothing to substantiate it.Hektor 21:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed statements that seemed POV to me; the article actually reads much better without the statements. --ApolloBoy 05:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Who removed some of the photos? Why???

Sorry, I'll put them back in. I sometimes get a bit careless when doing major edits to articles... --ApolloBoy 02:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Look of the CX

It is hard to mistake the CX for any other vehicle

Are you sure?. Take a look to another Robert Opron design, the Renault 25. Randroide 11:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The Honda Insight looks a lot more like the CX than the R25. The design elements of the CX, (smooth flowing lines, coupled with the loooong wheelbase, skirts, and wide front track stance} do not appear together in any other sedan - so far! You can certainly pick elements of lots of other cars and say they appear to be influenced by the CX, like the aero look, single wiper, and recessed doorhandles, but I can't really imagine confusing the CX with anything else.66.77.124.61 00:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The one which always strikes me is from the CX to the Rover SD1 (which also seems to be often linked with the BMC 1800 design study) then back to Citroen in the BX. Look at the lights and bonnet of the SD1 and BX in particular. It's like somebody took the same design and tried it first with curves, then with straight lines! But it's a similarity, that's all; I'd agree that the CX is "hard to mistake". – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 12:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Jesus!. You are right!. Growing up in Spain I was surrounded by these cars, and I never realized that simple fact!. Yes, the BX frontal is a "folded paper design school" version of the SD1.Randroide 13:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• The BX has the body of the Reliant FW11. The car which looks the most like the CX is the Lancia Gamma.Hektor 14:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Amazing. The BX was a futuristic head-turner in 1983...and a prototype with the same shape existed in back 1977!. Thank you for the reference. I suggest you to paste the reference in Citroen BX.Randroide 15:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The Gamma was certainly gorgeous - I much prefer the coupé with a boot to the fastback one though, which looks a bit uncomfortable in its skin to me. Personally I don't see it as particularly similar to the CX, nor the R25 for that matter. It's all so subjective though — it's often controversial too. My Sunbeam Alpine fastback (see Sunbeam Rapier for a pic of the type) is often alleged by journalists to be developed from the Plymouth Barracuda, but although they look the same and come from the same parent company, the designer himself always denied it.

While we're playing "what is based on what", here's another candidate for the Rover SD1 (and so, by several degrees of separation, I get back to the point... ;) — the Ferrari Daytona! – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

But I suppose that we all know which was really the first one: The prototype BMC 1800 Berlina Aerodinamica [1][2]

And, if we want to go further to the roots of the Citröen CX, we must cite german aerodinamicist Wunibald Kamm (see Kammback) Article about Kamm with Citroen CX referenceRandroide 17:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

A bit late to add to this discussion but I thought you lot might appreciate what I've just read: that the R25 was styled by the same person responsible for... the Citroën SM! – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Facts to add

My english is far from perfect, so I suggest some facts to add:

• The CX was a Fastback, not a Liftback. The CX never had a Hatch, unlike her lesser brother, the Citroën GS (the Citroën GS received a Hatch with the new GSA generation).

• The cheap version was called "Reflex".

• The Grace Jones (in) famous 1985 T.V. commercial [3]. The billboards for this ad sported Grace Jones with a hairdo in the shape of a CX, and the (big and bol) text was "220 km/h".

• Another (earlier) commercial [4]

• The CX had a Cx of 0.36

Randroide 08:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there *was* a prototype with a hatch. At the time, "proper" big cars had a boot, estates and small cars had hatches.

Compare with the BL Princess, with a boot, and the Austin Ambassador. Reputedly there was to be a hatchback version of the Series 2 CX, but it never came to anything.

Gordonjcp 11:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fastback sedan

Good point on being a hatchback - the article said sedan, and no amount of U.S./British English wrangling is ever going to convince me that a hatchback is a sedan ;) I presume you mean "boot" when you say it never had a hatch in the next sentence? Anyway, I'm just going to change sedan to hatchback. Nice point about the drag coefficient by the way! – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad I did this: I hadn't noticed until now that there was no mention of the 7-seat Famillaile. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ehhrrr..sorry. I was, it seems, a bit unfocused. I meant the the car was a Fastback (she has not a Hatch), NOT a Hatchback and NOT a Liftback.

