Was the Xantia Activa's roadholding as good as claimed?

[Frank N. O.]

I've been wondering about suspension systems and wondered if the Activa suspension that keeps the body-roll under 0.5 degrees (according to Citroën) was as good as promised. I can gather it's quite a complicated system but so is the Super-HICAS system on the last 3 generations of Nissan Skyline GT-R's, allthough of course that's dynamic AWD and rear-wheel steering.

I saw a video a long time ago where they showed some cars on the road and even a E36 M3 couldn't match the flat handling of a Xantia Activa but what does this mean for handling and response?`

Frank

[chris]

The Xantia Active was an impressive thing. It had an amazing lack of body-roll.

The lack of body-roll does help steering response to a degree. It is never good to have a body rocking and rolling about. Activa though was a big improvement over a normal Xantia.

The normal Xantia, particularly if you put it through a slalom course (running left and right quickly in succession) would have its suspension and body levelling systems playing catch-up. ;)

Obviously an E36 (M3, not E36 AMG) might not match the lack of body roll of the Xantia Activa, but that is only considering body-roll. IIRC, Xantias only had quite modest tyres, and you certainly would never consider one for absolute sportiness.

The M3 in comparison around a race-track would be quicker undoubtedly because of these reasons:

236kW
261km/hr top speed (not 250 as BMW claimed)
brakes
tyres

Where a Xantia, even in its best form only had about 145kW. That power came from the PSA Group ES9 J4 V6 engine also shared with Peugeot 406 and the big Citroën XM.

The Xantia Activas trick was it did something strange with the anti-roll bars IIRC. But that is little consolation when you consider the biggest tricks of the E36 M3. It had razor sharp steering response, and amazing traction, it could just get power to the ground so well. It was awesome.

I feel sorry for North America, who recieved a detuned version of the M3 with only 240hp, instead of the 321@7,400rpm dished out everywhere else.

When you factor in that wonderful free-revving 3.2L inline-6, the steering, the brakes, and the grip/traction it had, you can begin to realise why it is still so highly rated.

E46 M3's in comparison are becoming like the M5, a rolling living room on 4 wheels, where the E36 is more hard-core and focused, just like the raw and hard-edged E34 M5 (the best M5 ever).

[Frank N. O.]

Hehe I had a feeling you'd be posting :cool:

I know of course the M3's road-holding and power is superior to the Activa since it's a tourer and not a sportscar but the comparisom in body-roll was still interesting since the M3 is such a great sportscoupe (and sedan for the E36 :cool: ). I was just wondering though how the almost zero body-roll would affect driving in the wet. A Handling Day test of various cars in DK a few years ago had a 996 Carrera set against a F355 F1 and the Porsche was faster and one of two reasons mentioned was softer suspension that gave more pressure on the outer tires, and ContiSportContact tires that they said was the best rain-tire on the market then. But I guess it could be possible to have a extra program in the electronics to allow a little more roll for use in such weather.

Another concern then is how it wears. ESP will work directly opposite on a car if the shocks are 50% worn making the car hop out of control (a test done in DK with a New Beetle a few years ago), how will Activa last in terms of service and longevity of suspension components?

Frank

[VQ]

i know someone who's dad has a S class Jag, and the airbag suspension costs $10,000 to refill, but that isn't the active suspension system, i'm more thinking of the DM or DX aren't I?

As I've said before i know someone with a E36 M3, in green with beige leather interior, nice car, I hope I can get a ride in it one day.

[chris]

They never had air-bags as such. Instead it was a hydro-pneumatic suspension used on DS, CX, SM, XM, Xantia and C5. The suspension was so good that Rolls Royce even used a licensed version on some of its cars. Or rather I should say, employed the idea correctly on its cars. ;)

The F355 Berlinetta has a semi-active suspension, something like an F50.

It's not the best car for driving in wet conditons. It will spin the rear wheels so easily, and you definately leave the traction control switched on.

In the dry, it's a different story, plenty of grip, and you can make full use of the great engine.

[wello]

[QUOTE=Vqcapricedude]i know someone who's dad has a S class Jag, and the airbag suspension costs $10,000 to refill
QUOTE]

thats one dear air compressor need to refill them airbags

[VQ]

Yeah, I thought it was hyrdralics a while after I posted, but though of airbags because I was talking about it in another post.

