Citroen revives the 2CV for an electric age
bbc.com
bbc.com
Lighter weight means better range for a smaller battery, more efficient tyres and lower road wear. It's one of the reasons why the target price is going to be so low.
It's a really cheap car but I think to do that they still have to have some good engineering in it.
This one looks about as much like the original 2CV as a BMW Mini looks like an Austin Mini, that is, not very much.
If it was just about the looks it would be boring as hell but if you ignore the cosmetics, it's still light weight and low cost by the standards of other modern electric cars.
Remember this is the very bottom segment of market and a very competitive space to be in.
This is not a car aimed at me but I still think it's interesting.
Its a nice design though good to see from Citroen who have spend too long oscilating between no personality and just weirdly quirky (citroen cactus anyone?)
The Renault Zoe was discontinued 2 years back, the apt comparison these days would likely be the fun-size (and quite similarly styled!) Renault Twingo.
The Nissan Leaf costs about twice as much as any of those here in Spain, and even the budget-priced Nissan Juke is quite a bit more.
Realistically, at the price they pitch it, it's mostly positioned to cannibalise sales of Citroen's own ë-C3.
The only thing keeping European auto makers alive at this point is tariffs.
In Australia Chinese cars had 4% of the market in 2020. They now have 35% and Chinese cars have the greatest share of any country.
https://www.anz.com/institutional/insights/articles/2026/07/...
It's a typical example of boots theory. So cheap and compromised you'll spend more in the long run.
Later versions could do 65mph. 75mph downhill with the wind at your back.
Yes, and ask yourself why they aren't making it anymore. Answer: cost and reliability, which is also a function of cost.
https://www.autoevolution.com/news/this-is-how-bose-s-failed...
No it's because Citroen had super nifty _non-independent_ suspension back then. Pushing the front wheel up would push the rear wheel down making the car feel like it's floating across bumps. Present in various forms on several models in the 70's.
Turns out linked suspension isn't great for handling and road feel at higher speeds. Modern cars are fast and heavy so these systems have fallen out of favor.
https://www.hotcars.com/extraordinary-suspension-of-citroen-...
The "Frog" (can't remember official name) had a similar system but with hydraulics.
The Citroen 4 had this but with twisting rods instead of springs. You could easily get it up on 3 wheels with spirited cornering.
It feels like going 200 kmh when you push it to 80 :)
It was also the ultimate gangster car for European film makers.
The Vichy-french cops use it in Joseph Losey's movie Mr. Klein, there are lots of them on screen at some point. Great film!
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074916/?ref_=nm_flmg_job_1_acc...
Disappointed to not see flap windows. How am I supposed to get a blood blister from pinching my finger in a regular window?! No apparent hole in the front to hand crank the transmission either. Would’ve been a nice nod to the original if you had been able to hand crank some regen charge back into the battery. (The original crank was so you could start the engine if^Wwhen the battery was flat.)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DjFuvlwGvq0
I’m slightly ashamed to admit this too but it was always a bit fun to get a bump of the petrol tank vent, a tiny pin aperture in the chrome tank cap.
https://www.franzose.de/en/Citroen-2CV/2CV6/fuel-system/ANR1...
Maybe the EV version could come with a chrome truffle holder in the same position, for a similar olfactory kick start before the school run. Please don’t send help. We all turned out fine despite it being 4-star leaded.
Also another commenter here says this is clearly for city driving. What?! This is clearly for taking a shortcut across the lower field to buy a bottle of wine and a pack of Gitanes before the village shop shuts for lunch!
This machine was a tool car and the kind of design icon that earned its place because it interfaced man with machine, not because it looked pretty.
Sadly the way it works with EVs in practice is lighter weight = tiny battery = smaller range.
The Nissan Leaf original 80 mile range was perfect for my colleagues that lived in the suburbs and commuted 25+ miles each way every day. Especially with a charger at the work parking deck.
The problem is that commuting is not the only thing people do, and not everyone has the space or finances to have multiple cars.
Short term rentals are an option sometimes but I can understand how having a car and renting one feels like a waste of money, and is hardly an amazing experience both intrinsically and in terms of freedom and spontaneity (I live without a personal car and rent one once in a while as needed).
It we are being realistic, the real 2.0CV would be much closer to some Citroen C3 with a token styling element outside (maybe a bit arching roof) and a few minimal token styling elements inside, it would be on a standard EV platform and weigh as much as co-platform "brothers" and it would cost 30k+.
I personally love that it is running counter to the trend of car masses and sizes increasing across the world [0]. There's a reason why there's a small, very fun and niche community of Kei car enthusiasts - the case against pavement princesses and absurdist masculine performativity is a strong one.
Why would you think that? Well, you sort of explain it, but you don’t have any evidence or experience to back it up, so I’m still not sure why you think it?
Back in the day (think 1990s) plenty of small European hatchbacks weighed less than or around 1000kg, and noise at highway speeds was not a problem: Peugeot, Citroen, Renault, VW, Fiat, and others all had small hatchbacks that were absolutely fine, and perfectly comfortable, at motorway speeds for long distances.
My first car was a used 1998 Renault Clio: depending on which engine and trim level you bought they either weighed a bit less than 1000kg, or a bit more. I looked mine up and it weighed 1050kg.
I did about 50,000 miles in that car, including lots of long journeys. Back then I had a far too heavy right foot - which eventually got me a speeding fine - and even then noise wasn’t an issue on the motorway.
There’s so much more to how noisy a car is inside than merely sound insulation. Aerodynamics are a huge component, but so are shut lines, seals, and panel gaps. Materials and surface finishes also matter. Even things like the shape of the wing mirrors, or how the shape of the front corners and headlights direct air around and past the wing mirrors[0], can have a massive impact on whether or not a car is noisy at speed within the cabin.
This is Hacker News. We all to a greater or lesser extent work or dabble in incredibly detail oriented disciplines. Why would you assume disciplines outside those in majority representation here aren’t equally, or even more, detailed?
[0] I want to say either the Nissan Note or the Nissan Leaf had nobbly protrusions on its headlights specifically to reduce cabin noise by changing the way air flowed around the wing mirrors.
Because there's literally a market carve-out for city-driving electric cars like the Leaf and the BMW i-series. As much as I would love for a group of engineers to go hard on specs out of passion, I also believe that corporations are run much more by MBA-brained types than engineers now and any over-engineering outside of strict business criteria will be immediately vetoed and dumped
> My first car was a used 1998 Renault Clio
And these days the over-reliance on plastics for structure and cost reduction in combination with large scale production sourcing issues that are hangovers from a global pandemic and an increasingly aggressive imperial trade regime by certain bad actors means there's little chance you are getting similar quality standards like those from 20+ years ago
Enshittification is a real thing and I'm not the kind of corporate brand loyalist who still believes these companies are going out of their way to make a car better than it needs to be
And? Do you think these cars are incapable of highway driving? What do you think happens when manufacturers release cars that are terribly noisy in the cabin at highway speeds?
I’ll tell you: what’s always happened. Reviewevers and consumers will slag them off and people will vote with their wallets.
A lightweight car is not a car that inherently has to be unpleasant to drive at speed.
And you think cost cutting is new? Robert McNamara and his “whizz kids” near ruined the reputation of the Ford Motor Company due to quality issues stemming from his relentless cost cutting in the 1950s and 1960s. What he and, really, what the rest of Detroit were doing enabled the success of Japanese manufacturers in the USA because they made a higher quality product and charged less for it.