The CX looked like a modern Hatchback, but it was not one of them.

In other words: The rear glass was fixed. This was a mayor inconvenience against competitors like the Rover SD1, the Renault 25. Even the old Renault 20/30 had Hatchbacks!.Randroide 19:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Article corrected! :) – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

....and yet no one ever slams the Audi A6 or BMW 3 Series for not being proper hatchbacks. The CX was a fastback sedan - that was integral to the design. The design team felt that folks who needed a folding rear seat should get a Break. Given the disappointing sales results with the XM hatch, hard to argue.66.77.124.61 01:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

British Leyland also shot themselves in the foot in sales terms, by not offering hatches on models such as the Leyland Princess and Austin Allegro - all because they wanted it to remain a unique sales feature on the Austin Maxi. However when it comes to the XM, I'd say that's not such a clear piece of evidence because its poor sales can also be attributed to its unusual crisp design (the not dissimilar Alfa 164 didn't sell well either), and to the diminishing reputation of Citroen's clever technology which had come to be seen as a maintenance liability. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The idea than executive saloon "should" have a hatchback sounds humorous on this side of the pond - more like the kiss of death around these parts. But the XM certainly did have other issues - notably the electrics were just awful and the styling hasn't grown on me yet. What's funny is no matter what kind of vin ordinaire vehicle Citroen managed to screw together (AX, Xsara), the same maintenance issues came up - so I guess consumers vaguely thought it had something to do with hydraulics.66.77.124.61 04:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

and yet no one ever slams the Audi A6 or BMW 3 Series for not being proper hatchbacks. The CX was a fastback sedan - that was integral to the design. The design team felt that folks who needed a folding rear seat should get a Break.

Of course those cars are not slammed: Audis and BMWs (state versions aside) are "three boxes" cars, while the CX was an advanced "two boxes" design.

..notice how the lip of the rear window on these German "three box" sedans has been getting closer to the edge over time, making them look like "two box" sedans - and more like the CX. 66.229.151.43 07:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

was integral to the design. Not so integral. A Hatch was added to the remodelated Citroen GS. Original GS, Remodelated GSA.Randroide 08:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

If the CX sold 1.2 Million units, vs. 600K units for R20/30 and 95K for the the Rover SD1 , what is the argument exactly - that the CX would have sold even more units had the CX been a hatch? I'm guessing you'd lose just as many/more executive class buyers who wouldn't touch a hatch - even SAAB had to give in to reality: executive class buyers want a sedan with a seperate boot (like a servant's entrance) - a hatch changes and cheapens the character of a car in this bracket. The degree of angle to the rear window is a diversion and entirely beside the point. A CX is like a cigar, not like the "box" it came in.66.77.124.62 03:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh. Quite interesting numbers, .66.77.124.6, you have a point. Sorry, but I am a hatch-lover and I can not help it. Randroide 07:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That's cool - I think the CX should have had a Maserati V6 and a "sportswagon" variant (like the Audi Avant), but those ideas didn't quite work out either.....66.77.124.62 02:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Most Collectible CX models

I wonder if there is some contradiction here:

"In 1986 the styling was revised, and became known as the Series 2. The cars lost some of their earlier distinctiveness. The suspension became stiffer. Plastic bumpers were the most notable exterior change, giving what some say is a more aggressive look, as opposed to the more elegant series 1 design."

"The most collectible CX models are the very rare Series 1 GTi Turbo, and the Series 2 Prestige Turbo."

