With all the hype around the nostalgia it seems to be slipping by people that this 2CV also has a class leading weight at under a tonne.
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.
Lighter weight does improve range a bit in stop and go city driving, but not really on longer trips. Once the weight of the car is up to speed, most of the energy is spent fighting aerodynamic drag. Lower weight would probably reduce rolling resistance and has other benefits to vehicle handling and costs.
I doubt a sub-1 tonne car is going to be pleasant to drive at highway speeds (thinking about the noise insulation here) and especially if there's even a little bit of wind. This is clearly designed for localized city driving. I suspect that it's also more (though not totally) pedestrian friendly in that the kinetic energy stored will be far less given any kind of impact.
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.
> I doubt a sub-1 tonne car is going to be pleasant to drive at highway speeds
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.
well, I did a test once upon a time on an Opel Corsa D 1.1, full weight about 1.3t, and it did reach 139 kph on gps, but.. let's say it if had it in it to go 170, i'd just back off at about 150.
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.
> I doubt a sub-1 tonne car is going to be pleasant to drive at highway speeds
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.
> Why would you assume disciplines outside those in majority representation here aren’t equally, or even more, detailed?
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
Since this is Hacker News, perhaps we can acknowledge that psychoacoustics is also an incredibly detailed discipline. Perceived noise isn’t simply a matter of decibels. Expectations change, and we find some sounds more tolerable than others. Engine noise can mask wind and tyre noise, for example, so removing it can make a quieter car subjectively less pleasant. It’s almost as though there’s more to acoustic comfort than remembering that your 1998 Clio was fine.
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 in a competitive space with Dacia Spring, Renault Zoe and maybe Nissan Leaf, all of which are there or thereabouts for the announced price and weight here and actually being sold now. This is still a concept and 2 years away. So none of those specs are amazing.
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?)
> Its in a competitive space with Dacia Spring, Renault Zoe and maybe Nissan Leaf, all of which are there or thereabouts for the announced price
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.
Dacia Spring is basically everything some people think all Chinese cars are. I.e. extremely cheaply built, will definitely not last (it's one of the worst performing cars for safety-critical defects in 2/3 year inspections), with bad safety and somehow worse performance.
It's a typical example of boots theory. So cheap and compromised you'll spend more in the long run.
I disagree, speaking as a former 2CV owner. Rolled cloth roof, door closing straps, whiplash inducing bench seating — removable for picnics! — round plunger pedals, and dish wheel hubs (though upgraded with four nuts per wheel!) A lot of this felt giddily familiar.
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.)
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.
No, a moveable couch. One of the most comfortable cars ever. (It was designed to be a vehicle that farmers could use to e.g. transport eggs to the market - hence, soft seating and amazing suspension)
My dad has a Citroen B11 from -54 that he bought when he was young at the end of the sixties and has kept alive since. The design is from the thirties and revolutionized suspension at the time, winning races. Citroen has always been at the forefront of suspension development.
The one my dad has isn't polished and perfected in renovation, he uses it as his summer car and its got great patina. No exhibition car. He's around 80 now so he had it for 60 years. He took it apart and reassembled it completely at some point. Also drove it from mid Sweden to Italy and back with my mom.
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!
> Something most modern (and expensive cars) don't have because of endless cost cutting on the mechanical side.
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.
I wouldn't take the 2CV as an example of suspension that modern cars don't match, but Citroën's later hydropneumatic suspension[1] are indeed unmatched.
Which "class" is that? A class of concept cars? Because there is exactly zero point zero percent chance that any "wondrous" 2.0CV will survive to production. It won't look like that outside, it won't look like that inside, it won't weigh that much and most certainly it won't cost so low.
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+.
Well the Renault Twingo is slated to be under 20K and the Dacia Spring is already around 12K. Both have similar specs so it doesn't sound that far fetched to me.
Huh, interesting. What I see now, Dacia Spring new is between 15.5-17k EUR, but that's surprisingly low too. I thought new EVs under 30k doesn't exist.
There are more details on the official website [1] and in the official video [2]
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.
I’m a big fan of cars that look happy. There’s something wrong with the trend of all cars looking big and aggressive. What’s wrong with us that we want that?
So I'm not the only one. It's supposed to be a sportiness thing, but I don't even want my sports car to look angry. Part of the reason I got an old one.
I have been told that supposedly - and take this with a big pinch of salt - this is "what china wants". I.e. aggressive arrogant get out of my way or you'll get hurt vibes.
I am not sure I trust that specifically being about china Vs say US, but there you go.
Your typical US Ford Ranger style truck looks way more aggressive than Chinese EVs. And European cars aren't far behind, BMWs are all grille these days. Look at the "faces" here:
Well it's not just the Chinese makers doing it - all the western brands who are trying to sell to china (so BMW, Merc, Lexus etc) are supposedly tweaking their designs to appeal to the huge huge huge Chinese market. Makes sense. And the expensive foreign brands (Vs indigenous) adds extra cachet to the "I'm important/gangster so get out of my way".
Not only best design, also a better interior, steering feel and engine lineup than the F30 that came after. I get a bit sad when I see an F30 on the road.
I, for one, do not want an aggressive BMW SUV tailgating my rearview mirror and I help them fly away by very slowly reducing my speed to the legal minumum
>As they face mounting competition from Chinese manufacturers, Citroen and other European brands are exploiting their heritage as a means of selling modern motors
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.
I was thinking about this last night - the European car industry's ripe for disruption by a nimble car company that can make really basic EVs with none of the pointless, excessive cruft that seems endemic in every new car release.
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... .
I'm a bit of a stuck record on this, but quite a lot of the tech is either legally mandated or a EURO NCAP requirement. You can try marketing a barebones car which doesn't have a 5 rating on NCAP and see how that goes.
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.
I rented a basic Fiat sedan recently in east Europe with a tiny (6-7cms maybe ?) screen for a backup camera that can barely be seen in daylight and a 1990s era type OS that had maybe three functions and never needed to be used.
All the lane warning and wheel shaking nonsense (who the hell thought that shaking the steering wheel at speed is a good idea) are controlled by clear buttons on or around the wheel/dash.
The car to be honest was not great, because it was very cheaply put together, but the controls were heaven compared to most of the new offerings.
İt can be done.
I'd be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
"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.
The Prius-style Toyota hybrid transmissions are actually much simpler than in an ordinary car. The planetary gear system allows engine RPM to be decoupled from the wheel rotation, with the motor/generator taking up the slack. There is no clutch or changing gear ratio.
Sure, but that's a different kind of safety than _crash_ safety.
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.
> Sure, but that's a different kind of safety than _crash_ safety.
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.
Yeah, those sensors are great (and, incidentally, even the budget model of the Dacia Sandero has them).
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...
The problem was that European manufacturers sought to market EVs as a "premium product" because they make no noise, accelerate quickly, produce no fumes and the lack of vibrations.
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.
> The problem was that European manufacturers sought to market EVs as a "premium product"
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.
Ghosn (the previous CEO) is widely credited with turning around Nissan. Some people figure he was actually too successful and his legal troubles in Japan were an extension of the boardroom fight he had with the old guard at Nissan.
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.
Tesla is a premium product because they had first-mover advantage.
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.
I personally think the VW ID designs are excellent, save for their price. They're just too darn expensive.
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.
