BX re-release

Anything about BXs

Would you be interested in buying a new generation BX?

Yes, I'd buy one because it would be a BX
3
30%
Yes, I'd be interested in considering buying one
3
30%
No, a new BX cannot live up to the old one
4
40%
 
Total votes: 10

User avatar
mnde
Meteor Man
Posts: 1453
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 5:10 pm
Location: Aldershot, Hants
My Cars: 2007 Citroen Xsara Picasso 1.6 16V VTX
1982 Citroen GSA Spécial Estate - gone to a new home
1991 Citroen BX16 TGS Meteor - still out there somewhere!

Post by mnde »

Ian_Fearn wrote:You could always never go out of your house ...........and then fall down the stairs breaking your back... :?

Life is all about calculated risk.

Safety is relative. Perhaps psychologically the safer our cars the worse we drive? I think people rely on safety features these days. My next door neighbour drives a brand new discovery. Not meaning to sounds rude i asked her why she bought one the first thing she said was 'safety'.

I said to her if everybody drove old Mini's would she feel the need to have such a gargantuan vehicle? She said yes, her kids safety was paramount. I then asked her if she did any research into the safety of vehicles before she bought one. She admitted that she'd assumed her Disco was safe. Personally i dont know the answer to that one but i reckon its more to do with how she looks on the school run.
Amen! I personally think that a lot of today's crashes are due to people taking risks in their souped-up motahs thinking "ooh, the traction control/ABS etc will sort me out". The amount of times I see large cars steaming up to junctions and roundabouts with their drivers "safe" in the knowledge that the car will stop! All these airbags and safety features give some people a sense of security which means they push their limits. The better cars handle, the more the driver realises that if they stamp on the brake pedal the wheels won't lock and all the electrics will bring the car to as safe a halt as possible, the more complacent and gung-ho they become. Put them in a 60s saloon and send them round a slalom course, and they'll realise how dependent on technology they have become.

But the "old cars aren't safe in this day and age" mantra is rubbish. Cars that would today be considered deathtraps when subjected to today's crash tests, were merrily driven in their thousands everyday on British roads 30, 40 years ago. No doubt many of these cars were driven recklessly too, although they were generally far less powerful and fast compared to today's cars and there was comparatively little safety technology to fall back on.

Which brings me to the question of the motorcycle and the 2CV.

A relative of mine thinks I would be absolutely crazy to drive around in a 2CV. When I gave the example of people driving 2CVs across Europe to Utrecht and Le Mans for car shows, she said "well they obviously lack all common sense." Similarly in a past conversation about the GSA I was asked "what if you're involved in a crash?" To which I replied, "what if I rode a motorbike instead?" Motorcyclists - as 30 years ago - still have limited protection in the event of a crash. This doesn't stop some of them riding recklessly. It doesn't stop them riding.

So yes, safety is a calculated risk. More technology and active protection can encourage unsafe driving, but it's not the root cause. Motorists have moved with the times. On the one hand all the safety technology prevents a substantial amount of avoidable accidents (unavoidable 30 years ago) and lessens injuries in the event of an accident, on the other it can prove unhelpful in the projected aura of "safety" that gives the driver a warm glow and dulls his or her senses. But an apparent fall in driving standards because of all this? I don't know actually. You can't say it's just due to that. The technology just raises the bar as old limits are overcome and boundaries are widened.

I can well believe the misguided link justifying driving a new Discovery with the sense of "keeping the kids safe". But the fact remains that there are a lot of dangerous drivers on the road... as there always have been.

Mark.

User avatar
Terry Brooks
BXpert
Posts: 402
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 8:53 pm
Location: No 1 at the end of the bar .....@Milton Arms,Rotherham

Post by Terry Brooks »

mnde wrote:
Which brings me to the question of the motorcycle and the 2CV.