> And these days the over-reliance on plastics for structure and cost reduction
People have been complaining about this since the 1980s. Plastics have been used extensively in cars for decades, including in ways that compromise the durability of critical components and sensors. This is not a new problem.
It is sheer ignorance to claim that any car weighing less than a ton will inherently be unpleasant to drive at highway speeds.
I don't know about the i-series but the current Leaf is not a city car. Nissan's small city car is the Pixa.
The Leaf is mid sized and well designed for longer distance travel with a range of 387 miles.
What is far more important than total mass is mass distribution, width of the tires (which can be an advantage and a disadvantage depending on the conditions) and traction model. Noise is a function of isolation and shape of the body and road contact and here lighter cars have the advantage: substantially reduced tire noise.
But if, for instance, you're hauling lumber then most small cars are not going be driving great. Ditto if you have to move a family of five (or more). So without your definition of what 'well suited for highway driving' is specified in terms that I can appreciate that do not include the actual driving characteristics of the car then it is very hard to have a productive conversation, regardless of 'corporate wealth hoarding' or other off-topic bits. FWIW I've had just about every type of Citroen and without exception they handled very well within their respective weight class, and they also held their own in terms of hauling capacity. Reliability, now that is something where we can probably come into agreement, the French car industry for the longest time had serious issues (but not as many as their UK counterparts). Even so that too is a thing that is mostly in the past.
And it's not some niche car, it's one of the most sold compact cars on the planet. And the 2026 versions are actually slightly lighter at 1025 and are very comfortable.
Of course comfort is up to interpretation, and as cars get better, our window of expectation moves, the cars my dad used to drive for 8 hours in a row for our summer vacations in the 1970s are considered ridiculously loud and cramped by today's standards. Just like Kings of the past had no tropical fruit in winter, while even unknown shitty corps hand them out for free to their unpaid interns at this point, our standards move.
But even with today's standards I think a modern Yaris at 1 ton (+2%) is completely fine for highway driving.
For some reason, the Peugeot 405 is way lighter than I expected. Also not much above 1000kg for some versions. I was also shocked by how nice a place it was to be in, even at highway speeds, on not particularly great roads. I don't remember anything about the road noise, but the ride quality was good.
Well off-topic: One thing I always remember, is that one time I paid attention to the number of different shades of grey there were in the interior, and it was ridiculous. Almost nothing matched anything else. And yet, it was a very pleasant place to be. That car has by far the largest discrepancy of any vehicle, between how much I mocked it and how much I liked being in it or driving it. I was just completely wrong!
OT - if the Iran regime collapses, it will be an amazing time for 405 restoration in the west. They can still make so many new parts.
My car is 945kg and the biggest issue with longer trips is that the chairs aren’t that comfortable. Although at higher speeds it feels a bit dodgy. It does 170 no problem and that feels quite fast already. Top speed is 190 which I only tried once on the autobahn but that’s quite scary. At about 170 acceleration drops significantly and it takes a few minutes to go from 170 to 190. Won’t ever try that again. Cruising at around 150 for several hours is perfectly fine.
I had no problems going 190-210 on a motorcycle. It's just like boat hull speed, after some limit no matter what you do it just won't go faster.
At the time I lived in Plymouth, Devon and my parents live in Exeter and still do. In between is the A38, which is a dual carriageway and quite a lot of fun to drive. Halden Hill is a good test of a vehicle!
My old Fester managed about 60mph at the top of Halden Hill, going from Exeter. My current EV can be doing 120mph at that point.
The fester used to start chattering at about 65 and then quietened down at 70-75. After 75 (which of course I never achieved, what with that being illegal) it made a strange whining sound, which was not unpleasant. It passed away at M5 J30 (Exeter Services) with at least two shot cylinders.
MX5 is a great little car, you can carve your name with those.
I've been campaigning the car for about a decade though, fantastic machine.
I quite like the Copens, they're fun little cars!
Had a 2005 too, didn't find it too bad but the engine was noisy due to the high rpms at highway speed.
Like a nice pair of expensive headphones, you don’t understannd difference until you experience it. Like a nice pair of headphones, it’s not a necessity, either.
That said, I don’t think that has a whole lot to do with weight. NVH reduction techniques like insulating material and structural adhesives are not a major weight consideration, it’s more of a cost issue.
Expensive headphones and expensive cars are in that sense completely different things.
And of course in the subcompact ultra-cheap segment like the Yaris was in you’d see a difference just from going up segment within the same brand without touching their luxury marquee.
Going further down this tangent I have always felt like the budget segments have really struggled in the US because paying cash or getting unsubsidized new car financing is so rare. Financing is easy to come by that the purchase of a penalty box economy car starts making a lot less sense when you think of the idea of “$50 more per month gets me into a higher segment.” Over 5-7 years that cost difference is significant, large even, but at some point you stretch out that cost difference enough and it’s hard to argue with the consumerist impulse.
Then you’ve got the “everything is a hybrid” setup with brands like Toyota where you’re not really saving any gas money by buying a smaller car anymore. This is also a significant reason why everything is an SUV these days. (And it’s not like you can get a cheap one, see the Chevy Trax or Kia Niro)
And yes, within a single brand there is price differentiation too. That's the whole point: different priced vehicles for people with different budgets and matching expectations. Absolutely nobody is going to expect the same kind of luxury from a Yaris as from a Lexus.
I agree that when you spend other people's money it is easier to overspend, no contest on that.
I never intended to make an apples to apples comparison. I’m not even really making much of a commentary on how much money people have to spend.
To own a 2010 Yaris someone had to buy that as a brand new car off the lot. The value proposition of that sort of new car purchase is a difficult sell because someone on a budget like that isn’t buying a new car typically, and because of how car buying is financed in America.
If a new car buyer is bothered that the 15 year TCO of a Camry is $750 per year ($60/month) higher than a Yaris [1] when considering fuel economy and purchase price spread, that person is likely not going to be buying a new vehicle at all.
The way depreciation curves work there is a cost floor on a reliable transportation and that depreciation curve isn’t favorable to small economy cars. You don’t predominantly see lower income buyers driving Yaris, Mirage, and Chevy Sparks around. Instead you see them driving around in whatever vehicles depreciated the most and had enough new sales volume to be widely available as used vehicles.
Sure, that’s not an apples to apples comparison. But that’s the kind of real comparison that buyers make, in my opinion.
I’m not here to say that the person replied to is wrong for driving and enjoying a Yaris. I’m merely trying to explain why those economy cars have disappeared from the market, as well as talk a little bit about noise reducing materials.
[1] Yes, I did the math on this. The base model purchase price difference was about $8,000, so that’s $533 per year over 15 years of ownership. The mpg difference is 32 versus 26 combined, so over 200,000 miles at $5/gallon average that’s a fuel cost difference of $3233 or $215 per year. We are assuming maintenance and insurance costs are identical.
Much less noise than in my FJ Cruiser.
Only thing is being overtaken by a large truck - that is scary!
I exclusively drive (sub) 1-tonne cars at highway speeds (and more, because Germany). No problem. Why would that be an issue? Sure, depending on the vehicle, it handles a certain way when I go over 150kph and I am alone without luggage, but I know how to drive, not just press 'go' on a train, don't I?
