Three Turbos...

	Locking Horns
	Since Saab popularised the turbocharger for the middle classes, front drive turbos combining 120mph capabilities and well-equipped comfort have multiplied. Here the Renault 25 turbo newcomer is scrutinised alongside the original Saab eight-valve formula and the surprising Citroën CX GTi Turbo.
	In 1972 Saab were faced with an ageing line of front-driven respectability, quickly fading into seventies dullness, plus the financial fact that a new six cylinder engine was too expensive. The resourceful Swedes fought back with a formula that has attracted more competitors by the year: a middle- weight executive turbo express.
	Porsche had shown their turbocharged 911 in 1974; BMW had produced 1672 turbocharged 2002s from 1973-74. Yet it took Saab to bring to the Turbo an audience of motorists interested in comfortable speed without motorsporting pretensions, or a wallet-bashing price.
	The five door 900 Turbo for our group four cylinder motor (redeveloped from an original Triumph design) turbocharged by the Garrett AirResearch T3 unit, one that is also found at the heart of its Renault and Citroën rivals.
	However, the Saab has been developed considerably in detail since the engine was publicly debuted in autumn 1976. The 900 body itself is a development of the 99, a factor which was emphasised every time our drivers slid from "Eighty-five State-of-the Art" Renault 25 into the claustrophobic cabin of the 900.
	The 900 body has been sold in Britain since February 1979, but the other significant development debuted a year later. The APC (Automatic Performance Control) element to Saab's Turbo installation allowed them to go from their original 7.2:1cr to the current 8.5:1, improving throttle response, fuel economy, and tolerating anything from 92 through pre- ignition.
	APC amounts to a sophisticated system of electronic control of ignition timing and turbo boost which can modify boost levels in fractions of a second to suit circumstances. In October 1983 we investigated the system in depth and found that 2 star running would allow up to 5.88 psi turbo boost, four star 10.29 psi.
	The Saab four with its notably accessible under-bonnet layout was the least group at a total 145bhp; if you want more from Saab there is the 175bhp Turbo 16. A sophisticated 16-valve version of the 45 degree slant four.
	The 900T we tried this time was the heavier five door model, the middle priced model in the group at £12,695.
	Cheapest of our contenders was the Citroën CX 25 GTi Turbo at £12,573. This 168 horsepower CX has only been available in Britain this year (our test machine was one of the first imported and had covered the most mileage; just over 13,000) but basic CX shape stretches back ten years.
	The Turbo CX features a pushrod four cylinder engine that traces lineage back to the forties, but careful tailoring of mid-range boost has provided the best torque figure of the group (217 lb ft at 3250rpm) and overtaking potential worthy of Rovers 3.5 litre V8, or the expensive Audi 200/Renault 25 Turbo school.
	Our newest and most expensive member of the turbo trio was the Renault 25. The basic cost is £18,700 but if you have leather upholstery and air conditioning, not present on our car, costs shoot through the £20,000 barrier.
	The sleek five door, front drive, hatch design of the 25 was launched only last year. Already produced in numbers beyond the originally ambitious targets, the 25 is Renault's biggest success story amongst billion Franc losses and tough times for the new 5 against Peugeot's 205.
	Naturally, the Renault leads aerodynamically, for it was born in the wake of Audi's 100 and claimed the same 0.30Cd at launch time. The Turbo model, complete with fatter tyres, is rated at 0.33 Cd; the TRX-attired Citroën with its uniquely blanked-off perspex panes in that large tail spoiler is rated on 0.36 Cd. Saab have never claimed less than 0.40 Cd for any 900 series.
	As befits a vehicle £6,127 more than the cheapest group member, the Renault has a number of standard features that, if available would add considerably to rival costs.
	As a start Renault offer a much smoother engine; an alloy V6 of 90 degrees that carries a single overhead camshaft on each bank. Cylinders are cosseted by a new crankshaft that provides 2.5 litres instead of the usual 2.8, a decision prompted by a switch to 30 degree crankpin angles which provide theoretical and practical benefits in balanced engine performance.
	Each Renault cylinder bank is fed by Renault's own sophisticated Renix electronic injection, rather than the older mechanical K-Jetronic found on the Saab, or Citroën's L-Jetronic system.
	Also standard equipment on the Renault is ABS anti-lock braking (a £1,000 plus option on many West German products), and the wide use of quality electric motors to power the sunroof, all four windows, seat adjustment, and central locking with an infra red remote control.
	There is also a standard ICE system with six speakers, 4 x 20 watt channels and a six-function computer, items lacking on Citroën and Saab, although both rivals do have central locking, and they have power operation of the windows, but front side glass only.
	Performance
	In outright acceleration potential from a standing start, browsing the catalogues and reading the ads would leave the distinct impression that the 182bhp Renault would whip these two comparative "cheapies". We anticipated an Audi 200T/quattro maximum in the 140mph region. Indeed Renault's Sunday supplement ads say, "It will reach 62mph in 7.7 seconds and 140mph with ease".
The Citroën's steering wheel and switchgear are quirky.
	In standing start acceleration we found the Citroën put up a really good fight, actually tying at the quarter mile post (16.25s) and less than a second behind on 0-60mph. Renault's 0-60mph average was 8.06s with only one run fractionally under the eight second barrier.
	You don't have to look too far for an explanation of Citroën's cut-price competitiveness; the massive torque outweighs even Renault's 206 lb ft. Also Renault's official brochure status as the lightest of the group on kerb figures turned into a test weight heavier than the rest when we checked…
	At higher speeds Renault's advantage in power and aerodynamics over Citroën is established. From occupying a position less than a second in arrears for 0-70mph, the Citroën lags further and further until 0-110mph sees an 8.31s gap.
The Renault, as the most recent design of the three, is also the most impressive.
	The poor old Saab takes about the same time to get to 100mph as the Citroën does to 110 and is never in the hunt with France's finest, only just scraping beneath 10 seconds for 0-60mph.
	In the glamorous world of batting around Millbrook's bankings flat out, the Renault was 8.98mph better than Citroën's best. However, the R25T was some 4mph light of hitting 140mph "with ease".
	Compared with our original APC test car, the Saab returned fractionally slower acceleration figures (that three door managed 60mph in 9.5s), but top speed was better than expected. In fact this 900T was not far behind the Citroën, recording nearly 122mph best versus almost 127mph of the Citroën, the latter way behind their original launch claims of 135mph.
	More useful to most readers are the flexibility figures. Again it's about Citroën and Renault, this time within fractions of each other until you pass to the figures beyond 60-80mph in fourth and fifth.
Saab instrumentation is very clear, but perhaps too vivid; the rest of the interior shows its age.
	The Saab is simply outclassed, reflecting its 173 lb ft torque figure, a 2-litre capacity versus 2.5 litres and a body weight that saves only 2101b over the Citroën's extensive sheet metal.
	In practical terms this means that the Saab does demand a lot of extra gearchanging in convoy with the French representatives, whilst the Citroën rarely demands anything lower than third, such is the spread of power between the 1600rpm onset of boost and the low yellow warning line imposed at 5000rpm.
	The Renault has its warning at 5500rpm and an ultimate limit of 6000rpm, and spins happily at the higher end of the scale, an area Citroën's "lugger" dislikes.