We just got a rental Tiguan eHybrid. It's so big I can't park it anywhere without wasting my time, the high turning angle is annoying compared to my Suzuki, the controls are a hallmark of bad ergonomics and the driving experience is a let down even compared to a Toyota Yaris. I would never pay upwards from 36k euros for such an underwhelming car, when I could get a Corolla hatchback for 26k. The latter is boring, but it offers a seamless driving experience and okay controls.
>nobody ever bought German cars for their low prices, except the Beetle
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.
VW got a majority stake in Auto Union (later Audi) in 1966, and the Audi 50 was launched in the 70s. The Audi 50 was rebadged as the VW Polo, and by the 90es, Audi was the luxury brand. Why would you then label the VW Golf the premium supermini at that time? They had a dedicated brand for premium.
They marketed EVs as a premium product because of battery cost and availability.
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.
> The problem was that European manufacturers sought to market EVs as a "premium product" because they make no noise, accelerate quickly, produce no fumes and the lack of vibrations.
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.
> Ami (it’s a funny one, but they are not that rare, probably what I would get if I really wanted a daily car)
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.
EVs are marketed as premium because the cost much, much more than ICE vehicles. Or at least did/do today. The logic is this: you make a car with a very expensive battery in it. It now costs 1.5/2X the cost of the same size ICE vehicle. Nobody will buy it. But if you add some bells and whistles that have high margin, you can now make a luxury EV that only costs 1.2X as much as the equivalent ICE vehicle. Government tax incentives close the gap further.
This concept is supposedly aimed at the new "E-car" regulations in Europe that means (from what I can tell) that while they still have to retain the same standards of physical crash safety (airbags, crumple zones and all that etc) but don't need to have all the other things like AEB, road-sign detection, lane departure assistance etc which apparently push the price up many thousands somehow for some software and a few sensors.
False. M1E means type approvals will be valid for ten years instead of requiring compliance to changing / updating rules and requirements on a roughly biennial schedule. The requirements will be the same as the current M1 requirements. You can just sell an outdated/unsafer car for way longer without investing into changes and R&D.
Yeah, the safety features aren’t _bad_, though. If you want to go 75mph and not die (or kill others), that’s the cost. You don’t need the next 2 tons and the infotainment system, but 500kg at 70 ain’t safe.
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.
Yeah, always the problem with tech - a camera is a useful tool and also an opportunity for a parasite to watch over your shoulder, a display is a place for presenting information and also an opportunity for a parasite to influence your behavior. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
I didn't mean the technical safety requirements - presumaby those create a somewhat level playing field as all manufacturers would be required to include them for the EU market - I simply mean all the luxe crap that every car seems to insist upon.
Every car review vid I watch on YouTube has me shaking my head at the sheer excess they seem to have.
It's actually customers who insist on the lux crap. If that were not there, they would be looking at a spartan but very expensive car, vs a spartan but cheap ICE car, and they would always buy the ICE version.
>It's actually customers who insist on the lux crap.
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.
> It's actually customers who insist on the lux crap
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...
>the European car industry's ripe for disruption by a nimble car company that can make really basic EVs with none of the pointless, excessive cruft that seems endemic in every new car release
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.
You are pretty much describing the Renault 4/5. They still carry a big screen but everything vital can be controlled by buttons and switches around the wheel.
This is exactly what Slate Auto[1] say they'll do in the US. Unfortunately for me, their initial models are a truck and an SUV. I'm crossing my fingers they'll succeed, then make an econobox for me.
Batteries are expensive. LED light strips and big LCD screens are cheap, sometimes even cheaper than bespoke buttons and switches.
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.
Dacia is a brand of Renault, same as Skoda is a brand of the Volkswagen Group - both are attempts of offering more affordable cars built in Eastern Europe (which is especially ironic in the case of VW, which translates to "people's car").
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.
>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.
A video display for a backup camera is mandatory; an all-encompassing whiz-bang touchscreen glass cockpit is not.
(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.)
The BBC article fails to mention that this new 2CV is aiming for the new M1E vehicle category, created especially for small, affordable EVs.
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).
Dacia is fine but dont crash in it, it wont be nice at higher speeds where more premium brands will protect you and your family better. Its not about some adac stara but real world collisions and what happened to occupants.
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.
>Dacia is fine but dont crash in it, it wont be nice at higher speeds where more premium brands will protect you and your family better. Its not about some adac stara but real world collisions and what happened to occupants
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.
"heritage" isn't about fashion, Citroen is signaling a specific value proposition and ethos through this choice. And also enough commitment to burn their one throw at this target.
I'm not a high-schooler, but I love mine and use it almost every day in Paris! It's a great little car, and it's nice to see Citroën follow through with more "serious" small EVs.
Ami-style cars are toys for "rich" people. No lower-class or lower middle class person who can only buy one car is going to get it, since its compromises are too great; tiny range, lack of AC, no suburban or highway capability, can't fit a stroller or child seat. That person will inevitably get either something like a C3/C3 Aircross/Clio/Sandero or a Chinese EV like the 20k euro Geely E2 or Aion UT or 16K Leapmotor T03/B10 or 18K Dolphin Surf.
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.
Agree on the tradeoffs, if a family can have a traditional car and needs to maximize the value of owning it, something like a second hand utility car (a Berlingo for instance) will the best choice.
Now lower-class people have different 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.
That depends on where you sit in the working class. At the bottom are people who earn almost nothing and price it the only consideration. As you move up though you find people who have some disposable income and start caring about style. At the top end of the working class you find people who can afford a new car (where this is aimed!) and those people tend to care about style.
I think you are wrong, I live in the UK and people around me drive used BMW x5s and Range Rovers both objectively bad vehicles and not best bang for buck.
Car are a fashion statement no matter how much or little wealth you have.
>I think you are wrong, I live in the UK and people around me drive used BMW x5s and Range Rovers both objectively bad vehicles and not best bang for buck.
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.
In the case of Rover, the price you pay for the vehicle is just the initiation fee. You still need to pay regular dues to stay in that club, but they call it "maintenance" and it ain't cheap.
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.
I live in the UK. There is no such thing as a cheap Range Rover or Land Rover. Take it from an owner. If one of those is cheap, it is a basket case.
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.
> Car are a fashion statement no matter how much or little wealth you have.
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.
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)
If there ever was a time when a BMW 700 was presented to an executive as symbol of their status, then that was also the time for them to start looking for a new gig.
Not really. There's quite a few luxury brands for (actual) rich people out there that you can't tell because they're super discrete and can't notice unless you know what to look for and look super close, because they don't have large gaudy logos plastered everywhere to attract looks and envy from the peasants. Those are aren't chasing status looks because they have actual status. LV handbags are for poor people to signal they can fake status by being bad with money.
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.
The Renault 5 looks great and has a solid price point for entry. I was this was available in the US. I think it would do quite well here at the < 30k price point.
Those cars are also just very practical for a lot of people. It's not a family car, but not everyone needs a family car. Afaik they are so popular because they can be leased relatively cheaply.
There must be the equivalent for "first as a tragedy then as a comedy" saying for commercial product. "first as a tool then as a totem" or something like that.
> Heritage and vintage looks, will only take you so far.
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.
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.