Also, at least here highway driving is quite a bit of slowing down and speeding up, rarely it is just one speed whole way (that unless you're sitting on right lane behind the trucks)
https://electrek.co/2023/11/27/ceo-of-mazda-which-makes-one-...
Its been a decade of sandbagging. Fuck them https://electrek.co/2016/11/17/madza-electric-cars/
you just don't get a car like that today.
It's ridiculous: Put a modern SUV next to a WW2 M4 Sherman and you will be surprised, the SUV is the same size. Some a bigger.
All that weight needs power to get into motion. It is incredibly wasteful from a money and resource perspective.
But because the person next to you drives a big car and you don't want to get crushed, you also need a big car..
Apparently modern BMW 3-series are as big (on the outside?) as their 5-series from the 1980/90s.
> It's ridiculous: Put a modern SUV next to a WW2 M4 Sherman and you will be surprised, the SUV is the same size. Some a bigger.
Bit of a meme/trope that main battle tanks have better forward visibility than pickup trucks:
* https://carbuzz.com/news/the-abrams-m1-tank-has-better-visib...
I drive a 1998 Lexus SC, a car that was built to compete with the contemporary 8-series and Mercedes SL. My car is comparable in size to a new Corolla. I'm longer, but I'm 4 inches shorter. Every other dimension is basically the same.
(from the link)
Insane victim-blaming here. What is wrong with car people?
My daily driver is 220 inches long and 80 inches wide, weighs around 4000 lbs and over 50 years old. Most cars of that era were roughly the same size. It is definitely larger than most other cars I see today, although it also has much better visibility.
There's also a good Fifth Gear video with the same concept: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBDyeWofcLY
I've always wanted to restore an old car. If I ever do these videos will haunt me!
By the 70s, which is what I have, they were already much better, largely due to big shock-mounted bumpers and very long front ends that make for a gradual crumple zone:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk6DCWhjdjE
... although certain models were still much worse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgOxWPGsJNY
If you look at a modern vehicle, it's wide at the base and narrow at the top. The older ones were basically square, which is aerodynamically rubbish. But since the glass is at your eye level rather than below your waist, it meant you had a lot more glass.
The Plymouth suburban is 9 inches shorter in length and well over 1000lbs lighter. I couldn't find specifications on height for the Plymouth, but the Chevy is obviously much taller.
But that wouldn't stop them from making high margin vehicles that are low to the ground. The automaker with the highest margins is Ferrari.
The real problem is the nonsensical CAFE rules. If you want to make a high production volume small car with premium performance, you're going to blow your fuel economy target for that vehicle class, so they're de facto banned from making those. But >300 horsepower mid-sized SUVs? No problem. So premium performance cars are banned but premium performance "trucks" are fine, what are the premium buyers going to buy?
The companies are just making the thing people are buying. Pass stupid laws, get stupid cars.
A classic case of badly thought out rules/incentives getting perverse outcomes? But CAFE rules seem to be a US thing and we are seeing car size inflation in the UK, even if not to the same extent.
>The companies are just making the thing people are buying.
It is not clear to me to what extent the car companies are catering to the demand for big SUVs or creating the demand for big SUVs.
UK roads and parking spaces aren't getting any bigger. It is all going to end very badly.
> But because the person next to you drives a big car and you don't want to get crushed, you also need a big car.
My position on this changed to "ah, now I see" after seeing a video where a Miata got run over from a standing start by a lifted truck. They were both stopped at the lights, but because the truck driver lacked both forward vision and object permanence, when the lights went green he set off .. directly over the car in front.
US size escalation will continue until legislated against. It's creeping into the UK, but fortunately you can't go too large until you start colliding with solid objects. And the max weight is limited to 3500kg unless you're on a Boomer license.
The problem with this argument is that because of the 4th power law, essentially all road wear due to vehicles is caused by 20+ ton commercial trucks and the difference between the different sizes of personal vehicle is immaterial.
If you want a tax that accurately reflects road wear it ends up being around $0.10/year for a 2500 pound subcompact, $1/year for a 4500 pound SUV and >$6500/year for a 20 ton commercial truck, assuming they all travel the same number of miles. And in practice the commercial truck will typically see ~10x more miles too.
A difference of $0.90/year in tax is probably not going to provide much incentive to anyone.
That would be what normal people would call a "bold faced lie" in normal conversation and is only above average levels of misleading compared to what's typical around here (which reflects upon the character of the people on HN, IMO).
A sherman is approx same length as the biggest modern SUVs but wider, taller and 10x the weight.
You may as well compare rowing shells to fishing vessels.
The M4 is 2.6m wide. No car is 2.6m wide. That's wider than a coach bus.
The M4 is 3m tall. Even the fattest SUVs do not come close.
The M4 weighs 30+ tons.
The HMMWV is somewhat heavier in many of its configurations. but that's an actual military model. It's still a bit under 4,000 kg.
Those are some of the biggest SUV models extant.
I doubt that modern SUV is heavier.
The M4 Sherman tank weighs over 30 tons. The average modern SUV is around 2. The exterior dimensions aren't what makes a tank heavy.
EVs aren't going to win over capitalism if they cost more than the competition. This sort of option is necessary.
It's just a shame because it was clearly a compliance car for VW to reduce their CO2 emissions, and the price - while low compared to other EVs at the time - was unjustifiable compared to a normal petrol Up! - you could buy a brand new one for around £12k while the electric one was £22k - the price difference was just too much. But nowadays on the second hand market I genuinely believe these are some of the best electric cars you can buy for £7-8k, I love mine and I use it more than our 400bhp Volvo.
A lot less likely to get keyed with an electric 2CV.
And counties built on colonialism has no right to virtue signal.
Weren’t they referring to keying?
Also, you want to do legit activism? Go give away those looted wealth and wealth generated from that, give them back. But instead controlling them using currency :))
Unfortunately, Renault decided to ax the Mobilize Duo before it was sold around here. It was a bit expensive compared to actual EVs, which is, I think, what made them fail.
There, problem solved.
I already love it. The infotainment is proudly named Radioën. They made the champignon pedals!, although I am not sure this will be kept in the production model due to regulation. The seats will definitely need headrests in the 21st :)
And there is a van model. I doubt that one will be a commercial success, though.
[1] FR: https://2cv-concept.citroen.com/fr/concept/
I can see a lot of people buying this regardless of how it performs.
I am not sure I trust that specifically being about china Vs say US, but there you go.
https://bimmerlife.com/2019/04/13/evolution-of-the-kidney-gr...
And scroll all the way to the end for the inevitable final outcome!
It's a status and wealth thing.
https://www.thedrive.com/news/bmw-says-china-was-the-reason-...
https://starecat.com/content/wp-content/uploads/bmw-grille-c...
(pretty sure that's not the original but you get the point)
Heritage and vintage looks of the EU car industry, will only take you so far. Working class people still choose best bang/range for the buck car since their car is a tool, not a fashion statement bag.
Those who treat their car as a fashion accessory are few and the fad of such a retro model wears off quickly when too many people end up with them making them uncool again, like the VW did with the new beetle.
They also don't typically buy Citroens. French cars were never popular with the wealthy in recent decades.
Stellantis do seem to sandbag their EVs a bit with batteries that don't quiiiite have as much range as competitors. When my Abarth 600E eventually arrives I am going to annoy HN with even more EV-posting.
