In The Triplets of Belleville / Belleville Rendez-vous The gangsters’ cars are stretched 2CVs and there are various visual jokes about thier crappy performance - someone sticks out a foot and “trips” one up during a chase
My answer to the original question - why didn’t the 2cv succeed in the US - is that it felt flimsy. Citroen engineered the car to work beautifully, not to impress customers in a showroom who would assume they knew a strong car from a flimsy one. It owed more to aircraft engineering than automotive - hence the bits which were strong were very strong and long-lasting, those which didn’t need to be weren’t. The body was designed to keep the weather off you and the mechanical bits.
Today the whole industry works to Japanese and German standards (although both have slipped in recent years) because that is what impresses customers who are looking to write out a big cheque for a new car.
Additionally the American customer isn’t used to using 6,500rpm routinely to accelerate, and changing up early with just 600cc doesn’t make for much acceleration.
There are quite a few errors in what has been written in previous posts - I know these cars well having driven many thousands of miles around Europe in them and having rebuilt (to professional standards) several. I will attempt to set the record straight.
Top speed was 50-60mph until the larger 602cc engine was fitted from 1970. Then it rose to around 70mph which could be maintained all day long without concern for it. 65mph was a very comfortable cruising speed.
The original 9hp was quickly uprated (after reports of cyclists overtaking on long hills) to 12 and 18, then 21, 28 and 30. The earlier cars were 2hp(cv) the later ones technically a 3cv.
Despite these low top speeds, they weren’t slow unless you cannot drive anything other than a powerful self-shifter. Brakes, steering and handling were all superb and allowed you to maintain your speed where others had to slow. Acceleration from rest to 40mph is brisk due to the low weight.
They weren’t hideously unsafe, contrary to popular opinion. I have seen several in nasty accidents of various sorts and yes, the bodies can crumple but the passenger cell is left intact with the doors able to open. In an extreme head-on, the front section of the chassis folds up and the engine and gearbox sit vertically against the bulkhead. Beyond that the car is pushed out of the way. This is, in fact, one of its biggest safety elements. Front suspension isn’t a heavy strut stuck up into the shell, it lays horizontally each side of the chassis and unlike modern suspension acts as part of the impact absorption rather than a liability which is inclinded to end up in the driver’s seat. It is impossible to roll the car through spirited cornering - when the amazing cornering grip is exhausted it will four wheel drift.
The last accident I saw involved an Audi doing a U-turn unannounced as the 2cv was passing at 65mph. The Audi clipped the rear of the 2cv and sent the car sideways. The rear wheels clipped a kerb and verge, sending the car rolling several times before sliding to a halt on its side. All four suspension arms were bent, the whole of the bodyshell had distorted slightly but the car was intact and the doors opened to allow the driver out. He suffered light bruising to the right shoulder where he had contacted the seat belt mount. And a little bit of shock! The chassis was undamaged and straight.
Similarly a 2cv with four people in was knocked off a motorway bridge by a crashing light aircraft. Other cars were swept off too and they fell 150 feet. The 2cv was the only car which allowed all its occupants to get out, with just minor cuts and bruises except for one who had a broken leg. All the other cars trapped its occupants inside them, fortunately they didn’t set on fire.
The big safety aspect is that they are almost impossible to crash, with predictable, neutral handling, superb brakes, amazing swervability and stability etc. In addition the driver is sitting a long way behind the engine, which is mounted very low. Small Fords were much more dangerous until the early 1990s, I’ve seen the results after crashes.
Current Citroens are style over function - they are very ordinary cars from an engineering point of view, although no worse than anything else. Pre-Peugeot, they were on a different planet. The Traction Avant can still leave modern cars standing through corners if driven well, the DS is ‘the most modern car ever’ according to the most knowledgeable motoring scribe (LJKS) and what followed it was an update for higher speeds and faster cornering. The DIRAVI steering (look it up) was simply amazing, to the point Peugeot-Citroen use it today in their rally cars. And of course the suspension which was made to an accuracy of 1 micron back in the 1950s. It was used by Mercedes and Rolls Royce. as well as various fast agricultural vehicles. The increase in stability and grip is staggering. And comfort, which is the secondary result. The company sat on its laurels, was then taken over by Peugeot and it is now used only on the very top cars. It will probably be phased out - it is not used correctly today and was designed for high speed travel over poor roads. Today’s motoring is at lower speeds but with rapid cornering and accleration. An Australian lecturer modified it to make a 4x4 perform amazingly well and sold the system for millions to Tenneco in the US. It is used today on the McLaren MP4 12C and top Toyotas - it gets rid of the anti-roll bar, a nasty corrupting piece of suspension ironmongery if ever there was one.