Yeah. I drive a modern Stellantis EV and it's quite evident that this is an afterthought retrofitted onto a ICE/hybrid platform. The battery is not that huge, but more importantly all the EV-specific features you'd expect are either missing entirely or really crappy. Charging speed is severely limited, there is no vehicle-to-load, barely anything in terms of charging settings and also no trip planning (I'm told this is available as a paid add-on in some models). By default, the screen behind the steering wheel uses the majority of its space to visualize which energy source is currently in use - maybe nice in a hybrid, but profoundly useless in a pure EV. And of course, there is no frunk. Instead, the space under the hood is occupied by the centralized electric motor as well as the supplementary car parts arranged in a way clearly meant to accommodate a much larger combustion drivetrain, all covered in big plastic panels to conceal the empty space (or maybe the fact that it's an EV at all).
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.
I've always been amazed why the 2CV is seen as a styling icon. It's a bare-bones car from the 1930's which didn't get produced until the late 40's due to the war. By the time production ramped up it was hopelessly outdated.
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've always been amazed why the 2CV is seen as a styling icon.
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.
>Take the badge off that BYD and you would struggle to tell it apart from any other soulless boring car.
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.
If you want a anonymous car there's no end of choice. A lot of people won't though.
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.
That's because all car manufacturers make good looking cars these days. The few good looking cars that existed before the 1980's were therefore immediately lauded as styling icons.
Even the Chinese designs are acceptable to good, mostly because they hire design expertise from Europe and North America.
I think a lot of the popular classics are often because they were unique, not necessarily beautiful, and often the most popular tend to be some of the most ubiquitous models that were designed for the everyman, e.g. the 2CV, VW Beetle, VW Camper etc. I suspect they become stylish by association with the periods in which they were popular and the people who owned them, rather than because their own styling is great.
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.
this is absolutely it. the only recipe to make a car that becomes iconic is make it different/recognisable then sell a lot of it, for cheap (really cheap. No, cheaper. Cheaper than that) to students/artists. nostalgia will do the rest
These days cars are more reliable and so students/artists are much more likely to buy a used car.
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.
People with enough money to afford new also buy used cars. Why take the depreciation hit when someone else can do it, and you can still get 10+ years out of the car.
> I've always been amazed why the 2CV is seen as a styling icon.
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.
There's no new electric car for less than €17800, in the Netherlands at least. The BYD's start at around €20k. Only the Dacia Spring and the Leapmotor T03 are available under that price point. So if something was to be available for €15k and if it's highway capable, I'm sure it will sell decently well.
Just checked and that includes a government subsidy called Auto Plan+ which is close to 5k EUR. Adding to the actual price of 12.900 EUR for the car, it's still a comparable price point to the rest of Europe.
Citroen have always been distinctive "love it or hate it" about their looks, but in this case they've seen what Renault are doing (selling 5's as fast as they can make them) and decided to get in on the action by doing a similar retro reference.
> No one is clamoring for an electric $50K VW Rabbit (VW Golf).
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.
I have to agree, in Czech the car is referred to as the “kachna” (duck). No negative connotations and no obvious connection to the ugly duckling story (“ošklivé káčátko” in Czech).
I lived at the time and Ente always had the subtext of Hässliche Ente (Ugly Duckling). No one at the time thought it was a beautiful car. Practical, yes, cheap too. It had its lovers but there was never any doubt about its aesthetic qualities.
> No one at the time thought it was a beautiful car.
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?!
I think you missed the subtext that comes with the duckling designation and maybe took some self-irony of 2CV drivers for real.
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 think you missed the subtext that comes with the duckling designation and maybe took some self-irony of 2CV drivers for real.
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".
I never thought of the 2CV as a style icon - more a statement of practical minimalism. Make it so simple that it's cheap, there is less to break, and you may be able to fix it yourself. Picnic bench included.
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.
The proposed M1E car category in the EU (more or less the european equivalent to the japanese kei cars) might boost this segment of smaller, cheaper cars.
>I've always been amazed why the 2CV is seen as a styling icon
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.
The original is great fun to drive in. It also had a really simple rooftop which could be opened in some models. It drove on highways but that was really exciting.
I'm really digging Citroen's design recently. Along with Renault and Hyundai, they feel like cars from the future instead of the bloated aggressive and angular design we've come to expect
So, how's the suspension travel on this one? One of the key qualities of the original designed-barebones 2CV would be the long suspension travel and linked arms front and back.
Did you ever sit in an original MINI? Your ass is so low that you think any bump will bring a bloody visit to the proctologist with it. Literally and figuraitvely.
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.
Interestingly, the name 2cv means 2 Cheval Fiscal, or 2 fiscal horses. Which was a tax measurement for cars based on a formula of the shape and performance of the engine.
Ah, the joys of being a passenger with six others in a 2CV! Cornering was fun as he wheels ground into the wheel arch like something from a gladiator film!
I rather like this. Apart from the interior. Hopefully a production design will have some of the idealisms from the designer removed and replaced with more practical choices. It is however a near ideal cheaper end car for most European countries.
If they actually deliver something for their target price of around £13k then I'd be very impressed - that would truly be embracing the 2CV heritage in making something attainable for the people.
And agreed, I quite like this design. It doesn't feel as bulky as many modern "retro" cars, like the Mini variants.
I think it's cool. One of my favorite things about the 2CV is how modular they are. There was a Mythbuster's episode where they tried to convert one into a motorcycle using only hand tools and it was pretty amazing just how far they got.
I think it's very cool that Citroen is bringing it back.
I think the issue with all these cars is that they are not cheap enough. You get “half” of car while the Chinese provide you a “proper” car for the same price.
Not a big fan of the trend of making all these small electric cars while at the same time dropping the entire A-segment, which, for Citroen, would be the C1.
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.
Eh, you're just being pushed out into hatchbacks instead. I can hardly think of a scenario where I'd want an A-segment car instead of a small hatchback (e.g. VW Polo or Ford Fiesta) anyway. Obviously, that's just my opinion.
The obvious reason is that small hatchbacks (B-segment) are more expensive, both in terms of purchase price and in terms of running costs. And that's my point. Manufacturers don't want to make cars that cost almost as much to produce, but are sold for cheaper.
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.
It seems they are listening to potential buyers' wishes. Since the first evs appeared in the market, everyone wanted technologically upgraded classic models.
Are the Chinese cars somehow really doing manufacturing more efficiently or is it a flooding of the market to capture the market and drive out encumbants (whether government subsidized or otherwise)?
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.
I worked in the industry. It would have been really hard for China not to do better. Like really hard. They allocated 2 years, 150 people for a device that already existed but needed to be adapted to a different customer. It took 2.5 years. No improvements added. Every single manager in those companies is very political, no skills, technical or otherwise.
So if chinese hired 20 competent people, gave them training on the industry's specific tools, they are already ahead.
>I worked in the industry. It would have been really hard for China not to do better.
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.
What argument is this? We're talking about advanced industry, not building pyramids, where having more slave labor gets you to win. India has an even bigger population yet their car industry isn't remotely as advanced.
Switzerland is a small country but has some of the most advanced manufacturing in the world.
Having a roll-up fabric roof doesn't seem very practical. I don't really want a car that's going to fill with water. All the potential gaps, having to roll up a soggy, bird-shit-covered roof. It just doesn't seem like a great idea.
I hope they succeed, but probably will fail with too complex design. Original 2cv is wonderfully simple. If they can keep that simplicity, they will win.
