I was watching an interesting (Brazilian) TV show about this neat little car-it was quite an innovative car. In many ways, it was a much better design that Dr. Porsche’s VW Bug-it had a better suspension, more interior room, and was easier to maintain. So why didn’t this car succeed in the USA? What amazed me-the French designers came up with a car that answered a need-for cheap transportation , with very low fuel consumption. It strikes me that a car like this is what we need now-could a modern version of this succeed? I liked the famous “egg” test-you could drive this car over unpaved, rutty roads, without breaking a basket of eggs on the rear seat.
What I liked was the back-up systems-you could start the engine with a hand crank 9if the starter failed)-you even could crank the windshield wipres by hand!
I wonder what a car like this could be built fo today?
The engines offered maxed at 652cc (2CV=deux chevaux, two horses…in this case, two cylinders). At a time when Detroit was pumping out V8s and gas was cheap, the weak performance probably didn’t attract a lot of people. Top speed on some models was 45 mph, so how would you even keep up on the interstate?
Right. America didn’t need or want cheap transportation.
The “Fabulous '50s” were fabulous because, after over two decades of depression and war shortages, the US emerged from WWII with its industry and infrastructure intact, with global demand from the countries that had been destroyed in the world and with a ridiculous amount of pent-up demand from a generation of americans who had lived with poverty for their entire lives.
People were tired of making do. They wanted to settle down and live the good life. A big car and a home of their own were key.
BTW at the time when the VW Bug was the ‘hip’ car in the US, it was the popular ‘square’ car in Germany, driven by the forces of order, and the 2CV (called die Ente i.e. the duck) was the ‘hip’ car.
They were very cheap, cost next to nothing to run and were very versatile. Very popular with some social groups but could never be described as sleek and were as slow as the snails they resembled (they were dubbed unofficially The Tin Snail" in France IIRC). They could go anywhere - the design brief was a vehicle that could traverse ploughed fields and collect potatoes to carry off to market.
I had a friend who had five, one after the other. When one broke he just bought another.
I have just in the past couple of days read that they have unearthed a couple of prototypes that have been hidden since before the war in case the Germans got hold of them, purely because they did what they were designed to do better than the VW of the time and were cheaper to build. The Citroën top brass had to be kept in the dark about the prototypes not being destroyed too.
(Convicted Cirtoënophile )
- the current top post in this forum is about a Volvo trunk opening problem possibly to the keyfob, of all things - sometimes I can’t help thinking that less really is more. A 2CV trunk had a primitive mechanical handle - opened, closed or locked. The keyfob was not included.
The 2CVS were fun, surprisingly rugged and, as has been pointed out, dirt cheap. They were also hideously unsafe by modern standards. I’d love to see the philosophy transfered to a vehicle with a safety cocoon for the passengers (airbag, crumple zone), the simplest possible (computer managed) powerplant and - well, that’s it, really. I’d like a few electrical outlets for whatever GPS and MP3 gear I need. Ventilation is standard, make the A/C come in a kit I can bolt on myself.
I’ll happily roll up windows and adjust my mirrors manually. (Roll-up windows were too luxurious for the 2CV, incidentally.)
BTW, the French word, “citron” means “lemon” in English.
Of course, the “two horsepower” in the name referred to the “tax horsepower” rating. The actual HP was a good bit higher, around 9 HP for the original 375 cc engine according to this:
Although it had some innovative suspension designs, it was (as previously noted) woefully underpowered even by modest European standards, was expensive to maintain and difficult to work on, and its spartan “features” went beyond quirky and right into primitive. The novelty of hand-crank windshield wipers wears off after the first few minutes, and that assumes that you could get the thing going in a rainstorm, as the ignition had a tendency to short out if the unshrouded engine got wet. It was novel, but quite frankly the VW Type 1 was far better designed as a functional light commuter that spurred Detroit (and later and more effectively Japan) to start competing in the small economy car market.
Stranger
AFAIK, there was only one prototype built before the Germans invaded. It was disassembled and stashed in the sewers of Paris to be revived after the war. They didn’t find it until the 1990s. They put it together and it started on the first try. (The cars were originally built with a pull cord starter.)
Spiny Norman, if they evr build a version of the Tata Nano, that’s exactly what you’ll get.
They would need a new word for “unsafe” for those things. However rugged the suspension, the cab was nothing. I saw one wrapped around a street sign (not a fire hydrant or fence post, a street sign) in Belgium where the roof had unpeeled from the sides which had sprung out when the welds had burst.
Yes, but ‘Citroën’ doesn’t.
I had a 2CV for several years - I loved that car, but there’s no way it would succeed in the American market - the whole thing is incredibly basic - it’s like camping, on wheels.
-The ventilation consists of a screw knob that you turn to open a long thin flap right under the windscreen - there’s a mesh in there to keep the bugs out (well, the bigger ones), but you can see right through it.
-The rear passenger windows don’t open at all. The driver and front passenger windows open by means of a hinge - the bottom half of the window pushes outwards and folds back over the top half, and is secured by a spring clip that wears out easily - resulting in random window-slammed-on-the-hand incidents.
-The windscreen washer is a rubber bulb on the floor that you pump with your foot.
-The top speed is 72MPH (downhill with the wind behind you).
The construction and style of the whole thing is just weirdly quirky and functionally basic. I loved mine - I loved being able to unclip the seats and use it as a van - I loved being able to roll the roof back on a hot day - it was weird, but lots and lots of fun.
My 2CV was written off a few weeks before my wedding (we had planned to drive away in it) - I was driving along a lane at night and a car came out of a side road right in front of me (his fault entirely) - My 2CV smashed itself flat against the side of his car, which sustained a small dent.
Swiped from Wikipedia.
Like many Citroën creations the 2CV was weird and wonderful. It is a crying shame that Peugeot* are stifling their creativity.
My spellchecker wants this to be “Egotism”. How fitting
They are? Because the latest Citroens, like the C4 Coupe and especially the C6 (again) are just gorgeous.
I stand corrected on the lemon thing - I thought it was a false cognate.
Yes they are pretty although I still think the CX was better looking than the C6.
It is more the engineering. They have killed the central hydropneumatic system. My C5 now has Peugeot brakes, for no good reason. No single spoke steering wheel, no single blade wiper, etc. Citroen had a completely hydraulic drivetrain in pre-production that was killed.
They are still used to test out innovations that are then incorporated into the Peugeot range, thay reap the benifits and Citroen take the blame for the ‘beta’ versions going wrong.
If you want pretty, how about the C-Métisse and the C-Airdream
Nearly as nice as the similar SAAB Aero-X
Got a link for that? I know several folks have tried the idea (UPS is testing trucks with that installed), but I hadn’t heard of Citroen’s efforts.
I’ll have a poke around. It was on a Citroen site a couple or three years ago.
Thanks and no rush.
Found on Citroënët
Not the one I was looking for but says pretty much the same thing.