On the open road, acceleration much beyond 55mph is slow, but it is quite possible to overtake slower-moving traffic with a little technique. The engines do not overheat unless they are set-up by a poor mechanic incorrectly. They will cover 150,000 miles before the valves need a regrind. I know one engine which has never been apart and goes like stink, at 280,000 miles. 80mph is quite easy with this nicely worn-in engine.
The company offered 1 million Francs to anyone who could turn one over through a corner. Nobody did - it is impossible unless the suspension is bent or a ramp is used. The cars have a very low centre of gravity and the suspension is awesome. Unlike the Mercedes A-class, their first front-wheel drive car, which turned over very easily before they added electronic stability aids.
Hydrostatic transmission of power is a great idea - the noise which prevented Citroen from putting it into use has been eliminated with computer design. Economy is excellent because the engine always runs at the correct revs, there is less weight (no conventional gearbox, clutch, differential or driveshafts) and most importantly today you can easily build-in regenerative power with gas accumulators. It is estimated that in the urban cycle you can use regen power 80% of the time, according to this site which describes the PSA hydraulic hybrid car, due for 2016. This type of energy recovery is many times more efficient than a battery/electric - petrol hybrid like the Prius, which can only take a very limited proportion of braking energy.
The 2cv transmission is a 4 speed, with 4th very much an overdrive. There was a form of auto clutch transmission, a centrifugal clutch flywheel affair which allowed you to leave the clutch pedal alone in traffic - they engine would disengage from the drive as the revs dropped. To set off, you just pressed your right foot, changing gear as usual. They worked superbly well.
2cv racing - I have been involved. In the early days there were a few who didn’t realise you had to stiffen suspension in a race car, so there may have been ‘bellypans and spinnakers’ but a well-sorted 2cv race car can actually out-grip and out-corner Caterham 7s through corners. Their top speed is in the order of 95mph, with about 65hp the maximum which can be extracted from the little flat twin.
They are perhaps one of the most mis-understood cars ever made, but if mastered there is nothing quite like them. Yes, slow on an empty motorway but maintaining 75mph keeps up with those whose speedos say 82 and surprises many. Most at home on single-carriageway roads where there aren’t too many long, long drags. Having said that there isn’t a single Alpine pass which can defeat a 2cv.
The engines are the jewel of the car - Leonard Setright suggested they were the finest four-stroke ever made in many respects. Torquey, unburstable and very long-lived, very smooth and with an unmistakeable turbine-like noise. Bizzarely, the very-smooth engine and massively comfortable suspension make the car actually very pleasant as a long distance machine - I would choose one over many others.
Their simplicity is perhaps their downfall. People believe they can rebuild them - they were originally made from surpisingly high-quality parts which are not available today as new. There are also many subtleties which most simply are not aware of when rebuilding - specialists included. And the last few years of prduction was made from lower-grade metals and with a less-skilled workforce. Suspension arms were out of alignment, engines didn’t bed in correctly (poorer materials), gearboxes could seize if driven rapidly in reverse (poorer materials meaning a locking ring didn’t) and differentials were tight, robbing precious power. The poorer steel for the bodies and chassies also meant they rotted badly.
All this results in the fact that very few 2cvs today go correctly. And when they aren’t right, they are simply horrible, since it’s a miracle they work as amazingly beautifully as they do when right. It’s like bending the laws of physics! And then there is the charm, which floors most people who have any feeling for aesthetics and any soul.
