Talk:Citroën SM

Steering
Seems like some of the detail about how the SM's steering works belong on the DIRAVI page. Any disagreement? 66.77.124.61 22:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC) No, I agree. There should be a short summary on this page and maybe a link to the DIRAVI page from here. Chevymontecarlo (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Just as back in 2007, it seems like half of the history section is again taken up by explaining the DIRAVI power steering. My recommendation is a shorter section that bulks up on the 'why was it developed' and 'how did it impact acceptance of the SM' questions, while dialing back on the mechanical detail of 'how it works,' which is properly referenced and well covered on the DIRAVI page. PLawrence99cx (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

What the "s" stands for
I believe that the "S" stood for "SERIE" hence "Serie Masarati"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.215.184 (talk) 08:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That's extremely useful to the article, but we need citations to prove it. Chevymontecarlo (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd also heard it was "série" as well. Seeing as there are no citations in that section anyway, I'm going to put it in as an alternative. 80.254.146.20 (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Serie might not be logical because other Citroën vehicles do not have this "S".
 * Indeed, "S" might mean Sport like in: "la direction (...) songe aussi à un projet de DS sportive, connu sous le nom de développement de D Sport qui deviendra après changement de stratégie de la direction, la SM, en 1970 également..." Citroën : 80 ans de futur / Roger Guyot, Christophe Bonnaud, 1999, https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k3330465v/f24.item.r=SM  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.202.122 (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Green Balls in the engine bay
Does anyone know the significance of these green balls in the engine bay picture? If you do, how about four or five words of explanation in the caption under the picture? Please? Thanks and regards Charles01 (talk) 08:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are suspension balls ,) see http://jalopnik.com/cars/jalopnik-fantasy-garage/citroen-sm-264002.php --&mdash;  Typ932 T  08:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The article links to Hydropneumatic suspension, which explains the balls. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 09:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you Ian and thank you Typ 932.  Eminently clear for someone who has time to read the entire entry, patience to follow through all the links etc. For those of us more inclined to skim the text and stop at the pictures, and of diminished memory ....  well, I just put in a link from under the picture.   I hope you don't think that's over the top.   I do come back to this article from time to time and reckon I know it reasonably well.   And of course the explanation that weird looking balls are something to do with the suspension is no surprise to anyone who's followed the Citroen story over the years. But I don't think, without this link via the image caption, it's self evident.   Regards  Charles01 (talk) 10:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The "green balls" are suspension spheres. They contain the nitrogen gas on which the suspension rests. Dj90291 (talk) 05:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)][6/12/19]

There are 5 gas filled spheres on every Citroen with hydrogas suspension. They act as springs. Two under the bonnet, two under the boot and another underneath in the centre.The centre one equalises the pressure between front and back to stop pitching. My C5 had the same suspension and it was a money pit! The hydraulic rams are prone to leak and are very expensive to replace. The hydrogas suspension actually gives no better a ride than the sprung version! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.117.32.7 (talk) 11:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Fuel tank capacity
Which is it? 90 litres stated is 23.8 USGal, not 20, and 19.8ImpGal, not 17. An article in R&T says 20USGal which equals 75.7 litres and 16.7ImpGal. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.235.36 (talk) 04:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The owner's manual states that the capacity of the fuel reservoir is 90L or 24 gallons. Dj90291 (talk) 05:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)--Dj90291 (talk) 05:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)][6/12/19]

Contradiction
So on the one hand it had impressive fuel economy and on the other hand it was killed off by the fuel crisis? Puffery much? Greglocock (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It had impressive fuel economy for the time, relative to its size and performance, yes. The fuel crisis affected larger capacity cars more than small ones and what really did it for the SM was crazy protectionist legislation in its principal market, the US. ThwartedEfforts (talk) 00:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The SM was discontinued because of the 1976 end to the DS?
Never heard this theory before. Not sure it makes sense. Car manufacturers don't stop building cars they can sell - they can always order new more parts. They did eventually tear down the factory on the Seine in Paris where the DS and SM were made. Is there a ref behind this? PLawrence99cx (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

