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
It was like a cross between a shark and a spaceship