Aldo L 200.61.236.221 05:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The statement seems to give the turbocharger more significance than the styling, which is more of an opinion than a contradiction. It's not an encyclopaedic comment at all though. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 12:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

..distinctiveness....agressive...elegant...all hard words to "prove." Collectible - that's not a hard one tough - just check the values.66.77.124.61 04:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd take some issue with the 25GTi Turbo 2 refitted with the frankly awful automatic gearbox being the "Ultimate CX". It would be great for about a week or so, until it grenades the gearbox which would have been being used well above its stated capacity. Surely the "Ultimate CX" has to be the 25GTi Turbo 2 fitted with the gearbox from the 25DTR Turbo 2, as built by many enthusiasts after seeing what the Gendarmerie did for some of their traffic cars. Given a little excess boost pressure, they were reputedly capable of over 200mph. Having driven such a car, I can say that certainly seems possible.

---User:Gordonjcp (talk|contributions), 10:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1985 or 1986?

In 1986 the styling was revised, and became known as the Series 2. The cars lost some of their earlier distinctiveness.

The Grace Jones TV commercial was made, if I remember well, in 1985...and the CX in the commercial sports plastic bumpers and a "normal" (vs the "lensatic" speedometer) instruments pad.Randroide 09:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The Series 2 is model year 1986 - the first 1986 models rolled out of the factory in August 1985. Thus the phenomenon of the "1985" Series 2 car.66.229.151.43 07:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] miniscule/minuscule

If Someone Tells You That "Miniscule" Isn't a Real Spelling... "This spelling [miniscule] was first recorded at the end of the 19th century (minuscule dates back to 1705), but it did not begin to appear frequently in edited prose until the 1940s. Its increasingly common use parallels the increasingly common use of the word itself, especially as an adjective meaning `very small.' "

During the last half of the 20th century, dictionary lines have been adding "miniscule." A telling case comes with the "Concise Oxford" dictionaries. The Eighth Edition, published in the mid-1980s, does have an entry for "miniscule," but labels it as "erroneous." However the "Concise Oxford Dictionary," Ninth Edition (1995) lists "miniscule" as simply a "variant" spelling.

The "American Heritage Dictionary," Third Edition (1992) gives "miniscule" as a full-fledged variant of "minuscule," as does "Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary," Tenth Edition (1993). Merriam-Webster's has been listing "miniscule" in their dictionaries since at least 1971.

"The Random House Unabridged Dictionary," Second Edition (1987) lists "miniscule" as a variant, with a usage note stating that while "this newer spelling is criticized by many, it occurs with such frequency in edited writing that some consider it a variant spelling rather than a misspelling."

I am told (on an Internet newsgroup) that "Macquarie's Australian Dictionary," Second Edition lists "miniscule" as a variant spelling as well.

Also noted in the "miniscule, minuscule" entry in "Merriam- Webster's Dictionary of English Usage" is this:

"It may be, in fact, that miniscule is now the more common form. An article by Michael Kenney in the Boston Globe on 12 May 1985 noted that miniscule outnumbered minuscule by three to one in that newspaper's data base.

That entry concludes with this statement on the spelling "miniscule":

"Our own view is that any spelling which occurs so commonly, year after year, in perfectly reputable and carefully edited books and periodicals must be regarded as a standard variant."

By Cornell Kimball66.229.151.43 07:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

My 5 cents: To a spaniard "miniscule" is an eyesore. Minuscule comes from the latin "minus", which creates a lot of words in spanish: "minúsculo", "minusvalia", "minusvalorar"...Randroide 07:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Teething issues? Difficult to drive?

I read: "At launch in 1974, the car was rushed to market, with many teething issues. Very early models do not have power steering, making them difficult to drive."

What are these "many teething issues"? Unlike the DS and GS, it seems that the CX had no more teething trouble than the average car.

Rust, electrics mainly. The quality of assembly improved distinctly from the early years to later years. I don't recall the CX ever having hydraulic issues though.

And why the CX with no power steering would it be more difficult to drive than any comparable car of the 1970s with mechanical steering, without speaking of earlier ones? I think this comment is not useful.

--Rebollo fr 23:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Because very few cars in this range of weight had no power steering. I have driven a no power steering CX2000 and at low speed it feels like driving a truck and for parking maneuvers it is nightmarish.Hektor 11:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand that trying a CX with no power steering after having driven a normal one must be a shocking experience.