Mark.
Just to add my twopen'orth ........Again :wink:
I feel safer in my 2CV than I do on any of my [5......yep, five!] 'bikes.
I feel even safer in my BX.
But the BX is the least fun of them all.
It's all about awareness,and being aware of how vulnerable you are.
And on the subject of 'bikes,most 'bike accidents tend to involve "Sports" 'bikes. [Honda Fireblades & the like]
Cruisers,Comuters,Tourers,"Off-Roaders" and even the humble "Rev&Go" scoots dont seem to have the same amount of "mishaps" as Sports bikes.
Its all about attitude.[imho]
In the 2CV,BX or on my 'bike ........that bloke behind/in front/by the side of me aint driving to work/visiting his mother/doing the shopping or anything else .........the b*st*rd is out to get me.
Paranoid? ........Me? ..................Nahh :wink:
And remember..............Just 'cos you aint paranoid,it dont mean they aint out to get you.
Drive safe :wink:
Terry
Dont let the 2CV fool you,I'm not a hippy,I like violence

User avatar
Way2go
Over 2k
Posts: 7280
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 3:15 pm
Location: RCoBerkshire
x 2

Post by Way2go »

Terry Brooks wrote: And remember..............Just 'cos you aint paranoid,it dont mean they aint out to get you.
Another sparkling gem, Tel. :lol:
1991 BX19GTi Auto

User avatar
Terry Brooks
BXpert
Posts: 402
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 8:53 pm
Location: No 1 at the end of the bar .....@Milton Arms,Rotherham

Post by Terry Brooks »

Way2go wrote:
Terry Brooks wrote: And remember..............Just 'cos you aint paranoid,it dont mean they aint out to get you.
Another sparkling gem, Tel. :lol:
Credit for that goes to a hero of mine .......Mr Steve Earle. :wink:
Dont let the 2CV fool you,I'm not a hippy,I like violence

User avatar
m_2975
BXpert
Posts: 503
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 12:08 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
My Cars: 1989 BX 19TRI Estate
1993 BX GTI
1997 Xantia CT Turbo

Post by m_2975 »

Jon,

Very well spoken!

You've summed up everything that makes a BX a great one.

I believe that everyone here feels the same as you do when it comes to the BX being being a fantastic car that, when looked after, is better than any newerr car in its own right.



Michael
My Cars:
'93 BX 19GTi Sedan 5M
'89 BX 19TRI Estate 5M
'89 AX GT(With EFI) 2door 5M
In the Family:
'74 SM IE (Fully Restored) 5M
'90 BX 19TRI122 Sedan 4A
'02 Xantia Exclusive Sedan 4AA
'06 C5 2.2HDi Estate 6A

User avatar
stuart_hedges
1K Away
Posts: 1679
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 10:35 am
Location: Surrey

Post by stuart_hedges »

I can't claim the distance that you did, Jon, but I felt exactly the same way about my old CX after a rushed 400 mile trip. BXs share the CX good qualities of driver comfort and ability over a long journey, with better reliability and economy. I can't think of anything else with those abilities in my budget.

User avatar
Ian_Fearn
Spender lotta cash on Citroens
Posts: 2231
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 9:51 pm
Location: Derbyshire

Post by Ian_Fearn »

I drove from La Rochelle to Cherbourg then from Southampton to Derby in 1 day in my TZD.

Felt shite..... possibly something to do with chucking my guts up on the ferry crossing though :(

I was driving to work in the TZD today and a horrible thought passed through my mind...... "i've abused this car rotten for nearly 2 years and loved every minute of its reliable cheap fun, what will i do without one?"
Over and out from me

tom
Citroen Sorceror
Posts: 1246
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 8:51 pm
Location: straddling the channel
x 3

Post by tom »

No. The BX is complicated, difficult to work on, noisy and flimsy. If I wanted that in a new car I'd buy a BMW Mini :twisted:
And would I pay what my BX cost today (£15,000 inc aircon, £17,000 inc leather.) No again.
The BX is the best car at its price. It may be seen as small today but that is because cars have become bloated.
Citroen's "heritage" died in 1984 following the Peugeot takeover.
The Discovery is often seen in the papers mangled and having killed some poor woman who thought that by buying an ill-handling, high CofG vehicle with a short wheelbase and comparatively narrow track
she was safe. These people are either vain or ignorant. If they had the intelligence to drive properly, they'd have the intelligence to make their bloody sainted offspring WALK to school

User avatar
Charlotte
BXpert
Posts: 174
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Kettering

Post by Charlotte »

Unfortunately, Citroen has no real interest in it's former models because it's not <i>really</i> Citroen in it's purest form anymore - it's basically a test zone for Peugeot - release a car under the Citroen marque, see how it does, fix any problems and release it as the Peugeot-badged version, with less gadgets and no hydraulic suspension.