Not to bash it too much, it is an okay car that gets you where you want to go, but it's clearly not them doing their best job at making an EV. I actually like that they have physical, tactile interfaces such as buttons, levers and knobs for all the really important features. I'm not saying they should go the Tesla route and replace all that with a big touchscreen in the center column.
You could have stopped right there. Stellantis are trash tier of cars. Race to the bottom of cost cutting, quality and relatability with former reputable badges on top, to drive the sales.
Source for Leapmotor sales numbers: https://ievchina.com/brands/leapmotor-stellantis-europe-upda...
It's only Dacia who seems to understand that there's big market for basic but half-decent cars that don't bill themselves as infotainment fourth spaces, or whatever the hell it is that they're trying to go for [1].
Give me wind up windows, give me an analogue dashboard, give me a basic interface for my phone, etc.
[1] ok, we know what they're going for - the Euros in our wallets... .
Thats where China comes in. The EU makers enjoyed decades of protections from disruption and laziness and compliance settled in because they didn't want to get disrupted.
I do think Renault/Dacia have ""got it"" all of a sudden and started actually trying with EVs. Stellantis less so, although Citroen are a Stellantis company. Even Toyota, whose CEO is an overt petrolhead who feels sorry for the loss of engines, are suddenly doing well despite naming their car bz4x in an effort to make it unmemorable.
The war(s) are only going to accelerate this progress.
"Infotainment" functions in that require interacting with a touch screen were bad ideas at the time and seem incomprehensibly bad in retrospect. It's a certainty that people have died in accidents that occurred because of this.
On the other hand, backup cameras are a genuinely helpful tool. And so are electric power windows: it's far easier to roll windows up and down pushing a button than manipulating the roller. It takes less concentration, so you can focus more on driving. In 2026, the cost of adding motors instead of a hand crank to control the windows has got to be negligible.
There are other improvements that were luxuries in traditional ICE vehicles, but become necessities in hybrid or electric vehicles. Hybrids like Priuses have CVE transmissions, so there's no manual transmission or stick shift. Electric vehicles have electric seat warmers and even steering wheel warmers because there's no gas-burning engine to heat the cabin.
It’s so simple, but so adaptable, and far simpler than any other transmission I’ve seen in a car.
My father is 75. I got him Tesla earlier this summer.
2 months later he wouldn't change it for anything.
Just because you can't tell apart good UX from bad UX, doesn't mean the whole concept is bad.
He comes from Hyundai Kona EV, which some even declared a decent car lol.
That idea almost sank the entire industry because the Chinese were undercutting them left and right. And unlike the U.S. Europe still hasn't closed off its markets to Chinese EVs.
What people want most of all is a cheap and reliable car.
Tesla came up with that strategy, executed well on it, and is top of the European BEV market. Despite Musk's subsequent antics.
I don't think the European manufacturers really wanted to do BEVs in the first place, which is why so many were anemic until recently. This is finally changing even though VW are desperately lobbying against the competition. The VW EVs are adequate despite the mis-design reliance on screens (which they are correcting) and pricing (nobody ever bought German cars for their low prices, except the Beetle). Renault have a hit on their hands with the 5.
It's fine for EVs to exist on a market segment curve like regular cars. So long as they deliver value at each level. This is different in the US and Europe, yes, but the real problem has been a combination of lack of seriousness and the general malaise that forced all the legacy manufacturers into Stellantis in the first place. I wonder if there has been an equivalent of the Nokia "burning platform" memo which has made people in the industry realize that, yes, the transition away from petrol engines is now happening and they need to adapt properly.
(edit: I have just been reading up on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luca_de_Meo vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Ghosn and think the Renault turnaround can be attributed to the old CEO being arrested and replaced by someone actually trying to do a decent job)
BEVs will eventually be (much) cheaper than ICE cars since they have almost no moving parts compared to the latter. We tend to forget that ICE cars are mechanically very complex machines which only work so well because manufacturers had more than 130 years to refine and perfect them.
Well yeah, that's the problem for most people, things being expensive. It would be nice if we could all afford Bentleys or at least top end Volvo EVs with all the safety features and long range.
But VW ID is not a luxury car, not even a premium car brand, it's a working class brand, and even that one it's too expensive for that.
VW lost the plot on what their customers can afford since the VW Golf days and are now moving to the wealthy urban yuppies segment of buyers.
Nice to drive sure, but software is TERRIBLE (like embarrassingly bad, even years and years after release and endless OTAs) both in the car and app. And the dashboard is all touch sensitive nonsense where they've cheaped out in places that really really really cause annoyances - e.g. to control the rear windows, you have to press a touch sensitive "rear" thing and then you can use the same two window buttons that normally operate the front buttons - wtf?! There is no backlight on the touch sensitive heating controls so you can't change them at night without just flapping your hand around etc. There are no rear speakers, no alloy wheels, drum brakes, no reversing camera, hell there is even visible exterior paint panels around the window where they didn't put a bit of fabric like every other car.
The ID3 is a very very basic and badly implemented car as a daily driver. Take it in to VW to fix the faults on the warranty and you always have to pay a diagnosis fee for them to even look at it because that's not covered. Hateful contempt for the user/owner/driver.
I understand they have made some updates in the newest model, but certainly the OTA updates have not prevented the software problems so you'll probably still have those even if you are wowed by having physical buttons for demisting the windows or unlocking the doors.
Great for us aliens with 12 fingers on each hand.
Huh? VW Golf cars were hugely popular in Europe for being low price and sturdy. Not every German car was a Mercedes or a BMW. But now even the Golf equivalent, the ID, is too expensive for a vast majority of Europeans.
VW moved itself as the premium brand of the group and relegated Seat and Especially Skoda as the cheaper brands.
After the 50, Audi didn’t even have a supermini until the early 2000s.
But VW is merely a manufacturer of cattle-class vehicles. They saw BEVs as an opportunity to "grow" the base price of their best selling vehicle (VW Golf) to $50K. They were just misguided to believe that buyers would accept that.
Fortunately they've seen the error in their ways and are now releasing cheaper vehicles.
Also, the world's first mass market EV, the Nissan Leaf, was spearheaded by Ghosn. Obviously Nissan completely squandered the first mover advantage, but that was no longer under his watch.
There’s a few lower-end EVs around here, from the Zoé to the Ami (it’s a funny one, but they are not that rare, probably what I would get if I really wanted a daily car). More recently, the Renault 4/5 seems to be doing ok.
There’s a bunch of mid-range hybrids as well, mostly Toyotas it seems.
As someone who uses their Ami every day: it's too under-specced for me to recommend it (for example, no AC is tough in the summer), and it's cheaply made, but man, it's the best car I've every owned.
You couldn't build a cheap EV with a decent amount of range and make a profit, and car companies literally couldn't give away EVs with only 50 miles of range. So they stuffed 2-300 miles worth of battery packs into a car, added a bunch of cheap electronics with huge margins and sold the cars for a lot of money to people with a lot of money. Then they realized they could just to that to ICE cars and make a lot more per car.
Meanwhile, China focused on building battery factories instead of cars and now has a lead in both cost and numbers of batteries produced, and can undercut everyone else on the most expensive part of an EV.
Every car review vid I watch on YouTube has me shaking my head at the sheer excess they seem to have.