Saab, Citroën, and Renault all hold the road surprisingly well in spite of their size

	The two French machines can take some getting used to, though The Saab's engine bay is relatively tidy, Citroën's carries a spare wheel Renault's 'zebra-stripe' interior is smartest.

	However Citroën, who acknowledged a technology debt to Audi on the launch of the GTi Turbo, have provided much more practical boost characteristics. For all the electronic gizmos and an engine fundamentally altered for turbo use, Renault feature the classic "on/off" switch brand of turbocharging that should be history in a 1985 turbo 2.5 litre.

	The dreaded turbo lag is such a strong R25T characteristic that it actually modifies the handling in mid-corner, and there is little significant boost until 2500rpm is exceeded. Thereafter the full throttle wallop from 3000 to 6000rpm is deeply impressive and usually illegal!

	The 145bhp Saab no longer cuts it as a speed machine. The hot hatches will mostly defeat this Swedish classic in standing start acceleration and some are now beyond the 120mph barrier, but there is the compensation of good fuel economy.
	At the proving ground both 2.5 litre Frenchies hovered around 10mpg whilst Saab was around 7mpg ahead. This advantage is reflected on the street, where the Saab got close to 22mpg in very hard use, the Citroën just struggled over 20mpg - on our last encounter it was just below (PC February 1985) - and the Renault achieved 17.17mpg overall. The latter figure was possible only after the shock of a computed 13.5mpg in road use as hard as that which saw Saab on 21.67mpg overall.
	Handling & roadholding
	All three models bear evidence of hard work to provide rapid, enjoyable and comfortable cornering capabilities.
	Most complex, and hardest for a stranger to settle into, is the Citroën. Bearing nearly six inches rim width and 210/55 TRXs from Michelin, this CX represents an enormous stride away from Citroën's traditional skinny tyre front drivers. The suspension is unique to the model, like those T-sculpted alloy wheels, and has seen thicker front and rear anti- roll bars as well as replacement dampers to get the best from the widest wheels and tyres seen on a Citroën.
	"It's not until you drive it a second time, and across bumpy B-roads, that you appreciate how good this car is," said one of our testers re- assessing a car that few liked on our first acquaintance.