The concept art looks wonderfully playful, but it won't ever ship like that. Take the seats for example, they have no headrest. Safety standard will not allow the car to ship like that. I don't suggest that this is a bad thing, but the "correct" solution would be to design custom seat that fit the style, but that's not a financially sane solution. So the 2CV will, if it's build, have standard Citroen seats, losing fun and appealing bench seat in the front.
I don’t love it. The new Renaults I like, and the old 2CV I’m also fond of, but this concept 2CV just looks like a clown car to me. The front is far _too_ face-like, with a big ugly rounded Citroen-badge nose.
I really hope this succeeds and carries over here. The future of city traffic is quiet, odourless, small electric cars puttering around (hoe nyc would feel so much more welcoming!). Hope to see in my lifetime still
It's a concept car. It might have been designed by a number of interns and any of the numbers including price, performance, range are to a large degree guessed or calculated from theoreticals.
First thing I always look for in new car announcement, the dreaded "concept car". Then you can close the page pretty much.
IMHO the biggest news is new M1E category. I do hope that with that push EU will somewhat mitigate the absolute clusterf*k caused by CAFE regulation in the US :/
There is nothing wrong with nostalgia. Some property developers makes money from nostalgic architecture. Fashion clothing is often a mix of new and nostalgia.
The problem in this case (and many others) is that nostalgia is limited to the form, bordering on fetishism, while the utilitarian and economic aspects of the original are brushed aside.
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?
Well the suspension is less of an issue these days due to technical advances. Ground clearance is more of an issue than the suspension travel. This looks more like it's targeted towards city use than the countryside use of the original, especially as it looks to have a notably shorter wheelbase. There's a usecase for small city cars that look cute though.
Why does it need the same qualities as the old car?
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.
Small electric city cars are convenience mobility for affluent consumers, not a proper car proposition.
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.
Retro styling doesn't age well and it just makes the overall vehicle harder to repair. Just take parts from your existing inventory and build me a good looking tiny car. EVs should be ground up designs, not some artistic regurgitation of some 40 year old idea with bespoke parts and inflated costs.
True, those are the most honest and least horrible car wheels I've seen for a long time. Everything else has pretentious alloys in a unique but meaningless swirl or flower shape.
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.
When I was about 12, my slightly younger friend told me his family were getting rid of the Ford Granada with its high fuel consumption and getting "a convertible". I naturally pictured a Cadillac or something but it was....a 2CV Dolly. Went to Belgium from London via the ferry. It was quite comfortable but not only slow (60mph flat out) but it was brand new and had to be "run-in" so mostly 50mph all the way :-)
Companies fundamentally don't understand the want for older things. I recently moved and threw out my old microwave and toaster, which were long due for replacement.
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.
My mom and dad and 6 kids could fit into one of these back in the day (road safety regulations, what's that?). a real workhorse, and easy to fix at home.
I really wanted to hate this cause the 2CV was everything that newer cars arent:
- 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.
With all the hype around the nostalgia it seems to be slipping by people that this 2CV also has a class leading weight at under a tonne.
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.
Lighter weight does improve range a bit in stop and go city driving, but not really on longer trips. Once the weight of the car is up to speed, most of the energy is spent fighting aerodynamic drag. Lower weight would probably reduce rolling resistance and has other benefits to vehicle handling and costs.
I doubt a sub-1 tonne car is going to be pleasant to drive at highway speeds (thinking about the noise insulation here) and especially if there's even a little bit of wind. This is clearly designed for localized city driving. I suspect that it's also more (though not totally) pedestrian friendly in that the kinetic energy stored will be far less given any kind of impact.
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.
[0] https://hannahritchie.substack.com/p/global-car-economy
> I doubt a sub-1 tonne car is going to be pleasant to drive at highway speeds
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.
well, I did a test once upon a time on an Opel Corsa D 1.1, full weight about 1.3t, and it did reach 139 kph on gps, but.. let's say it if had it in it to go 170, i'd just back off at about 150.
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.
> I doubt a sub-1 tonne car is going to be pleasant to drive at highway speeds
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.
> Why would you assume disciplines outside those in majority representation here aren’t equally, or even more, detailed?
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
Since this is Hacker News, perhaps we can acknowledge that psychoacoustics is also an incredibly detailed discipline. Perceived noise isn’t simply a matter of decibels. Expectations change, and we find some sounds more tolerable than others. Engine noise can mask wind and tyre noise, for example, so removing it can make a quieter car subjectively less pleasant. It’s almost as though there’s more to acoustic comfort than remembering that your 1998 Clio was fine.
The original was only a bit over half a tonne at 600 kg.
This one looks about as much like the original 2CV as a BMW Mini looks like an Austin Mini, that is, not very much.
I don't think that really matters.
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 in a competitive space with Dacia Spring, Renault Zoe and maybe Nissan Leaf, all of which are there or thereabouts for the announced price and weight here and actually being sold now. This is still a concept and 2 years away. So none of those specs are amazing.
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?)
> Its in a competitive space with Dacia Spring, Renault Zoe and maybe Nissan Leaf, all of which are there or thereabouts for the announced price
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.
It's in a competitive space with the Geely EX2, China's best selling car, which starts from $9000.
The only thing keeping European auto makers alive at this point is tariffs.
EX2 has short range and charges even slower, I doubt it's a particularly interesting car for europe outside certain niches (like delivery services).
Dacia Spring is basically everything some people think all Chinese cars are. I.e. extremely cheaply built, will definitely not last (it's one of the worst performing cars for safety-critical defects in 2/3 year inspections), with bad safety and somehow worse performance.
It's a typical example of boots theory. So cheap and compromised you'll spend more in the long run.
I disagree, speaking as a former 2CV owner. Rolled cloth roof, door closing straps, whiplash inducing bench seating — removable for picnics! — round plunger pedals, and dish wheel hubs (though upgraded with four nuts per wheel!) A lot of this felt giddily familiar.
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.
The original had a top speed of 40 mph and its only security feature was prayers.
I have done at least 70mph with a friend's 2CV on the Autobahn downhill. Doing 170 with a Porsche felt way safer.
It worked: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLOI5rPVols
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziyzsN8-6C4
Ahem. Having driven a 2CV, that top speed literally only applies to the first revision. (So, yes, technically "the original")
Later versions could do 65mph. 75mph downhill with the wind at your back.
Presumably with louder prayers, because of the road and wind noise.
So a scooter with a sidecar are enclosed?
No, a moveable couch. One of the most comfortable cars ever. (It was designed to be a vehicle that farmers could use to e.g. transport eggs to the market - hence, soft seating and amazing suspension)
My dad has a Citroen B11 from -54 that he bought when he was young at the end of the sixties and has kept alive since. The design is from the thirties and revolutionized suspension at the time, winning races. Citroen has always been at the forefront of suspension development.
The Traction Avant is a thing of beauty. Literally the only car I ever lusted after. Pure class, with a slight air of lawful evil.
The one my dad has isn't polished and perfected in renovation, he uses it as his summer car and its got great patina. No exhibition car. He's around 80 now so he had it for 60 years. He took it apart and reassembled it completely at some point. Also drove it from mid Sweden to Italy and back with my mom.
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...
Something most modern (and expensive cars) don't have because of endless cost cutting on the mechanical side.
> Something most modern (and expensive cars) don't have because of endless cost cutting on the mechanical side.
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.