Pretty much. Consumers are suckers for luxury, or just cheap tat that gives off the impression of luxury (touch screens, computers, gizmos, etc)
Ironically, computers and screens were a real luxury in expensive cars 20+ years ago when computers were large, expensive and bulky, but now that they're cheap comodities, they make most cars look and feel cheap as the actually luxury cars moved away from them to more discrete and vintage designs that try to hide screens and tech as much as possible.
I don't know that we can say that with any surety - when is the last time a manufacturer offered a "no-frills" SKU with all the safety features intact?
Literally the only brand I can think of which does this is Dacia, and they sell like hotcakes in the EU...
Dacia did, and their CEO said they would let customers decide - which they did in droves, to his benefit, despite scoring three stars or fewer.
The newest Dacia Spring has one star.
NCAP lost its way years ago when it diluted its ratings from just crash testing into including "safety assistance" software.
Plenty of people (rightly or wrongly) are confident in their ability to prevent accidents. Or, at least, confident enough to be skeptical of the tradeoffs involved with these assistive systems.
If I had to choose between a car that has high survivability in a crash versus a car that how worse survivability in a crash but has a few assistive systems that can prevent some crashes (which, mostly, I already prevent by paying attention), I'd choose the former every time.
It literally is not. Both are crash safety systems, active and passive, respectively. The active category also includes things like ABS and ESP.
> (which, mostly, I already prevent by paying attention)
This is an extremely well researched area (car crashes cause trillions in dollars of damages annually and therefore get a lot of attention) and not to the support of your stance.
The ones that are less great are the attention sensors they mandated in last-year's models. I test-drove a Kia EV3 a couple of months back, and they've set that sensor up so that even a brief glance at your instrument cluster can ring the attention chime...
In theory yes, nobody opposes more safety, but in practice some new digital electronic safety features range from destructive and annoying do downright dangerous and surveillance dystopian which is why people are looking more towards physical safety at crash results rather than the checkbox safety that's purely theoretical on driver aids.
And the only electric Dacia so far is a badge-engineered Chinese-built car: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacia_Spring - but, according to Wikipedia, the second generation will be built in Europe starting in 2027.
I'd rather more they'd be "designed in EU" as well, as that's the most complex and highest value add of a product's margins. That's why iPhones, are "Designed in California and Made in China". Imagine where the US economy would be if they'd be the ones assembling iPhones tha Chinese workers would be designing.
If future EU cars will just be "Designed in China, Assembled in the EU" just to brag about EU manufacturing, then I have very bad news for the EU economy.
In France, if a car is not built in the EU, it won't qualify for the 6k€ reduction.
My main point was that them being built in the EU wasn't something auto makers did out of the goodness of their hearts, or for some marketing ploy: it was forced on them by EU law.
I suppose that design requirements could be imposed as well.
If you want something bigger (than 4200 mm) then the battery will be so expensive anyway that most of the added tech does not change the price considerably. And also forget about the analogue dashboard because we have a billion mandatory digital assistants anyway (I'm not complaining, anything to save lives).
(And yeah, I am very appreciative of the fact that physical buttons, levers, and knobs often cost much more to produce than touchscreen interfaces do.)
A lot of that (driver assisting and monitoring systems) are mandated by EU
Same for chinese, recent MG scandal where driver's seat during crash can start continuing original trajectory even if rest of car does not.
I ignore infotainment and electronic crap as much as possible, its pathetic how bad it is still in 2026 across whole industry, beta test at bsst. But real safety I ignore not.
It's not just Dacia it's all small cheap cars, including the Fiat Panda. Obliviously big expensive cars will have more protection simply for being bigger and heavier with more metal mass.
People who can only afford a dacia won't be able to afford a Model X or Volvo EX60 so it's not like they have a choice.
The flashy features are to make the more expensive car seem worth the price. As battery prices fall and the automakers aren't trying to hide an extra $10k worth of baseline costs, you'll see more basic economy-focused EVs.
Amen. A, in this case rather ugly, restyling of a wheeled smartphone is not something I have an interest in. That's why you need the people that work on designing and signing-off (on) the thing understand what made the original such an oustanding design in the first place.
I agree that vanity cars that are a shitty car that looks like a classic serve little value. However good cars that "interpolate" and reinterpret classics can be absolutely fine; the originals did become classics for a reason.
A small hatchback no longer fits my life, but otherwise I would have loved to drive an R5.
I hope they make some "hot hatch" EVs in the future, the Alpine A290 is more like an expensive lukewarm hatch.
They already went a similar direction with the Ami,it was a pretty bold move and it was met with very decent sales https://www.passionnement-citroen.com/post/citroen-ami-premi...
An upper-middle class or "rich" person will get one, as a third car for errands in the historic center (doesn't wanna mingle with the poors on public transit), as a first car for his 16 year old brat (a travesty that law allows it) or a runabout for his wife that has old her car license due to drunk driving.
Now lower-class people have each their own needs, you won't always have space to park a big car, or the money to get a full driver license, or deal with the maintenance and insurance, you might not need to drive the highway more that once every blue moon and can borrow or rent something for these times etc.
Many have either no motored vehicle or a scooter for these needs, I'd zee the Zoe/Ami class of vehicles as a potential step up from that, more than a downgrade from traditional car.
Car are a fashion statement no matter how much or little wealth you have.
people have Luis vuiton branded stuff because it was a status brand. It was a status brand because it was exclusive. it was exclusive because it was expensive.
BMWs used to be exclusive, only executives would drive them. THey were expensive, so were only given to execs (if it was a company car) or bought because execs had more cash (generally)
X5 - despite its bad reputation - is actually very reliable nowadays. That B58 engine is one hell of a robust machine. And Range Rovers have 4 to 5 year manufacturer warranties.
Also, they're not off-road vehicles (Wranglers, Defenders and Broncos are); they're family cars that combine practicality with great driving dynamics, advanced tech, and a touch of luxury. Also, both have PHEVs, and now even BEVs variants.
I'm not a SUV guy myself, I know their bad sides - but calling these two models "objectively bad" is both ignorant, and patronising. Objectively (as in: let's take a bunch of cars and compare them to each other) they're two of the best ones out there.
And even if this all magically changed in the past couple of years, the old reputation applies to all the ones people bought before, going back to the other person's original point that a large number of people buy cars based on looks. Also the ones that aren't off-roaders are a niche in their lineup.
I don't thing anyone is _actually_ taking their range rover offroading in any "real" way.
>Working class people still choose best bang/range for the buck car since their car is a tool, not a fashion statement
I was responding to this statement here.
Because those used cars are cheap to buy for you in the UK, but there are no cheap used 2CVs yet on the market, so the only customers are those with money.
And those people are chasing status, not fashion. Different things.
(At least that's how I read OP.)
I got my vehicle with an MOT about 2 years ago. Let's just say I've spent another £5000 on a vehicle I paid £10000 for. A good part of that is labour for work I couldn't do myself. Much of this is age-related. I've also been visited by the "Lucas Prince of Darkness" (https://www.mez.co.uk/lucas.html, https://www.hermit.cc/tmc/humor/lucas.htm) on at least two occasions.
My vehicle gets 30 MPG, which is reasonable considering the engine was designed back in the late 80s.
I love driving the things, but anything made by Land Rover is more of a love affair rather than simply a vehicle.
It is either expensive to buy and then expensive to maintain, or it is cheap to buy and you will be replacing all the parts and spending every weekend wretching, and it will be expensive anyway.