They travelled the world like no other, with Citroen cottoning on and organising massive trans-national rallies or ‘raids’ in the early 70s with an eye to the company’s Croisiere Noir and Croisiere Jaune in the early days of motoring. Until recent times the 2cv held the highest altitude record for decades. See this good link.
As the car of architects, poets and engineers, its like will never be seen again. As I said, Citroen was on a different planet from the 30s to the 60s.
2cv - good piece of journalism
DS advert for the suspension when new
Such a car could never be marketed in the USA today, where it costs well over $5,000 just to build a box that meets vehicle safety requirements, not even counting the drive train that would need to meet environmental standards. So assume nearly $10,000 for any self-propelled device that would be street legal.
Look at the doors of the 2CV and consider side airbags.
But safety standards are meaningless if it’s being driven by the undead. Braaains!
Welcome to the board Flatout
Peter Egan took one for a long trip for Road & Track and theorized that British cars of the day were easy to work on because they were expected to break while 2Cvs were hard to work on because they were not, breakage having been engineered out of them.
That’s a very interesting take on the situation but I think he is wrong - perhaps he finds old Citroens hard to work on and British ones easy? I’m the other way round. The high quality of the materials and design, together with the total logic makes an old Citroen a delight to work on.
Good British cars were equally reliable but were suited to British roads and socio-economic climate. They would wear out sooner if driven hard, but then British roads were slower and distances much less than in continental Europe. The Morris Minor 1000 from 1948 would be a good example of British design which lasted well and was in production until the early 70s.
2cvs are very easy to work on (but a lot less tolerant of slap-dash work), once you understand how they work and that just because they are cheap the engineering isn’t. As in every other respect, they are different. Watching your average mechanic tackle a 2cv is both hilarious and frightening - frightening because they can do a lot of damage in very little time if they have no appreciation of thread tappings into alloy, or that 5 minutes spent removing the front wings reveals everything!
There are just one or two jobs which are more time-consuming than they might be but which would have never failed in France within a car’s lifetime of say a dozen years - the engine oil cooler (which never failed on earlier cars but the last few years of production with cost-reductions were prone to corrosion between the steel nuts and alloy pipe if the joints were totally dry and sprayed with roadsalt solution) and front exhaust silencer which in damper, colder climes needs replacing every four to five years with everyday use of the car. It takes about an hour to replace.
The mid-50s Morris Oxford is still in production, albeit licensed production in the third world.
I might add that the Minor 1000, which I mention above, is a far finer design than the VW Beetle. It was roomy, had good handling, was long-lived and economical. Its estate version, the ‘Countryman’ was replaced by a Volvo estate by my parents’ friends - and it was commented on that the Volvo had less carrying capacity.
The VW succeeded because it had a consistently good build quality, unlike anything else at the time. And also because its marketing campaign was quite brilliant. Otherwise, in my eyes, it was dangerous on winding wet roads (not uncommon in Europe), used a lot of petrol, used the fuel tank as a crumple zone and was noisy for passengers.
The rear suspension was copied directly from Tatra in Czech-land (as was the rest of the car) without knowing why it was as it was. In fact, it was designed to keep the rear wheels perpendicular to a steeply cambered mountain road. Lethal at speed on normal roads. It took even Mercedes and BMW until the 80s to use a decent rear suspension layout.
Do you have a citation for this? I’ve always read that the Beetle used torsion bars because of the space saving advantages over coil springs.
To me, French cars always had amusing little differences which made them interesting. Take the wheel bolts-most cars have 5 or 4-the French get by with three. Or Citroen’s rotating drum speedometer-which the Edsel briefly used. Peugeot had some very good suspension deigns-and the 504 had one of the best looking dash designs ever. But nothing matches the Citroen DS-21 for pure comfort-even the floors were padded.
I always wondered about Richard Dreyfus driving a 2CV in “American Graffitti”-a 2CV in 1950’s California was pretty much an oddball.
