GTP Cool Wall: 1995-2001 Citroën Xantia Activa

  • Thread starter Wiegert
  • 34 comments
  • 3,338 views

1995-2001 Citroën Xantia Activa

  • Total voters
    85
  • Poll closed .
Wiegert

Wiegert

Premium
13,377
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
1995-2001 Citroën Xantia Activa nominated by @Mark II Blit

citroen_xantia_activa_v6_4.jpeg


Body Style: 5-door hatchback
Engine: 16V: 2.0-litre I4 (XU10 J4D/R); Turbo CT: 2.0-litre, turbocharged I4 (XU10 J2TE); V6: 3.0-litre V6 (ES9 J4); Turbo D: 2.0-litre, I4 turbodiesel (XUD11 BTE); HDi: 2.0-litre, I4 turbodiesel (DW10 ATED)
Power: 147 hp (Turbo CT), 132-150 hp (16V), 191 hp (V6), 110 hp (Turbo D), 110 hp (HDi)
Torque: 130-135 lb-ft (16V), 173 lb-ft (Turbo CT), 197 lb-ft (V6), 173 lb-ft (Turbo D), 184 lb-ft (HDi)
Weight: 1365 kg (16V) to 1485 kg (V6)
Transmission: 5-speed manual
Drivetrain: Front-engined, front wheel drive
Additional Information: At its introduction in 1995, the motoring press lauded the Activa for its confidence-inspiring handling and comfortable ride. Owing to the first-ever hydropneumatically-controlled anti-roll bars, the Xantia Activa was able to corner completely flat with neglible amounts of body roll. It will comfortably pull one lateral g and slalom at speeds comparable to much newer, more focused sports cars. In 1999, a fully laden Activa completed Teknikens Värld's famous elk test manoeuver at 85 km/h - by a wide margin the highest speed ever achieved in the test.​

autowp.ru_citroen_xantia_activa_2.jpeg

Xantia Activa 6.jpg

Xantia Activa 5.jpg

Xantia Activa.png

citroen_xantia_activa_3.jpg

 
I think it's a quite handsome looking Citroen. It's handling definitely isn't too shabby, and some packages have performance figures that you can't complain about. The fact that it's a Frenchie doesn't change my vote in any way.

Low cool.
 
Ah, memories from GT2 where it(or a regular Xantia, i forgot) attempted to try and beat R390s and GT-Ones in the SSR5 endurance event. :lol:
 
It's certainly a neato little thing, but it either looks like a regular car that was about 8 years out of date or a Citroen that someone tried very hard to remove the wild parts from.
 
A nice design, but it's always something I'll think of as the Citroen XM's diluted little brother. Arriving at a time when new Citroen models were becoming more garden-variety inside and out, except for the odd ride and handling-enhancing feature like passive rear wheel steering or the retention of Hydractive technology.

Uncool.
 
Last edited:
Uncool. But I would like to experience a working example. The engineer in me is intrigued. But my heartbeat is barely idling at the sight of it. Too heavy for it's own good considering the market intended. Too slow to be taken seriously if it ever made it over here. Even taking mid 90's American cars into consideration. It would be struggling to outrun a Vulcan engined Taurus. Much less the almost equal in speed Lumina 3.1 of the day. The Maxima and Camry V6 of the day would murder it in a straight line. I remember Citroen was interested somewhat in marketing the car here. I read that in Car and Driver back in 1995 lol. I remember just about spitting my breakfast out when I reached the proposed MSRP. The car tested slow, and looked like an average family car looks wise to me.
 
A bit of a wrong comparison, though. This was way, way smaller than the Taurus/Lumina/Camry/Accord/Maxima, to the extent that it probably wouldn't be considered the same type of car.



Of course, that just meant it would have been hopeless in America anyway for the same reason that the Countour/Mystique were (only moreso).
 
I know, I know lol. The Contour would have made a bigger splash if gas had not been so ridiculously cheap at the time. Well that and having roughly the same room inside as an Escort. I worked at a Ford dealer in 98-99, I drove pretty much everything Ford had to offer at that time. I liked the Contour, especially the SVT. The 2.0 Zetec was decent with the 5 speed to me also. I absolutely hated the Taurus. The V8 SHO was like a middle finger to enthusiasts after gen 1 and 2. Then we found out the cams had issues...

On topic: I used bad examples I know. I was looking at the curb weight and rifled up those examples on the fly. I should have not glossed over dimensions.:embarrassed:
 
Tornado
A bit of a wrong comparison, though. This was way, way smaller than the Taurus/Lumina/Camry/Accord/Maxima, to the extent that it probably wouldn't be considered the same type of car.
Click to expand...

Actually, the Xantia was similar in size to contemporary Accord/Camry/Maxima's. They had very similar wheelbase and widths with the Japanese cars being a bit longer.
 
Great ride and handling for a car in it's class/price range, but that's all it really has going for it. Meh.
 
Korza
They had very similar wheelbase and widths with the Japanese cars being a bit longer.
Click to expand...

No, they were all at least a foot longer; and the main Ford/GM competition the Japanese cars had were pushing two feet longer. That's even if you adjusted the Xantia for the American market (meaning you added two inches to each end for US-spec bumpers like the domestic cars would have). Even by 1995 the American midsized market was filled with cars that were as big or bigger externally than executive cars in Europe.



If Citroen had grafted a big trunk on it that probably would have brought it up to about the size of the Stratus, which was the smallest car in the segment in America that people actually bought but the one with the best space utilization, and that might have worked. But as it was, the Contour had very similar dimensions to the Xantia (slightly shorter wheelbase, but one that was still in line with everything else in the segment), and that was hopelessly too small for the market as it was.
 
Last edited:
Really the start of Citroen's beige patch, which for me they only started to drag themselves out of fairly recently. Agree on the stylistic similarities to the XM, yet it sacrifices mostly everything that makes that car cool. Meh.
 
Tornado
No, they were all at least a foot longer; and the main Ford/GM competition the Japanese cars had were pushing two feet longer. That's even if you adjusted the Xantia for the American market (meaning you added two inches to each end for US-spec bumpers like the domestic cars would have). Even by 1995 the American midsized market was filled with cars that were as big or bigger externally than executive cars in Europe.



If Citroen had grafted a big trunk on it that probably would have brought it up to about the size of the Stratus, which was the smallest car in the segment in America that people actually bought but the one with the best space utilization, and that might have worked. But as it was, the Contour had very similar dimensions to the Xantia (slightly shorter wheelbase, but one that was still in line with everything else in the segment), and that was hopelessly too small for the market as it was.
Click to expand...
In estate though it was pure Midsizer:
Citroën_Xantia_Estate.JPG

Length increased to 4712mm

The width and interior Space of the Liftback was still similar to that of the Camry/Accord just lacked the boot/Trunk space which came with the dimensions, so you Essentially got a Wide Compact with a Midsize interior.

The lift back though was when the Large Family Car segment(Europes Equivalent for Midsize) was much Smaller then the American Midsize market, in the mid to early 2000s they started to bridge the gap and the cars from basically all brands in Europe became much wider and longer, the replacement the C5 would easily be Classed Midsize in any variant in the US.

The Way it is now in the US is essentially a 2 Tier Midsize Class, one closer to the bottom or Middle in size and the other basically on the limit of being a Fullsize, Length is not exactly what the EPA go by for classing cars in size, Interior space is also a factor(thats how the B16 Sentra was able to be classed as Midsize).
 
Last edited:
Faceless pile of nothing like most 90's French cars. 3l V6 and the fancy suspension bring it to Meh.
 

Latest Posts

Back