I wouldn't take the 2CV as an example of suspension that modern cars don't match, but Citroën's later hydropneumatic suspension[1] are indeed unmatched.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKyWKKs4ISo
Those were amazing! But also Bose made some incredible electro magnetic suspension system, which might see the commercial usage only now:
https://www.autoevolution.com/news/this-is-how-bose-s-failed...
>Citroën's later hydropneumatic suspension[1] are indeed unmatched
Yes, and ask yourself why they aren't making it anymore. Answer: cost and reliability, which is also a function of cost.
ClearMotion has the Bose technology now and apparently is productizing it again.
my father owned a series of CXs with that suspension and it was magic. the car went round corners like it was on rails - completely flat
new one is actually smaller than the original (3760 mm long vs 3830 mm). but batteries and modern safety makes it heavier
The marketing text says it is a tribute. Not sure where your basing it as a replica look-a-like is coming from
It didn't have an EV battery either.
The original was - no joke - absolutely mind-blowing off-road. The dumb places we could go in a 2CV when I had abandoned my car way way back...
Gives me hope for an inevitable electric Mazda mx-5 to not suck.
Where do I sign up?
Which "class" is that? A class of concept cars? Because there is exactly zero point zero percent chance that any "wondrous" 2.0CV will survive to production. It won't look like that outside, it won't look like that inside, it won't weigh that much and most certainly it won't cost so low.
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+.
Well the Renault Twingo is slated to be under 20K and the Dacia Spring is already around 12K. Both have similar specs so it doesn't sound that far fetched to me.
Huh, interesting. What I see now, Dacia Spring new is between 15.5-17k EUR, but that's surprisingly low too. I thought new EVs under 30k doesn't exist.
The twingo is for sale and on the road already.
well, 1983 peugeot 205 was let's say a rocket. under 800kg and ~70hp (or 120, but that's was just scary)
you just don't get a car like that today.
It will be interesting to see how serviceable it is. The 2CV was pretty famous for being easy to disassemble.
The announced range of this car is 250km / 150 miles
>Lighter weight means better range for a smaller battery
Sadly the way it works with EVs in practice is lighter weight = tiny battery = smaller range.
There are more details on the official website [1] and in the official video [2]
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/
[1] EN: https://2cv-concept.citroen.com/en/concept/
[2] https://2cv-concept.citroen.com/
I’m a big fan of cars that look happy. There’s something wrong with the trend of all cars looking big and aggressive. What’s wrong with us that we want that?
So I'm not the only one. It's supposed to be a sportiness thing, but I don't even want my sports car to look angry. Part of the reason I got an old one.
I have been told that supposedly - and take this with a big pinch of salt - this is "what china wants". I.e. aggressive arrogant get out of my way or you'll get hurt vibes.
I am not sure I trust that specifically being about china Vs say US, but there you go.
Your typical US Ford Ranger style truck looks way more aggressive than Chinese EVs. And European cars aren't far behind, BMWs are all grille these days. Look at the "faces" here:
https://bimmerlife.com/2019/04/13/evolution-of-the-kidney-gr...
And scroll all the way to the end for the inevitable final outcome!
Well it's not just the Chinese makers doing it - all the western brands who are trying to sell to china (so BMW, Merc, Lexus etc) are supposedly tweaking their designs to appeal to the huge huge huge Chinese market. Makes sense. And the expensive foreign brands (Vs indigenous) adds extra cachet to the "I'm important/gangster so get out of my way".
It's a status and wealth thing.
Those BMW grills were because of China
https://www.thedrive.com/news/bmw-says-china-was-the-reason-...
E90 is the best design by a large margin.
Not only best design, also a better interior, steering feel and engine lineup than the F30 that came after. I get a bit sad when I see an F30 on the road.
I, for one, do not want an aggressive BMW SUV tailgating my rearview mirror and I help them fly away by very slowly reducing my speed to the legal minumum
I’m still waiting for the revived Renault R17 which was a too cool concept car. https://www.renault.co.uk/concept-cars-range/r-17-restomod.h...
>As they face mounting competition from Chinese manufacturers, Citroen and other European brands are exploiting their heritage as a means of selling modern motors
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.
I was thinking about this last night - the European car industry's ripe for disruption by a nimble car company that can make really basic EVs with none of the pointless, excessive cruft that seems endemic in every new car release.
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... .
I'm a bit of a stuck record on this, but quite a lot of the tech is either legally mandated or a EURO NCAP requirement. You can try marketing a barebones car which doesn't have a 5 rating on NCAP and see how that goes.
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.
I rented a basic Fiat sedan recently in east Europe with a tiny (6-7cms maybe ?) screen for a backup camera that can barely be seen in daylight and a 1990s era type OS that had maybe three functions and never needed to be used. All the lane warning and wheel shaking nonsense (who the hell thought that shaking the steering wheel at speed is a good idea) are controlled by clear buttons on or around the wheel/dash. The car to be honest was not great, because it was very cheaply put together, but the controls were heaven compared to most of the new offerings. İt can be done.
I'd be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
"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.
The Prius-style Toyota hybrid transmissions are actually much simpler than in an ordinary car. The planetary gear system allows engine RPM to be decoupled from the wheel rotation, with the motor/generator taking up the slack. There is no clutch or changing gear ratio.
Once I fully grokked how the Toyota hybrid transmission worked it kind of blew my mind.
It’s so simple, but so adaptable, and far simpler than any other transmission I’ve seen in a car.
And you can get "All Wheel Drive" for low cost by adding another electric motor to drive the other axle.
"You can try marketing a barebones car which doesn't have a 5 rating on NCAP and see how that goes."
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.
A car which tells you when you're about to reverse into the path of another car is safer. I don't really know what to tell you. It's obviously safer.
Sure, but that's a different kind of safety than _crash_ safety.
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.
> Sure, but that's a different kind of safety than _crash_ safety.
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.
Yeah, those sensors are great (and, incidentally, even the budget model of the Dacia Sandero has them).
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...
The problem was that European manufacturers sought to market EVs as a "premium product" because they make no noise, accelerate quickly, produce no fumes and the lack of vibrations.
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.
> The problem was that European manufacturers sought to market EVs as a "premium product"
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)
Ghosn (the previous CEO) is widely credited with turning around Nissan. Some people figure he was actually too successful and his legal troubles in Japan were an extension of the boardroom fight he had with the old guard at Nissan.
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.
Tesla is a premium product because they had first-mover advantage.
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.
I personally think the VW ID designs are excellent, save for their price. They're just too darn expensive.
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.
> They're just too darn expensive.
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.
I have an ID.3 - I'd not buy it again.
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.
We just got a rental Tiguan eHybrid. It's so big I can't park it anywhere without wasting my time, the high turning angle is annoying compared to my Suzuki, the controls are a hallmark of bad ergonomics and the driving experience is a let down even compared to a Toyota Yaris. I would never pay upwards from 36k euros for such an underwhelming car, when I could get a Corolla hatchback for 26k. The latter is boring, but it offers a seamless driving experience and okay controls.
>nobody ever bought German cars for their low prices, except the Beetle
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.
The Golf was a “premium” supermini since the 90s certainly.
VW got a majority stake in Auto Union (later Audi) in 1966, and the Audi 50 was launched in the 70s. The Audi 50 was rebadged as the VW Polo, and by the 90es, Audi was the luxury brand. Why would you then label the VW Golf the premium supermini at that time? They had a dedicated brand for premium.