Fascinating and informative post, thanks for that flatout. I know what you mean about Citroen’s Lost Years (which I define as the interval between the last XM* and the first C6), but I think they’re getting their mojo back: how about the holographic tail lights on the DS9 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGJoc2Quowc)? It’s just a shame it’s only for the Chinese market at the moment. But then that does seem to prove the point that European car buyers are becoming ever more conservative - if Citroen are tending towards more conventional engineering, it’s because that’s what sells. Now it’s only the top-of-the-range C5 that has hydraulic suspension, because people think it’s complicated and unreliable and it scares them off. Fools - bad backs and a numb arse to the lot of 'em.
A colleague from a couple of contracts ago had a 50s 2CV, and it looked delightfully primitive. The seats were basically deckchairs, but he loved every last nut, bolt and flake of rust, and you had to respect him for that. I think he’ll still be driving it in 20 years time.
*I miss my old XM 
It was like a cross between a shark and a spaceship
Torsion bars are the type of spring, suspension generally means everything to do with wheel articulation and tyre force on the road.
A quick google brings up this for you, from Wikipedia. "Just before the start of the Second World War, Tatra had ten legal claims filed against VW for infringement of patents.[28] Although Ferdinand Porsche was about to pay a settlement to Tatra, he was stopped by Hitler who said he would “solve his problem”.[28] Tatra launched a lawsuit, but this was stopped when Germany invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938, resulting in the Tatra factory coming under Nazi administration in October 1938.[27] The T97, along with the T57, were ordered by Hitler to be removed from the Tatra display at the 1939 Berlin Autosalon[28] and Tatra was later directed to concentrate on heavy trucks and diesel engines, with all car models, except for the V8-engined Tatra T87, being discontinued.[27] The matter was re-opened after World War II and in 1961 Volkswagen paid Ringhoffer-Tatra 3,000,000 Deutsche Marks in an out of court settlement.[12][30]
Also see http://sandyschauffeur.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/who-designed-vw-beetle.html
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=623.0
The amusing thing about copying someone else’s work is that you don’t understand why something is as it is, as was the case with the rear suspenion. Great for Czech-land in the 30s with its hugely cambered narrow roads, hardly ideal for Germany or the rest of Europe.
I don’t think I’ve ever met an engineer who has thought the VW a good design. People who don’t understand motor cars often love them, though. The adverts were awesome.
You forgot the other two items that allowed VW to surpass the other European cars
No every couple of weeks little nickel and dime repairs. Unlike the Brits the electrical systems on a VW were robust and reliable. So you didn’t have to go to the dealer all that often.
The second was a great parts supply chain. Dealers (and the factory warehouses) HAD the parts needed to fix the car NOW.
Drive the car to the dealer in the morning needing a valve job? Get it back at noon.
Blow the whole motor up (a depressingly common occurrence) you would have it back the next day.
Try either of those repairs at any other import car dealer in the 50s-60s and you would be down a week to several months.
VWs used torsion bars but did not have fully independent rear suspensions until 1968. Prior to that they used swing axles. Picture a Capitol T laying on its side. The long leg is the axle, the short top is the tire. As the axle moves up and down the tire does not stay parallel to the road surface. This is NOT good when discussing handling or safety.
Yes, good customer service and efficient dealers all made owning a VW much more pleasant than many others, I imagine.
That was the part I was asking for a citation for.
Don’t you have the same problem with double wishbones? Unless they are articulated both where the wishbones attach to the car and where the wheel attaches to the wishbones the angle of the wheel will change throughout the suspension travel.
All suspension systems tend to have some angle changes as they cycle through their range of motion. In a swing axle suspension the camber changes are extreme. Instead of a degree or two through the suspension’s range of travel we are talking maybe 45 degrees or more.
A early Triumph Spitfire (with SA), if driven hard, would wear the outer 1/2 of the tread completely bald while the inner 1/2 of the tire still looked brand new. A Spitfire’s handling was unique to be nice.
Scroll down on this page for an example of some extremely interesting rear suspension angles on a Spitfire.
(I did this more times than I could count when I owned a Spit)
It also made a good cat bed. Also in a recent episode of either Caz or Holby the bad guy was driving an XM beast.
I saw a man fuelling up at the Shell in one of these the other day:
Please buy one when the C5 finally gives up the ghost.
Thanks. That’s an excellent explanation.