[blackice111288]

Chris, our newer model M3 gets 333 on its inline 6. i cant remember if its a 3.2 or 3.3, i think i threw away the Car and Driver i had with it in there. it pulls a low 13. they reported it to have nice handling, but they said around the track it understeered something terrible at high speeds, but was perfect at lower speeds.

[chris]

I was thinking of the E36 M3. Versions sold in North America had only 240bhp, while the rest of the world got one with 321bhp.

[VQ]

It was a bit less comfortable thent he current one and more a racer, and lighter too, so the extra power in the current one is ofset by the extra weight, but what about the CSL? I've seen a fair few of them in my area alone, aren't they meant to be a stripped out racelike car too?

[chris]

They both weigh about the same I think, 1490kg for the old E36 M3, and around 1500 for the new one. Almost the same. But the new one I think is more focused towards comfort, where the old one had pretty much the same interior fitment as a 328i, except for some M interior bits and pieces, like the multi-function M steering wheel (also shared with the still excellent E38 750iL).

The old one had a certain rawness to it. It was plenty fast enough, it'd do over 260km/hr, even despite a claimed 250km/hr speed-limiter device being present. The E34 M5 would do the same with the 3.0L straight-six from hell powering it. It'd also do 260km/hr.

Both were great cars, and still are. The E34 M5 is possibly one of the most subtle super-saloons, until it is driven quickly and the screaming inline-6 gives away hints that this 4 door family car is something just a little bit more special.

And BMW's highly tuned inline-6 engines in the E34 and E36 M models always made a very sharp, loud sound. They sounded like a racing engine. The M3 didn't exactly rev that high, the cut-out was at about 7700rpm, and the soft-limiter was at 7400rpm, but it always sounded like it was doing 9000rpm or more. It was a spine-tingling noise. :)

The new M5 has got a bit of that racing character back thankfully with the rev-crazy V10. The old V8, although a lovely V8, was a little too refined for an M model.

[chris]

It was a bit less comfortable thent he current one and more a racer, and lighter too, so the extra power in the current one is ofset by the extra weight, but what about the CSL? I've seen a fair few of them in my area alone, aren't they meant to be a stripped out racelike car too?

The CSL is much less luxurious inside. Okay, it does have carpet trim on the floors (albeit weight-watched!), but the normal leather door trim is replaced by carbon-fibre shells, and their is a warning for the boot/trunk not to put anything heavy in it because the floor of that is also made quite light to save weight.

Other things it does away with include the Multifunction on-board monitor/computer (along with the sat-nav), the onboard telephone, and the air-conditioning (optional) is just a simple device with rotary dials to adjust it, rather than a fancy automatic climate control. Oh, and the M multifunction steering wheel is not included, since the sat-nav, stereo system and phone it normally controls are not fitted.

Who cares though when you have that inline-6 sound-system making such wonderful music. :)

Also, the seats are racing bucket seats, rather than the normal comfort orientated seats.

But the sure-fire way to pick a CSL is to look under the hood at the engine. It doesn't look anything like a normal M3 engine. And it is much more raucous. But the main thing that makes it better are those almost slick Michelin Cup tyres fitted to it. They are nearly racing-slick tyres. You'd definately be super careful in the wet with an M3 CSL, or have another set of wheels ready fitted with wet-weather tyres.

[VQ]

Yeah, they do look different, and the bodykit costs about 10 grand more itself!
I love the E34 shape, it's my favourite age of cars, along with the same age E class, which i've been in a E300, which was a nice car, easily got to 160 in second. Anyway, that age car has a look to it from both the mercs and Beemers that I love.

First reveiw I read of the E34 shape was from in 1995 where it was the 540i, I think, comparing against the VS Shape CSV Veloce 5800i, the most expensive and quickest Australian Made production vehicle at the time, they are damn rare and the 275kw or so 5.8 litre v8 was a bit loud, but it compared well against the 540i, even though the 540i was double the cost, if you like niose, then the Veloce at the time was for you, and still is, because CSV's are damn rare.