They marketed EVs as a premium product because of battery cost and availability.
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.
> The problem was that European manufacturers sought to market EVs as a "premium product" because they make no noise, accelerate quickly, produce no fumes and the lack of vibrations.
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.
> Ami (it’s a funny one, but they are not that rare, probably what I would get if I really wanted a daily car)
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.
The Ami has AWCO (All Windows Can Open)
EVs are marketed as premium because the cost much, much more than ICE vehicles. Or at least did/do today. The logic is this: you make a car with a very expensive battery in it. It now costs 1.5/2X the cost of the same size ICE vehicle. Nobody will buy it. But if you add some bells and whistles that have high margin, you can now make a luxury EV that only costs 1.2X as much as the equivalent ICE vehicle. Government tax incentives close the gap further.
This concept is supposedly aimed at the new "E-car" regulations in Europe that means (from what I can tell) that while they still have to retain the same standards of physical crash safety (airbags, crumple zones and all that etc) but don't need to have all the other things like AEB, road-sign detection, lane departure assistance etc which apparently push the price up many thousands somehow for some software and a few sensors.
False. M1E means type approvals will be valid for ten years instead of requiring compliance to changing / updating rules and requirements on a roughly biennial schedule. The requirements will be the same as the current M1 requirements. You can just sell an outdated/unsafer car for way longer without investing into changes and R&D.
Yeah, the safety features aren’t _bad_, though. If you want to go 75mph and not die (or kill others), that’s the cost. You don’t need the next 2 tons and the infotainment system, but 500kg at 70 ain’t safe.
>Yeah, the safety features aren’t _bad_, though.
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.
Yeah, always the problem with tech - a camera is a useful tool and also an opportunity for a parasite to watch over your shoulder, a display is a place for presenting information and also an opportunity for a parasite to influence your behavior. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
I didn't mean the technical safety requirements - presumaby those create a somewhat level playing field as all manufacturers would be required to include them for the EU market - I simply mean all the luxe crap that every car seems to insist upon.
Every car review vid I watch on YouTube has me shaking my head at the sheer excess they seem to have.
It's actually customers who insist on the lux crap. If that were not there, they would be looking at a spartan but very expensive car, vs a spartan but cheap ICE car, and they would always buy the ICE version.
>It's actually customers who insist on the lux crap.
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.
> It's actually customers who insist on the lux crap
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...
>the European car industry's ripe for disruption by a nimble car company that can make really basic EVs with none of the pointless, excessive cruft that seems endemic in every new car release
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.
You are pretty much describing the Renault 4/5. They still carry a big screen but everything vital can be controlled by buttons and switches around the wheel.
This is exactly what Slate Auto[1] say they'll do in the US. Unfortunately for me, their initial models are a truck and an SUV. I'm crossing my fingers they'll succeed, then make an econobox for me.
[1]: https://www.slate.auto/
Yeah, I really like Slate's ethos, but I'm in exactly the same boat as you!
Batteries are expensive. LED light strips and big LCD screens are cheap, sometimes even cheaper than bespoke buttons and switches.
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.
Dacia is a brand of Renault, same as Skoda is a brand of the Volkswagen Group - both are attempts of offering more affordable cars built in Eastern Europe (which is especially ironic in the case of VW, which translates to "people's car").
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.
>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.
Dacia Spring is basically Dongfeng EX1, so it's a Chinese car.
I'd love an EV with no screen except for the instrument dash and buttons, dials and sliders to operate the A/C and radio.
New Cars must have a backup camera by law. So the screen is mandatory.
A video display for a backup camera is mandatory; an all-encompassing whiz-bang touchscreen glass cockpit is not.
(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.)
You could have the screen and also knobs and buttons. It’s not really that difficult.
Could be integrated into the instrument dash screen.
> with none of the pointless, excessive cruft that seems endemic in every new car release
A lot of that (driver assisting and monitoring systems) are mandated by EU
The BBC article fails to mention that this new 2CV is aiming for the new M1E vehicle category, created especially for small, affordable EVs.
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).
Dacia is fine but dont crash in it, it wont be nice at higher speeds where more premium brands will protect you and your family better. Its not about some adac stara but real world collisions and what happened to occupants.
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.
>Dacia is fine but dont crash in it, it wont be nice at higher speeds where more premium brands will protect you and your family better. Its not about some adac stara but real world collisions and what happened to occupants
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.
"heritage" isn't about fashion, Citroen is signaling a specific value proposition and ethos through this choice. And also enough commitment to burn their one throw at this target.
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...
The Ami is very popular around here. Lots of high-schoolers driving them since they can do it without a (proper) permit.
I'm not a high-schooler, but I love mine and use it almost every day in Paris! It's a great little car, and it's nice to see Citroën follow through with more "serious" small EVs.
Also Renault 5 and Renault 4 seem to be selling quite well.
Yeah I see quite a few of them. The zoe was a good sell and the r5 seems to be on par. And next might be the latest twingo
Ami-style cars are toys for "rich" people. No lower-class or lower middle class person who can only buy one car is going to get it, since its compromises are too great; tiny range, lack of AC, no suburban or highway capability, can't fit a stroller or child seat. That person will inevitably get either something like a C3/C3 Aircross/Clio/Sandero or a Chinese EV like the 20k euro Geely E2 or Aion UT or 16K Leapmotor T03/B10 or 18K Dolphin Surf.
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.
Agree on the tradeoffs, if a family can have a traditional car and needs to maximize the value of owning it, something like a second hand utility car (a Berlingo for instance) will the best choice.
Now lower-class people have different 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.
Point taken but I’m pretty sure working class people choose based on initial cost, not bang/range for the buck.
That depends on where you sit in the working class. At the bottom are people who earn almost nothing and price it the only consideration. As you move up though you find people who have some disposable income and start caring about style. At the top end of the working class you find people who can afford a new car (where this is aimed!) and those people tend to care about style.
> and those people tend to care about style.
They also don't typically buy Citroens. French cars were never popular with the wealthy in recent decades.
I think you are wrong, I live in the UK and people around me drive used BMW x5s and Range Rovers both objectively bad vehicles and not best bang for buck.
Car are a fashion statement no matter how much or little wealth you have.
>I think you are wrong, I live in the UK and people around me drive used BMW x5s and Range Rovers both objectively bad vehicles and not best bang for buck.
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.
There is no such thing as a cheap Range Rover / Land Rover. I know because I own the latter.
It is if you're in the UK. Used cars are (relatively) cheap there.
In the case of Rover, the price you pay for the vehicle is just the initiation fee. You still need to pay regular dues to stay in that club, but they call it "maintenance" and it ain't cheap.
(At least that's how I read OP.)
Correct.
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.
I live in the UK. There is no such thing as a cheap Range Rover or Land Rover. Take it from an owner. If one of those is cheap, it is a basket case.
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.
How they are “objectively bad”?
Very unreliable, and besides that, not suited for what they're being used for. Offroad vehicle with poor fuel economy being driven in the city.
They’re usually around the bottom of the reliability rankings.
> Car are a fashion statement no matter how much or little wealth you have.
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.
I think you're mistaking status for fashion.
Status and fashion are intrinsically linked.
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)
If there ever was a time when a BMW 700 was presented to an executive as symbol of their status, then that was also the time for them to start looking for a new gig.