A hilarious typo, or actual response after seeing the mechanic’s bill?
What was that saying, "there is no car more expensive to own than cheap luxury car?"
Part of this is the Land Rover tax; the other part is them requiring constant maintenance. Also, you don't know what sort of bush fixes have been done to it.
It is £4000 for a new replacement and you can't get it from anywhere other than the dealer.
He was complaining that he was utterly reliant on the dealer for repairs.
That would mean whole Inverter module (cars use same electronic that drives motor for charging), in that case new dealer £4000 price starts making some (but not a lot as I assume car still drives thus the expensive bits are working) sense. Still should be able to source something second hand if car is not under warranty.
Generally. I've had issues with electronic modules that need to be re-coded and can only be done at the dealer.
I've had a light cluster that would be a few thousand for a replacement after the ballast failed. The ballast failed after the sealed unit had water ingress due to the sealant (or whatever it was) failing between the light glass and the module body.
I sourced a second hand unit from a breaker but it needed to be coded to the computer. I sold the vehicle with the fault for as I didn't want to spend any more money fixing electrical faults (there were other previously).
The whole thing is built in a way where you cannot repair any of it and requires a dealer to be involved.
This is one of the reasons why I drive a vehicle that only has simple electronics now (my vehicle does not have an ECU) and generally avoid smart/IoT anything.
Range Rover / Land Rover unreliability is often overstated. I and my relatives have owned other brands of cars that were "more reliable", and they've had many of the same issues as Land Rovers.
What matters is whether the car has been looked after.
e.g., my sister's Toyota is plagued with electric issues. My sister-in-law's Mini engine blew up (a known engine issue, but unknown to them).
Often it is how well maintained that dictates whether it is reliable or not.
I said it was overstated. I won't pretend that some of the stuff (especially on the newer vehicles) can be quite poor, especially when it comes to vehicle security. However, often a lot of problems with these vehicles are because people buy a vehicle they can't afford to maintain, e.g., vehicles not having an oil change for a long time, and people wonder why it goes bang.
Landrovers require constant maintenance. If you don't like working on a vehicle or are on a budget, don't buy a Land Rover.
As for the other failure I mentioned, they are not subjective. The failure on the Mini is a known issue with a particular Mini engine (the BMW N14 engine). There are known electrical issues with many Toyotas, especially with the Yaris.
> Unless you're talking about a mid-60s Landie w/ a dozen moving parts, all made of cast steel.
Any series up until the TD5 Defender are simple to repair. Electronics make modern vehicles a nightmare to work on. While the electronics in many of those vehicles aren't the best. You can fix it with nothing more than a Haynes manual and multimeter.
See, I think we may be having a difference of semantics-"maintenance", to me and much of the rest of the USAian carbuying public means "regular oil changes, filter changes, and timing belts/chains & water pumps at 60-120K miles."
It does not mean: -new cam cover, rear main seal & oilpan gaskets at 60K. -4x suspension airbags @ $2000/per at 85K -high-pressure fuel pump at 90K (for the GDI ones)
...these are the first three things I think of when I hear "bought a used RangeRover."
Euros are weirdly tolerant of some of this shit. An Audi fan said to me that their GDI V8 was "easy to maintain"; even in light of having to have it brought in to walnut-shell-blast the coke off of the intake valves every 40K miles. No, buddy, your engine was misdesigned.
The older ones, while requiring high maintenance, were very easy to repair because, to be quite honest, the design didn't really change that much for 40 years. I had someone best explain it as "1950s vehicle using 1880s tech".
Their newer vehicles IMO are crap, but I think all new vehicles are crap (and that includes EVs)."
Often it isn't a fashion statement, and often people just like that particular car. Some people like Fords, Volvos, Vauxhalls or whatever. They just happen to like them for whatever reason.
I happen to like old Land Rovers because I like driving one. I like the look of them as well, but it isn't a fashion statement. People do come up to me and ask me about my vehicle (because it is still mostly original), but a lot of the time it is curiosity.
Patently false, working-class people drive a monsterous truck to their crummy job because psyops convinced them that good mileage is gay.
The only thing positive that can be said about the modern iteration is its $15K price. But for that money you're not getting a real car but a city roundabout with very limited range and speed. The Chinese BYD Seagull is a real car for $10,000 which is quite large to boot.
It's positive that European carmakers are finally catering to the wallets of their customers. No one is clamoring for an electric $50K VW Rabbit (VW Golf).
I always thought the Citroen vans of the era were very cool, I'd love to see a modern van design based on the H, for example.
In the 1970s getting 100,000 miles on a car gave you bragging rights - you would invite your friends to see it turn over, driving away in a cloud of blue smoke (engine oil burns blue), and carefully avoid puddles since they would splash water through the holes in the floor.
These days cars go a lot longer before they fail and so people with limited money buy used cars.
The best selling car of the 90s was consistently a Taurus and yet everyone who grew up riding around in one or learned to drive in one or had one as a first car in the 00s is nostalgic for whatever Toyota product their rich AF friend's stock broker/surgeon dad was driving around then.
I think the Seagull cost ~20 000 to 22 000 EUR in a lot of European countries. Who knows what the Citroen 2CV will cost in china.
> No one is clamoring for an electric $50K VW Rabbit (VW Golf).
https://cleantechnica.com/2026/10/03/europe-ev-sales-report-...
The ID4 is about Golf-sized, costs about 45kE, and is sitting at #6 on the EV sales chart.
(see also: Renault Twingo, Dacia (Renault Romanian subsidiary) Spring)
The ID.3 is almost a perfect match for the Golf in exterior size (within a couple of cm in length). The ID.4 is substantially larger, most obvious being 30cm longer. At least in Europe the ID.4 is considered an SUV.
Style icon? Maybe you are thinking of the DS.
The 2CV was commonly considered ugly so much that in Germany it was only known as Ugly Duckling, despite being a popular car there.
Yes, style icon. That is a well established matter of record.
> The 2CV was commonly considered ugly so much that in Germany it was only known as Ugly Duckling [...].
Utter rubbish! The Germans, I happen to be one of 'em, call(ed) the 2CV just Ente. That translates to duck.
Maybe in your small bubble. The 2CV was, and is, as much of a style icon as the Käfer (Beetle), the Topolino, the R4, the Mini, the Cinquecento and other greats of its time. As a matter fact, it's undoubtedly one of the titans amongst outstanding examples of automobile design and culture. Where the heck have you lived?!
The 2CV was designed from the start as one of the cheapest cars possible. Ultra cheap things are rarely considered "style icons" during their heyday.
The Dutch Wikipedia article explicitly calls it Lelijke Eend and the German one has some references to "das hässliche Entlein" and how Citroën tried to sway people to a more favorable nickname. There is also a book with it in the title.
Again you may be thinking of the DS, which was Citroën's flagship model and its fender skirts were the ultimate expression of cool.
I have never, ever in my slightly more than forty years on this rock heard Germans refer to the 2CV as "hässliches Entlein", let alone their 2CVs, and especially not in colloquial conversion. It was always just Ente. Same goes for printed materials, e. g. magazines, books, etc.
As a matter of fact, I believe it's the opposite of what you imagined: The "ugly duckling" designation was used from time to time either by ignoramuses (e. g. in older magazine headlines), or, in an ironic fashion, by some of the machine's owners.