After many bankruptcies, and Renault's dirty tricks (M35, FS, etc), Citroen has slowly become Peugeot with a Citroen badge and a couple of grand knocked off the price. Notice also how with each new wave of Citroens, we get less models with hydraulic suspension - there are now two (C5 & C6) as oppose to the glory days of even having an Ami with it!

....

Rant over :)

EDIT
The BX is complicated, difficult to work on, noisy and flimsy
Are we talking about the same car? As far as Citroens go, the BX is pretty easy to work on (esp. the 14s, as you get up to 16v territory they're actually less difficult than other 16v cars), super un-complicated (again, compared to other Citroens) and bloody strong! Remy is certainly only here today because he was driving a BX when he was hit 5 times in the side @70mph by a juggernaut. He got out without a scratch! :D
Bride of Stinkwheel
http://weaselsemark.carbonmade.com

Citroen BX St Tropez
Still not over H592 AGW "Hugo" TZD Turbo

User avatar
Kitch
Over 2k
Posts: 6371
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 9:36 pm
Location: Fareham, Hants
My Cars: Too many to list
x 74

Post by Kitch »

I wouldn't say the BX is a complicated car either, not just compared with other models of the marque, but in general. It can't be too complex if I can grasp hold of how it works and aside from the suspension, the car is pretty much standard PSA design.
The only thing that hinders a BX when it comes to maintainance and repair is access to whatever you're trying fix IMO. The 16v engine is a piece of cake to work on when its on the floor in front of you, but in the car? You can't even see down the back of it!
Same goes with suspension and drivetrain components.

And I'd bet 99% of new cars with a similar engine size/car size (possibly a mid-sized 2.5 V6?) ratio would be no different.

With regards to the topic question, I can't even picture what a new BX would be like, or any car now that captures the essence of it. The closest thing is probably the C4 oddly enough and I don't dislike those. Sad truth with a C4 though, is that it's a boring car wrapped up in a cool looking body.

C6.....different story. But thats like a modern day CX or XM 8)

Otherwise, something that combines comfort, value for money, character, frugal weight, compact engineering, unique looks and can owe it's development to cars from the past like a BX? Urm......

I can only say its the new Civic (except they have Japanese engineering) or again, the C4.
Last edited by Kitch on Sun Sep 02, 2007 8:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
CCC BX monthly column writer bloke thingy - bx@citroencarclub.org.uk

The national BX register - click to submit a car!

1983(A) 16TRS (Rouge Valleunga) - 1987(E) GTi 16v (Noir) - 1990(H) 16Valve (Rouge Furio)

User avatar
Terry Brooks
BXpert
Posts: 402
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 8:53 pm
Location: No 1 at the end of the bar .....@Milton Arms,Rotherham

Post by Terry Brooks »

Charlotte wrote: .............. as oppose to the glory days of even having an Ami with it!

:? The Ami 6,Ami 8 & Ami Super all had 2CV type suspension .........I dunno what suspension the set up was on the ill fated Rotary engined M35 but it was'nt a production model anyway,it was merely intended as a test bed for the GS Birotor.
Dont let the 2CV fool you,I'm not a hippy,I like violence

tom
Citroen Sorceror
Posts: 1246
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 8:51 pm
Location: straddling the channel
x 3

Post by tom »

The M35 had the usual interconnected suspension. There wouldn't have been enough tank capacity to run a hydraulic pump as well, they only managed about 18 MPG as it was!

User avatar
mnde
Meteor Man
Posts: 1453
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 5:10 pm
Location: Aldershot, Hants
My Cars: 2007 Citroen Xsara Picasso 1.6 16V VTX
1982 Citroen GSA Spécial Estate - gone to a new home
1991 Citroen BX16 TGS Meteor - still out there somewhere!

Post by mnde »

I'm afraid you are mistaken...

http://www.citroenet.org.uk/prototypes/m35/m35.html

http://www.cats-citroen.net/citroen_ami ... y_m35.html

Mark.

EDIT:

After a bit of searching, here is a picture of an M35 that appears to be down on its bumpstops.

Image

User avatar
stuart_hedges
1K Away
Posts: 1679
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 10:35 am
Location: Surrey

Post by stuart_hedges »

Maybe Tom was referring to the interior trim, but I can testify that the shell of a BX is a lot less flimsy than I would have expected...