New lead image
I was looking through Wikimedia pics for better pics to use in this article and I found a few for various places within the article, but in my search for a lead image, the best option I found aside from the current one is this. Now this is a very good image, but i'm torn about whether its a better image than the current lead. I definitely do like the angle and color in the photo of this one better, but overall i'm not sure. What do you guys think? TKOIII (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I defintely prefer the one you propose. The current one is quite "colorful" and the eye is caught by the fish in the background. Ploum&#39;s (talk) 09:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that the proposed image is less cluttered and contrasty and hence preferable from the point of view of article subject presentation, however is there not a question regarding the fact that not only is the registration plate clearly visible, but so is the driver? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as plates go, it's at a car show. There is no official policy against showing plates. Also, German plates give away very little about the owners. I will blur the face in this photo, though, as it is the proper thing to do.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  21:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I blurred the face and also anonymized the plates, as well as rotated it slightly. In any case, the current picture is awful so I am going to change it without further ado. Best,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  21:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * New image is not an improvement - replaces a well lit, clear 3/4 shot of pristine example with a poorly lit, somewhat blurred, haphazard snapshot. All of these are better quality photos:Citroen SM (1972) - 15340846543.jpg Festival automobile international 2018 - Citroën SM Maserati - 1973 - 001.jpg Festival automobile international 2018 - Citroën SM Maserati - 1973 - 002.jpg  1970 Citroen SM.jpg  Citroen SM (14521154082).jpg 1971 Citroen SM (1).jpg Mullin Citroen 032418 SM.jpgence99cx (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The green one might be better, but the others all have issues. Any other votes? Indoor car show pictures with all of the attendant glare and busy backgrounds are generally not the best.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  00:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I had looked at the green one originally when I was looking for a shot to use but the blue one looks sharper and higher resolution, at least on my screen. TKOIII (talk) 01:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. What are the issues you see with the Silver SM, used on NL.Wikipedia.Org? The blue car picture looks terrible on my screen.PLawrence99cx (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Green SM looks very sharp on my screen. PLawrence99cx (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The silver image is much lower resolution than the blue image and the background is a lot busier. And as far as the green image, if there was more support for it over the blue image I think it could be a fine lead image. I don't see the issue with the blue though. TKOIII (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Appreciate your comments TKOIII. The blue car has been poorly rebuilt after an accident. Also, I can't see the alleged quality of the blue car photo on my screen. So - I vote green. Mr. Choppers indicated the green one might be better as well. PLawrence99cx (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Expanded Table
Not sure where we are going with the expanded table. Chrysler Imperial Crown Coupe 104 kW (139 hp)	Buick Riviera	138 kW (185 hp) Oldsmobile Toronado	138 kW (185 hp) Seem even more down market than Eldorado/Mark IV. Do we have evidence that these cars were actually part of the competitive set for the SM? Popular Science compared SM to Benz and Jag. Car compared SM to BMW. Also - no speed, accel, mpg on these cars. PLawrence99cx (talk) 09:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no need to list any more cars in that table; I am actually unsure as to whether the table should be included at all. I removed the addition.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  12:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Additional persons involved in the design stage?
Hi Wikipedia, my question comes about from an article I was reading in an old magazine I am currently going through (Classic & Sports Car, May 2003). In this issue, there is an article comparing the Citroën SM and Cadillac Eldorado, in which there is a brief mention about the persons involved in the design stage of the SM as follows: "Robert Opron became styling director at Citroën in 1964, two years after joining the company, from a background in industrial design, but the actual shape of the SM is down to Jacques Charreton, working closely with design engineer André Estaque, and Jean Giret who translated the sketches into actual shapes." I am wondering if this detail (this is the only mention in the magazine, so I suppose may need another source?) is of any insight for the Designer credit? Many thanks for your insights/advice! --EG90 (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a question of judgement.  None of those three men (yet) has a wiki entry in wiki-fr or in wiki-en, that I can find.   If they did, it would become easier to decide.    Jacques Charreton gets several mentions both in wiki-en and in wiki-fr, and a massive number of mentions via google.   That's only slightly helpful, in terms of supporting a wiki-entry, if the mentions all say the same thing and last only for a single line.   And yet ... in view of the obvious importance of style and design for the SM, it might still be worth mentioning those three men by name in the SM entry if you can find a sufficiently persuasive online source with google (other search engines are believed still to be available) to support a line.   But .... it's a bit of a close call in my judgment.   Success Charles01 (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @Charles01, many thanks for your advice. Certainly, it sounds like a more detailed source will be needed. My cursory looks on the internet as well appears to shed little light on the actual history of other people's involvement in the design; at most, briefly mentioning these names in a few lines. I suppose when a more detailed source comes up, such information can be reviewed for inclusion. Cheers! EG90 (talk) 07:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)