> Again you may be thinking of the DS, which was Citroën's flagship model and its fender skirts were the ultimate expression of cool.
No, I'm talking about the 2CV. At this point I should mention that I'm East German. Citroën cars, compared to other Western makers, were relatively common where I grew up during the 80s. The most common one before the Wende? That's right, the DS!
> The 2CV was designed from the start as one of the cheapest cars possible.
Utilitarian/economical design and beautiful styling are not mutually exclusive.
EDIT:
> The Dutch Wikipedia article explicitly calls it Lelijke Eend and the German one has some references to "das hässliche Entlein" and how Citroën tried to sway people to a more favorable nickname.
So... according to the German wiki's source the blame goes to an early impression from some random Dutch journo. Quickly shortened to Eendje, already before the car made it to the German market. Where it was virtually always just called Ente, cause nobody uses more words in colloquial speech than they have to. Especially not with a mouthful like "hässliches Entlein".
https://www.novinky.cz/clanek/auto-legendarni-kachna-citroen...
I do assume it is now more of a style icon, where you only drive it on sunny Sundays, or daily if you want to be counter-culture.
Round curves and lights looking like eyes, with proportions close to a human face.
The same design cues that made the VW Beetle and the Mazda Miata (1st gen) popular cars.
And "barebones" can be a quality. Citroen did tons of overcomplicated cars too, and for all the love I have towards the DS, the CX, the SM etc., they all suffered and keep suffering of reliability problems that killed them commercially and to keep them running nowadays.
It's because the design was simple and cheap but effective. It's a distinctive, original design that was bought by everyone from farmers to the aristocracy.
Take the badge off that BYD and you would struggle to tell it apart from any other soulless boring car. In 5 years time BYD will have changed the design with nothing retained and still nothing distinctive about it.
This new 2CV on the other hand is very distinctive to the point where some will love it and some will hate it.
It's a good cheap, small car that will be easy to drive in cities. It's also "classless" car in the best sense.
Some people will want it regardless of how much money they have. It's the opposite of "try hard". You'd only buy a Seagull because you can't afford something better (from BYD or anyone else).
> No one is clamoring for an electric $50K VW Rabbit (VW Golf).
Actually the electric Golf (Rabbit) already exists, it's called an ID.3. It's about the 5th best selling electric car in Europe so it's, apparently, exactly what a lot of people want.
Even the Chinese designs are acceptable to good, mostly because they hire design expertise from Europe and North America.
Wait, why is this a "con"? I want a soulless box that flies under the radar and doesn't attract looks and vandals, as long as it's solid, cheap and reliable.
>You'd only buy a Seagull because you can't afford something better (from BYD or anyone else).
Hate to break it to you but BYDs and Xiaomis aren't so much cheaper in the EU than competitors, so it's not a signals of being "poor", it's a signal of being savvy with your money and not a badge snob. Same how shopping at Lidl/Aldi doesn't necessarily mean you're broke, just that you're too smart to pay extra for a fancy brand name on the same produce.
There's nothing wrong with a Seagull, if you like it that's great but how can you claim it's is both cheap and "not that cheap" at the same time? Surely it's one or the other?
This 2CV is going to be really cheap. There are buyers on a budget that will really appreciate something a bit different that won't break the bank. It's a mistake to think that all working class people want exactly the same thing in a car.
I don't know if anyone's clamouring, but ysk there exists a $50K PHEV Golf
They later found out that wasn't going to fly and they even had to idle some factories which produced the car due to lack of demand.
A lot of EVs are fucking huge, the renault 5/zoe for me is the sweet spot.
I like the 2cv, I really hope it has the pneumatic suspension, or atleast the soft suspension of its predecessor
the Renault zoe has a 50 kwhr battery, with a range of 4.8 miles per kwhr, it gives a reasonable range of about 200-240 miles.
Compare that to a polestar which is about 3.0-3.7, it needs a much bigger battery to get any decent range.
There are segments (like urban daily driver) where “quite large” is not a selling point.
I'd be very happy to buy a $15-20K modern electric minimalist equivalent, although I'd prefer boring normal Nissan Versa type styling, not 2CV quirkiness or the chopped 2+2 sub-compact car look.
You could ask the same about the Opinel No. 8 knife. Same thing since 1890s, one minor update every 50 years or so. It's still sold by the bucketload today for about €10.
It's just French, the same way a Lada is just Russian, a Mini Cooper is British or a Fiat 500 is Italian. It's part of post-WW2 cars that were cheap to buy, cheap to operate, cheap to fix and with production numbers in the millions.
I would explain in more detail but why listen to me when you can have Tintin and Captain Haddock walk you through features such as the dual purpose tyre-iron / starter-crank?:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/266233955544
One of their best innovations was the four wheel drive version that did away with front/rear transmission by having separate front/rear engines!
https://citroenvie.com/1964-citroen-2cv-sahara-a-love-story/
(Not my site, but I have an almost identical set of photos from the same auction in Berlin. What a treat!)
It still has lots of heritage feeling. People even make them electric themselves https://eveurope.eu/en/product/ev-hype-ev-conversion-kit-for...
So it’s not just a car model being electrified.
It’s more about the sentiment than the real usefulness of the design in current times.
Here is another example with more photos:
‘Moking is not a wealth problem’
Clean tear at the front.
Life never wasn't exciting with a 2CV.
"NO WONDER IT'S SO RELIABLE THERE'S NOTHING TO GO WRONG
Look what you get with the Citroën 2CV. A complete set of wheels, one on each corner, for perfect mobility.
A peppy little engine tucked away up front that not only starts with the turn of a key but stops in exactly the same manner.
Completely transparent windows for superb all round visibility.
A totally automated braking system, simply activated by depressing a pedal with the foot.
An automatic sunshine roof, you can automatically roll it back when the sun comes out.
Central locking system. You can reach all the doors from the driver's seat, and many more features too numerous to mention.
In fact everything a driver needs to get him reliably and comfortably from A to B.
CITROËN 2CV £2499"
From: https://www.citroenet.org.uk/publicity-brochures/images/pub1...
https://www.citroenet.org.uk/publicity-brochures/gb/gb-2cv.h...
The original was dialled-in to be small (obviously), dignified, reserved, charming, practical.
If you look at the original through the eyes of the late 40s, early 50s French consumer then it wasn't leaning so heavily on the Cute factor. That only came out later as we look back on it with nostalgia.
So I don't think the new one is a faithful representation of the original's ethos.
I disagree. It was designed to be affordable (both in sales price and in maintenance) and practical. It only was small because that was needed to meet those goals. Reserved as in “no frills” also comes from “affordable”.
Dignified I don’t think it ever was. What do you think made it that?
it was a car designed to get rural farmers to stop riding horses everywhere.
it's slightly more dignified when your mode of transportation doesn't take a literal shit in the street.
The cerise sur le gâteau is the new electric Twingo: "designed" in France, engineered in Renault's offices in China. [0]
[0] https://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202501/20/WS678db15fa310a...
The car itself had 9 horsepower.
https://vitrinelinguistique.oqlf.gouv.qc.ca/fiche-gdt/fiche/...
confusingly, the units are
ch for cheval vapeur (HP horse power, literally horse steam)
CV for cheval fiscal
Ils sont fous les romains
And agreed, I quite like this design. It doesn't feel as bulky as many modern "retro" cars, like the Mini variants.
