Most Unworthy Successor...

Oh, I dunno - at least depreciation works in your favour these days - you can get an XM or (for example) an Alfa 164 for peanuts.

I loved the CX - if only they had shoehorned the V6 into it. The XM was a huge disappointment for the same reasons that the Xantia was. Just another Euro-something - no character.

Geoff MacK

All in the eye of the beholder. I still like the look of the BX.

Geoff MacK

That's a start.

Err the suspension was stiffer, the BX handled better than the GSA. I dont' see that as being less effective.

Conventional, reliable, PSA engines that could be serviced at a reasonable cost. This is also better than the GSA.

That's hogwash, the BX had superior rear passenger legroom, superior elbow room for all and a much bigger boot than the GSA.

A matter of opinion, I thought that it was a car that merited careful choice of colour. Metallic grey and the high-gloss black both looked extraordinarily good cars. The red and white ones looked like s*it.

GSA handles better than the BX, in my experience - from the ones I've driven, anyway. Neither had much of a competition history, but the G had rather more.

NOTHING is more reliable than a GS engine - except possibly a 2CV engine.

Wash your own hogs - the BX boot is 35" long, capacity 15.7 cu ft - the GSA boot is 38" long, capacity 15.4 cu ft. Can't find a figure for legroom - it's substantially the same on the side elevations, though. The BX interior is 5" wider, is all.

Of course - but my opinion is obviously impartial, since I own two GSAs. :-)

In news:bvirh8$lvj$ snipped-for-privacy@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk, Geoff Mackenzie decided to enlighten our sheltered souls with a rant as follows

Shhhhh!