If I read you correctly, you are both arguing with me and in my favour.
potato potato
The two are inexorably related
Not really. There's quite a few luxury brands for (actual) rich people out there that you can't tell because they're super discrete and can't notice unless you know what to look for and look super close, because they don't have large gaudy logos plastered everywhere to attract looks and envy from the peasants. Those are aren't chasing status looks because they have actual status. LV handbags are for poor people to signal they can fake status by being bad with money.
I think you're mistaken
Meanwhile, at least Dutch roads are full of Renault 5 electrics (https://www.renault.nl/elektrische-autos/r5-e-tech-electric....) and FIAT 500's (https://www.fiat.nl/modellen/fiat-500-hybrid).
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.
The Renault 5 looks great and has a solid price point for entry. I was this was available in the US. I think it would do quite well here at the < 30k price point.
Selling Renault 5 in actual colours is smart, everyone notices them against the sea of grey.
I see the R5 electric everywhere in Belgium as well, and I still love how it looks despite its ubiquity.
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.
Those cars are also just very practical for a lot of people. It's not a family car, but not everyone needs a family car. Afaik they are so popular because they can be leased relatively cheaply.
The same CEO was ultimately responsible for both those cars.
The success of the Fiat 500 and new Mini renders the GP comment completely moot.
There must be the equivalent for "first as a tragedy then as a comedy" saying for commercial product. "first as a tool then as a totem" or something like that.
> Heritage and vintage looks, will only take you so far.
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.
Citroen is already the Stellantis' equivalent of Skoda niche for Volkswagen.
Skoda are doing great with the Elroq at #2, just behind the Model Y: https://cleantechnica.com/2026/10/03/europe-ev-sales-report-...
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.
Yeah. I drive a modern Stellantis EV and it's quite evident that this is an afterthought retrofitted onto a ICE/hybrid platform. The battery is not that huge, but more importantly all the EV-specific features you'd expect are either missing entirely or really crappy. Charging speed is severely limited, there is no vehicle-to-load, barely anything in terms of charging settings and also no trip planning (I'm told this is available as a paid add-on in some models). By default, the screen behind the steering wheel uses the majority of its space to visualize which energy source is currently in use - maybe nice in a hybrid, but profoundly useless in a pure EV. And of course, there is no frunk. Instead, the space under the hood is occupied by the centralized electric motor as well as the supplementary car parts arranged in a way clearly meant to accommodate a much larger combustion drivetrain, all covered in big plastic panels to conceal the empty space (or maybe the fact that it's an EV at all).
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.
>I drive a modern Stellantis EV
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.
I highly doubt those numbers, Leapmotor sells a lot of T03 and Bs and it's not even in the rankings.
I feel like the Mustang has been able to go pretty far on heritage and vintage looks.
I've always been amazed why the 2CV is seen as a styling icon. It's a bare-bones car from the 1930's which didn't get produced until the late 40's due to the war. By the time production ramped up it was hopelessly outdated.
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've always been amazed why the 2CV is seen as a styling icon.
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.
>Take the badge off that BYD and you would struggle to tell it apart from any other soulless boring car.
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.
If you want a anonymous car there's no end of choice. A lot of people won't though.
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.
That's because all car manufacturers make good looking cars these days. The few good looking cars that existed before the 1980's were therefore immediately lauded as styling icons.
Even the Chinese designs are acceptable to good, mostly because they hire design expertise from Europe and North America.
There's really only one shape of car body that has optimal performance in a wind tunnel. That's why all cars look alike today.
Oh, so that's why I cannot see any difference between a Mini and Ford F150?
I think a lot of the popular classics are often because they were unique, not necessarily beautiful, and often the most popular tend to be some of the most ubiquitous models that were designed for the everyman, e.g. the 2CV, VW Beetle, VW Camper etc. I suspect they become stylish by association with the periods in which they were popular and the people who owned them, rather than because their own styling is great.
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.
this is absolutely it. the only recipe to make a car that becomes iconic is make it different/recognisable then sell a lot of it, for cheap (really cheap. No, cheaper. Cheaper than that) to students/artists. nostalgia will do the rest
These days cars are more reliable and so students/artists are much more likely to buy a used car.
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.
People with enough money to afford new also buy used cars. Why take the depreciation hit when someone else can do it, and you can still get 10+ years out of the car.
Just because you could afford new doesn't mean you will of course.
There are iconic expensive cars e.g. Jaguar E-type, Aston Martin DB5 and very expensive e.g. Rolls Royce Shadow.
you might like the morris JE vans - based on the old Morris J vans from the 40's https://morris-commercial.com/
Ooh I’d never heard of those. They look great!
> I've always been amazed why the 2CV is seen as a styling icon.
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.
There's no new electric car for less than €17800, in the Netherlands at least. The BYD's start at around €20k. Only the Dacia Spring and the Leapmotor T03 are available under that price point. So if something was to be available for €15k and if it's highway capable, I'm sure it will sell decently well.
The BYD Seagull (a.k.a. Dolphin Surf) retails for €10K in Spain. The price difference elsewhere is most likely due to taxes and/or import duties.
Just checked and that includes a government subsidy called Auto Plan+ which is close to 5k EUR. Adding to the actual price of 12.900 EUR for the car, it's still a comparable price point to the rest of Europe.
Citroen have always been distinctive "love it or hate it" about their looks, but in this case they've seen what Renault are doing (selling 5's as fast as they can make them) and decided to get in on the action by doing a similar retro reference.
> 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 ID4 is about Golf-sized
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.
"I've always been amazed why the 2CV is seen as a styling icon."
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.
The same in Dutch with "Lelijke Eend".
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.
> Style icon? Maybe you are thinking of the DS.
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.
I have to agree, in Czech the car is referred to as the “kachna” (duck). No negative connotations and no obvious connection to the ugly duckling story (“ošklivé káčátko” in Czech).
The Czech press called it ugly nonetheless.
https://www.novinky.cz/clanek/auto-legendarni-kachna-citroen...
I lived at the time and Ente always had the subtext of Hässliche Ente (Ugly Duckling). No one at the time thought it was a beautiful car. Practical, yes, cheap too. It had its lovers but there was never any doubt about its aesthetic qualities.
> No one at the time thought it was a beautiful car.
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?!
I think you missed the subtext that comes with the duckling designation and maybe took some self-irony of 2CV drivers for real.
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 think you missed the subtext that comes with the duckling designation and maybe took some self-irony of 2CV drivers for real.
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".
I never thought of the 2CV as a style icon - more a statement of practical minimalism. Make it so simple that it's cheap, there is less to break, and you may be able to fix it yourself. Picnic bench included.
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.
> The Chinese BYD Seagull is a real car for $10,000 which is quite large to boot.
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.
> The Chinese BYD Seagull is a real car for $10,000 which is quite large to boot.
There are segments (like urban daily driver) where “quite large” is not a selling point.
The proposed M1E car category in the EU (more or less the european equivalent to the japanese kei cars) might boost this segment of smaller, cheaper cars.
What I would like is a small EV (whats small now was family hatchback 15 years ago)
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
Aren't EVs large because of the battery?
depends on the EV. but not really.
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.
> No one is clamoring for an electric $50K VW Rabbit (VW Golf).
I don't know if anyone's clamouring, but ysk there exists a $50K PHEV Golf
>I've always been amazed why the 2CV is seen as a styling icon
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.