	That summed up our feelings neatly, but the steering, power-assisted as for all members of this group, remains an oddity we all dislike. The wheezing in parking bays and the worrying deadness when all the hydraulic assistance is used up in such slow speed manoeuvres remain motoring experiences we could do without.
	At higher speeds you appreciate the precise 2.5 turns lock-to-lock, but not the one spoke steering wheel or brakes that can so easily be locked-up in an emergency, receiving the same high pressure assistance that is featured by the steering and Citroën's unique hydropneumatic suspension spheres.
	Strengths of the Citroën are an outstanding cross-country ride and tremendous mid-corner stability, both owing something to the longest wheel base in the group (112 inches, 284 cms). The TRXs have excellent grip and even the rigours of a test track session saw cornering and consequent straight- line speeds on par with the more powerful Renault.
	The Renault also features uprated damping with chunky anti-roll bars front and rear, plus a firm 175 lb/in front coil spring rate that can be felt with some low speed thumping over city streets. Yeah, it's "Tough on the Streets," but not on the occupants insulated on massive seats.
	Compared to the Citroën the R25T feels flabbier at speed and does not cope with bumps particularly well, but by class standards Renault have produced a typically acceptable executive compromise between sport and express.
	The Terser-style "Turbine" alloy wheels are a full 6 x 15 but the covers are slightly slimmer than Citroën's at 205/60. These were Pirelli P6 in our case.
	In dry conditions the light but accurate steering relayed confidence-inspiring messages, even when the aforesaid turbo lag caught up with the tyres. In damp or outright wet conditions the sudden increase in turbo power would straighten the front wheels in a torque reaction and the driver had to fight to impose authority.
	So, Citroën had the best all round suspension system of the two, but what about Saab? The 195/60 Michelin MXVs on 5.5 x 15 inch alloys generally cooperated with a fine sporting set-up; one that gave us the most pleasure with enviable stability, despite a significantly shorter (99in) wheelbase than its rivals.
	However there was one major drawback; front axle tramp under heavy acceleration. At the timing tests this was such a pain that the gearlever had to be held in position, otherwise the performance figures would have been even slower.
	Generally the Saab's sensible steering, its power assistance relaying accurate information on everything from snow to bumpy and dry tarmac, was felt to be the best in the group. A fine compliment to a chassis that remains safe and effective even seven years after 900's debut. However, the executive after some city comfort will find that the low speed ride is inferior to the rivals nominated in this test.
	Living together
	The Citroën is actually slightly cheaper than it was listed earlier this year, but the metallic paint we had adds £245.53. Also listed, but not fitted to our car are items such as £983 for leather upholstery and £537 for an electric sunroof.
	First impressions are of a lot of car for the money. The cabin to this 15ft 3in long turbo contains seven analogue dials, including a useful oil temperature gauge and a 150mph speedometer.

	Controls take acclimatisation and our comments about the difficulties and multiplicity of rocker switchgear for the lighting still apply. Even the flashers are non self-cancelling and operate from a rocker switch rather than the universal steering column stalk.
	The trim looks cheap in places, including the use of leather for all but the one spoke section of the steering rim; leather that was peeling away at the join on our test machine. Similarly the gear lever knob is a pretty nasty job, and gear positions are marked on the lower central fascia rather than where a RHD pilot might see them. A Philips radio/cassette 760 unit looks after the ICE aspect, as found in the Saab; both arc blown into the weeds by the Renault-Philips custom-built layout…
	As a daily companion Citroën's high pressure steering and brakes are fairly frequently cursed, along with poor visibility to rear and rear three- quarters, a failing augmented by the concave rear screen and lack of a back wiper, plus the enlarged spoiler. It is an absolute swine to place in underground car parks, so budget for some touch-up paint!
	The Citroën is also "sticky" to drive, with jerky steering and abrupt brakes spoiling initial acquaintance and emphasised by the non-progressive throttle action found on this CX Turbo.
	On the plus side are overall comfort and outstanding engine flexibility; 1000rpm and 25mph indicated around town in fifth, but the big four will chuff gently forward from 750rpm in top.
	We stepped from Citroën into Renault and there could not have been a greater contrast. The long travel of R25's slick five speed box, a brake pedal with movement in it instead of instant reaction, and the long throttle pedal travel gave a feeling of softness that was emphasised by the suspension at speed. There was also the night and day difference between Citroën's solid mid-range turbo punch and Renault's "on/off" character.