However I read in this page of the austin-rover.co.uk site that some versions of the Rover SD1 had no power steering either (basic models with 2000 and 2300 engine and first examples of the 2600). I read in the Peugeot 505 page that "the steering [...] was power assisted on most models," and I can deduce from the Renault 20 page that most models didn't have one. These are three of the CX competitors, I have not taken the time to find the information for other models. Of course one can argue that they have less weight on the front wheels.

If we go back in the past, the ID and later DSpécial and DSuper were not equipped either. I don't think that the CX was worse, simply this was becoming a future that drivers were expecting on this category of cars. Today they're expecting it on any car. I'm pretty sure that many people who have only driven power assisted cars would find even small old cars "driving like a truck". --Rebollo fr 12:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The CX being a front wheel drive car I can ensure you that the experience was more unpleasant than with a 505. Unfortunately I never drove a Renault 20 or a Rover without power steering. I can also say that having driven an ID and a Traction, the CX2000 was worse.Hektor 13:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CX in US

We seem to have modified ourselves into a miss here: "Many factors, mainly financial, caused Citroën to withdraw itself from US and Canada market. In addition, the increasingly stricter emission and safety regulations in the USA was the final nail in the coffin for Citroën's export drive to the US market."

In reality, Citroën's disappearance from the U.S. was a freak accident - the U.S. passed a particular poorly conceived non-safety related piece of regulation effective January 1974 - the 5 mile per hour bumper regulation for passenger cars. Since the regulation was a bizarre piece of gevernment meddling in the free market, it was repealed by Ronald Reagan in 1981.

Most manufacturers could comply with this regulation, but only by leaving deep scars in the automobile. Citroën could not - the Citroën height adjustable suspension was incompatible with the text of the regulation. A textbook case of criminalizing a technology. The government probably didn't set out to ban Citroëns - the issue just wasn't thought through.

Since the CX was very successful in the US grey market, and in European export markets like the UK, and was well reviewed by the US motoring press, it is logical to think the CX would have ridden the same import boom that took off in 1974 and took Volvo, BMW, and Audi from non-entity status to what they are today in the US. These companies were able to earn excess profits from the US market that they plowed back into product development. Since Citroën was denied this resource, the success of the CX turned into the failure of the XM.

The bankruptcy of Citroën and internecine rivalry with Peugeot certainly didn't help matters, but asserting that these were the main cause of the retreat is opinion as should be labeled as such.

Emissions standards were never an issue - the components are a commodity - bolt them on and you are set.

Also - the word "loophole" is perjorative and should be excised. In a dictatorship, the purpose of the government is to hurt it's citizens if they get out of line; if you want to argue that the US is a dictatorship - that's a long road to go down and might veer slightly OT from Citroën CX...... 66.77.124.62 18:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Not terribly on-topic, but why did the US make height-adjustable suspension illegal in the 1970s?---User:Gordonjcp (talk|contributions), 10:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's why - the insurance industry felt that it was spending "too much" money fixing cars after ultra-low speed collisions. The auto manufacturers did not particularly care about this concern, their goal was to make cars as cheaply as possible, but with features consumers would pay extra for. Consumers as a group will not pay a lot more for a car that can be repaired cheaply - also the data on that is murky. As luck would have it - Congressmen recently had encroached much further into their true calling: automobile design and engineering. So our overlords in Washington designed the mandatory 5 mile per hour bumper, a device that could absorb minor head on shocks, if the car was perfectly level with the car in front. Cars are never perfectly level in the real world - but Citroëns, which sink onto the ground overnight were especially egregious. Citroëns were de facto banned on January 1, 1974, because there was no practical way to make them stop their normal, innocuous behavior.

So things today must be great right? Yes - they are - the ill-conceived 5mph bumper was repealed in 1981 and anyone who is wondering how much various models cost to repair can get that info from groups like IIHS. It costs much more to put cars back together after fender benders than ever before. The market has spoken.69.8.247.231 02:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] YouTube

YouTube

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 15:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want, I'll supply some footage of my own CX 22TRS. This will, of course, be under the Creative Commons licence.

---User:Gordonjcp (talk|contributions), 10:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)