The latest Grande Panda is an example of that.
I think it's very cool that Citroen is bringing it back.
The problem is that these electric cars have terrible range, because of the small battery, making them almost exclusively city cars. A-segment gas cars are also marketed as city cars, but they can also do long trips just fine. Not the most comfortable, and you are not taking your entire house with you, but you will get there, at highway speeds, just like with any other car. And with good fuel economy too. Perfect for those who want an affordable car, don't drive much, but may take the occasional road trip. By comparison, that 2CV is mostly designed as a second car (in addition to being a fashion statement), when you already have a big car for long trips (or get rental/public transport instead).
And for manufacturers, I think "affordable" is the problem here, A-segment cars are low margin, but not cheaper to design than more upscale models, especially now with all the safety and environmental regulations, so the market is not really worth it.
Also, it is easier to park these small cars, but really, what effectively happened is that manufacturers removed the cheap option on gas cars and claim that the replacement is an EV. It isn't, the A-segment was a cheap, city-optimized, single car option, these small EVs are also cheap (for EVs), but city-exclusive, second car options.
In general, an EV powertrain is far simpler than the equivalent Internal Combustion Engine vehicle. Like only 10% of the number of moving parts. Or fewer.
So it depends if you're comparing this vehicle against its ICE predecessor (far simpler!), or against other EVs now on the market for around 20K euros (not yet known).
(Before anyone says anything, the face that the consumer-friendly vehicle has an endearing "face" is salient.)
I missed the part that Stelantis bought everything that is not VW.
… for now
Of Euro brands, that leaves basically .. Renault (part owned by the French government and Nissan), and Ferrari (publicly traded), as well as a few even more boutique luxury brands.
Someone should do a good infographic for this.
This would be an obstacle; except that in auto executives, shamelessness is a heavily selected trait.
Launch price £9500-£11500, up to 150mi. Seems very practical if you live in a city apartment and need to do grocery runs or go to work.
Love the design too, reminds me of a futuristic, mini Jimny.
I had to go out of my way to find a microwave that was just a microwave which had a manual timer. I had to go out of my way to find something that was just a toaster.
People want simple things that work well. Modern cars are awful and unmaintainable (you literally cannot repair them yourself in many cases). Having the styling will only do some much.
Let's hope this time it's different.
Or an original Fiat 500? Or a Citroen 2CV?
The charm of them was not least that these cars were small. Very small by today's standards.
A MINI is about (LxW) 3m x 1.4m. A contemporary "MINI" is almost 3.8m x 2m.
Or worse, the MINI Countryman the MINI that wants to be a SUV and a MINI and fails on both accounts.
I fear the new 2CV will just be another weird supersized version of a classic.
All these cars feels like when Hollywood does the n-th relaunch of Spiderman or Batman or whatever because ... capitalism.
Play it safe, don't risk innovating with a new car that could be original and cute and loved by a new generation for what it is, not what it tries to replicate. Because the success of that depends on many factors, only one of which is originality. Whereas the classic has already prooven itself in all of them.
That said, I think the new Fiat 500 is actually not that bad. It's still a car that feels like a proper relaunch of the original ... in some way.
-Went from a sketch by Issigonis to volume production at Cowley in 24 months.
-Moulton's suspension; which allowed for a car that was drivable even with 4 200lb adults in it, almost doubling its kerb weight.
-The (apocryphal) design of the original map pockets, whose 9.5"x3"x3" dimensions were suspiciously close to the exact size of the 1/2 pint bottle of Gilbey's Dry Gin.
I just don’t understand how the Chinese are making cars at half the price or more since afaik they also manufacture them in China and ship rather than build locally.
Switzerland is a small country but has some of the most advanced manufacturing in the world.
S. can have all the 'advanced manufacturing' in the world but there is only ~250k new car sales a year. Compare to 34M in China it's 250k+ sales a month.
Some things don't scale.
"“Quality is more important than quantity. One home run is much better than two doubles.” — Steve Jobs
Yes. It's also differs on a bazillion of other things with China.
The size of the market is directly related to the population size.
Same. Major German car company I used to work for was so incompetent, slow and inefficient that it was inevitable they'd get shown off by Chinese cars, since Tesla did it before so it was a matter of time.
Apparently a Tesla model 3 has about 10-15 hours of human labor in it, so higher wages can't even begin to explain the price difference.
Well Tesla want to turn a nice profit.
Chinese EVs are sold on thin margins to capture marketshare.
Now cat manufacturers are really trying to bring good price to capabilities ratio. Kudos to that.
First thing I always look for in new car announcement, the dreaded "concept car". Then you can close the page pretty much.
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/electric-cars/fourgonnett...
From TFA: "The car had high wheel arches and soft suspension, letting it travel across a ploughed field or rough roads - as legend would have it, without breaking a tray of duck eggs. Its high roof let drivers wear a hat at the wheel. It was easy to drive and simple to repair."
Which of those qualities have been retained in this 2CV revival?
People want cheap and small electric city cars, why not make it in the style of an iconic car? We already have plenty of mid sized cars that look all the same.
I want a car that I can also comfortably drive to the beach, or to the next town. And also looks good, and comes in colors other than black/white/beige.
"In Europe 100 miles is a long way in USA/Australia 100 years is long ago"
I dislike the rigidity-giving ridges, though, those are echoing a distinctive feature of the 2CV but are surely non-functional this time around. The ridges are a lie.
On the inside of the Citroen 2CV from photos I’ve seen elsewhere, do the designers even drive?!
Speedometer display, tiny, then a large display to the right of the steering wheel with all the other controls.
As a driver, having to deal with speed limits and speed cameras I want the speedometer to be highly visible infront of my line of sight, not an afterthought.
Then the steering wheel. Why does every new electric car have to have a non round steering wheel just because it looks good in a photo. There’s a reason steering wheels have been round, basically forever.
This is my biggest gripe with electric cars. I want to like this as like the retro style but they go and ruin it adding tech and design for the sake of tech and looking good in photos, not as an improvement to the driving experience. Cars primary purpose are for driving, not tech masterbation.
- it was uncomfortable af
- it was unsafe af
BUT
- it was cheap
- it was robust (so many are still running here, it's insane)
However, the car looks really decent, and they're trying to make it cheap, and somewhat barebones. Tbf, the new Renault 5 didn't come out too bad either.
After the disaster of the e-mehari, this is a good surprise.
I grew up with a Citroën DS. It wasn't very practical but it was interesting.
If I were in western car manufacturers' position and needed to design a new vehicle today I'd make it a folding ebike, possibly with a cover option, with a good integrated lock and baggage/lifestyle hooks to an ecosystem. I'd sell subscriptions and proactively handle maintenance. I'd buy high density high value autonomous parking sites in major city centers and manage them exclusively through auto-valet.
There are two transit modes: long distance and short distance. For the second, bikes are already ideal. For the former, you want higher speed without compromising safety and some weather protection. This could match a recumbent ebike using specific routes.
Design of the actual car that will go on production is not even done.
We have seen hundreds of nice concept car that lead to nothing or disaster.
Also the 2cv was great because it was cheap, reliable and easy to repair. Good luck with these electric car, it certainly won’t be ‘farmer favorite’.
The Renault 5, Renault 4 and Renault Megan are class leading and have some style about them.
I just wish they came with better privacy controls but then all the car manufactures are operating a cartel when it comes to surveillance.