	Thus far you think Citroën could almost qualify as the better Francophiles' choice, quirks notwithstanding. However, the quiet hum of electric motors precisely adjusting seat backrest/forward and back position, plus an equally civilised sun roof and comprehensive window control panel, including an auto full lift/drop facility for the driver's door, warn that there are reasons for Renault's price.
	The cabin's 4 x 20 watt stereo fills the interior with precisely and safely adjusted sounds, via the unique fingertip controls above the steering column stalks. In fact that ICE layout has 18 central controls, plus nine on top of the fascia, which is overdoing things, but the saving grace is that volume/station switchgear for the drivers, and the tonal quality.
	Electronic instrumentation covers the on-board computer mentioned and we did use this, as well as the otherwise useless boost gauge (it's difficult to decide what is an economical off boost cruise position on the scale) to restrain our petrol-gobbling enthusiasm.
	The three spoke steering wheel and cabin trim are in a superior class to those of Citroën, with small oddments capacity beneath the padded door armrests.
	The R25's driving position features good all round visibility and a steering column that adjusts vertically. It would actually be better if the column adjusted in/out, as you tend to hold the wheel low down unless it is raked to the point of touching your knees.
	As in the Saab there are whistles from the turbo to accompany normal progress, but unlike any of its rivals the Renault can cruise at scorching pace in astonishing and fatigue-free luxury. Both the four cylinder cars lack the 25T's 90mph plus panache and are considerably rougher in operation lower down the scale.
	To emphasise our regard for Renault's motorway cruising comfort it must be said that this V6 turbo comes closer to a Jaguar level of relaxation at speed, leaving similarly priced Audi five cylinder turbos well behind for fuss- free progress..
	As a live-in companion the Saab has its usual Swedish oddities, like the need for reverse gear selection before removing the central tunnel ignition key and sorting out the lighting and auxilaries on a base that features sidelights whilst running.

	However, none of this really seems to matter after several days. The clear, but perhaps over-coloured, instrumentation behind a strong steering wheel that seems to fall in your hands by magic - these arc ingredients in overcoming those initial feelings of an ageing "has-been" amongst the minimal glass areas of sturdy pillars.
	The gearchange errs toward notchy, but collects the right ratio consistently, even if the engine does not want to pull the car much beyond 5500rpm, even in fourth.
	Saab's four wheel disc brakes were our favourite in the group, having a positive pedal and an action that, like the steering, was beautifully weighted in power assistance and of such progressive action that you know conscientious test drivers have spent many miles arriving at such effective hardware. Also, Saab have sold over 100,000 turbo cars to dale...
	In control ergonomics the Saab was a winner too. Renault scatter controls haphazardly - how about a rear wiper switch on the centre console and the rear screen heater half a cabin away, right over to the right of the steering column?
	Citroën were non-starters with their three lighting controls and a digital clock sited by the ignition lock, adjacent to the steering column.
	Accommodation? Renault win on people payload, Saab seem to have the edge on practical load length and Citroën suffer as the only four door contestant without hatchback versatility.
	Heating and ventilation systems include Citroën's eyeball system and Renault's multiple grilles controlled by three rotary knurled wheels. However our favourite was that of Saab, which includes extensive filtration to help hay fever sufferers as well as effective heating and ventilation.
	Once we had acclimatised to the sixties feel of the Saab's strong cabin the only major criticism we had was of intrusive reflections in the front screen; a problem the safety-conscious Swedes should have tackled by now.
	Summary
	None of these turbos is cheap to run. All are in insurance Group 7 or 8, and steep depreciation is a fact of life for owners of big Citroëns, with Saab Turbos also shedding value faster than average. It is too early to say how the big Renault will do, but the signs are that the Renault owner company driver is unlikely to escape lightly.
	Taking into account initial cost, the necessity for frequent and sympathetic turbo servicing, and the thirst of the French entrants in this group, we have little hesitation in recommending the Saab again. It is still a joy to drive, blending security of chassis and construction against speed in unrivalled manner - and the overall costs are competitive.
	That Saab recommendation is for the typical reader most interested in enjoyable motoring at a reasonable price. However, for the owner-driver more interested in prestigious speed and comfort, the Renault 25 Turbo must be the most widely acceptable winner. It combines tremendous punch with equally horrendous thirst and absolute comforts. Luxuries go some way towards overcoming a basic price beyond that of a 4.2 Jaguar XJ6, which looks a positive bargain at £16,895!
	It is most likely that the R25T customer will cast covetous eyes at the £19,938 Audi 200 Turbo. In our view the German choice has sheer sporting speed and extensive standard equipment on its side - at an even higher price - but the Renault still takes the decision on comfortable speed. For Audi's five is considerably rougher and the suspension set a little firmer, with seats that follow the teutonic tradition of unyielding support.
	Citroën? We liked it a lot better than the first lime around. Attributes include that outstanding ride and mid-range clout, along with value for money. However, the Citroën is still too much the oddball, and has recently been mildly restyled in France, so we could not recommend its UK purchase to any but the dedicated customer intent on a C-plate Citroën flagship now.
	Jeremy Walton PERFORMANCE CAR, October 1985