The original is great fun to drive in. It also had a really simple rooftop which could be opened in some models. It drove on highways but that was really exciting.
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:
https://2cev.co.uk/
I liked their old advert about how the 2CV had an automatic sunroof: "You automatically open it when the sun is shining".
My favourite car advertisement was for the Mini Moke:
‘Moking is not a wealth problem’
It also opened automatically if you made the mistake of leaving a tunnel at the same time as the truck in the lane next to you.
Clean tear at the front.
Life never wasn't exciting with a 2CV.
I'm really digging Citroen's design recently. Along with Renault and Hyundai, they feel like cars from the future instead of the bloated aggressive and angular design we've come to expect
So, how's the suspension travel on this one? One of the key qualities of the original designed-barebones 2CV would be the long suspension travel and linked arms front and back.
Did you ever sit in an original MINI? Your ass is so low that you think any bump will bring a bloody visit to the proctologist with it. Literally and figuraitvely.
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.
This video is about the Citroen C4 but feels particularly apropos (and ahead of its time) for this discussion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeCHu7fTcQ8
Interestingly, the name 2cv means 2 Cheval Fiscal, or 2 fiscal horses. Which was a tax measurement for cars based on a formula of the shape and performance of the engine.
The car itself had 9 horsepower.
Citroen doing the Citroen thing: Building cars that are way ahead of their time and that nobody buys in the end.
Let's hope this time it's different.
Damn I saw Stelantis and 2CV, and I was like isn’t 2CV Citroen?
I missed the part that Stelantis bought everything that is not VW.
> I missed the part that Stelantis bought everything that is not VW.
… for now
Ah, the joys of being a passenger with six others in a 2CV! Cornering was fun as he wheels ground into the wheel arch like something from a gladiator film!
There's already a 2CV electric conversion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lE7rcN4EnE
And only ten years after it was obvious to do. Looking at you fiat as well
If it is truly retro - ie ships without a sim card, tracking and crap tech then they would get my money. I don't hold out much hope though.
Missed opportunity to call it Citroën Deux but stylized dEVx - being an EV (read it as the french word `deux` aka 2)
I rather like this. Apart from the interior. Hopefully a production design will have some of the idealisms from the designer removed and replaced with more practical choices. It is however a near ideal cheaper end car for most European countries.
If they actually deliver something for their target price of around £13k then I'd be very impressed - that would truly be embracing the 2CV heritage in making something attainable for the people.
And agreed, I quite like this design. It doesn't feel as bulky as many modern "retro" cars, like the Mini variants.
I think it's cool. One of my favorite things about the 2CV is how modular they are. There was a Mythbuster's episode where they tried to convert one into a motorcycle using only hand tools and it was pretty amazing just how far they got.
I think it's very cool that Citroen is bringing it back.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bRJL_AjJjw
Point is: those cars differentiate little to nothing among themselves except in design gimmicks.
The latest Grande Panda is an example of that.
I think the issue with all these cars is that they are not cheap enough. You get “half” of car while the Chinese provide you a “proper” car for the same price.
Not a big fan of the trend of making all these small electric cars while at the same time dropping the entire A-segment, which, for Citroen, would be the C1.
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.
Eh, you're just being pushed out into hatchbacks instead. I can hardly think of a scenario where I'd want an A-segment car instead of a small hatchback (e.g. VW Polo or Ford Fiesta) anyway. Obviously, that's just my opinion.
The obvious reason is that small hatchbacks (B-segment) are more expensive, both in terms of purchase price and in terms of running costs. And that's my point. Manufacturers don't want to make cars that cost almost as much to produce, but are sold for cheaper.
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.
I find the 2020s interpretations of vintage cars very much off personally. It's too simplistic in shape, toy like. But well that's a general trend.
Now cat manufacturers are really trying to bring good price to capabilities ratio. Kudos to that.
It seems they are listening to potential buyers' wishes. Since the first evs appeared in the market, everyone wanted technologically upgraded classic models.
Aw, it's smiling! :3
(Before anyone says anything, the face that the consumer-friendly vehicle has an endearing "face" is salient.)
Are the Chinese cars somehow really doing manufacturing more efficiently or is it a flooding of the market to capture the market and drive out encumbants (whether government subsidized or otherwise)?
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.
I worked in the industry. It would have been really hard for China not to do better. Like really hard. They allocated 2 years, 150 people for a device that already existed but needed to be adapted to a different customer. It took 2.5 years. No improvements added. Every single manager in those companies is very political, no skills, technical or otherwise. So if chinese hired 20 competent people, gave them training on the industry's specific tools, they are already ahead.
>I worked in the industry. It would have been really hard for China not to do better.
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.
But even Teslas are 2-3x the price of equivalent Chinese EVs.
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.
>But even Tesla's are 2-3x the price of equivalent Chinese EVs.
Well Tesla want to turn a nice profit.
Chinese EVs are sold on thin margins to capture marketshare.
They have dark factories ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCBdcNA_FsI
Look at the population of your country. Look at the population of China.
What argument is this? We're talking about advanced industry, not building pyramids, where having more slave labor gets you to win. India has an even bigger population yet their car industry isn't remotely as advanced.
Switzerland is a small country but has some of the most advanced manufacturing in the world.
Having a roll-up fabric roof doesn't seem very practical. I don't really want a car that's going to fill with water. All the potential gaps, having to roll up a soggy, bird-shit-covered roof. It just doesn't seem like a great idea.
I hope they succeed, but probably will fail with too complex design. Original 2cv is wonderfully simple. If they can keep that simplicity, they will win.
The concept art looks wonderfully playful, but it won't ever ship like that. Take the seats for example, they have no headrest. Safety standard will not allow the car to ship like that. I don't suggest that this is a bad thing, but the "correct" solution would be to design custom seat that fit the style, but that's not a financially sane solution. So the 2CV will, if it's build, have standard Citroen seats, losing fun and appealing bench seat in the front.
Renault with the revival of the V / 5 and now this, French car brands have been producing THE best designs of all electric cars, in my opinion
Everyone love it, I just want to remind people it’s a concept car !!!
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’.
I don’t love it. The new Renaults I like, and the old 2CV I’m also fond of, but this concept 2CV just looks like a clown car to me. The front is far _too_ face-like, with a big ugly rounded Citroen-badge nose.
I really hope this succeeds and carries over here. The future of city traffic is quiet, odourless, small electric cars puttering around (hoe nyc would feel so much more welcoming!). Hope to see in my lifetime still
No headrests? It looks scary.
It's a concept car. It might have been designed by a number of interns and any of the numbers including price, performance, range are to a large degree guessed or calculated from theoreticals.
First thing I always look for in new car announcement, the dreaded "concept car". Then you can close the page pretty much.
That stood out for me too. It just wouldn't be allowed. They will surely get added on later.
IMHO the biggest news is new M1E category. I do hope that with that push EU will somewhat mitigate the absolute clusterf*k caused by CAFE regulation in the US :/
There is nothing wrong with nostalgia. Some property developers makes money from nostalgic architecture. Fashion clothing is often a mix of new and nostalgia.
The problem in this case (and many others) is that nostalgia is limited to the form, bordering on fetishism, while the utilitarian and economic aspects of the original are brushed aside.
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?
Well the suspension is less of an issue these days due to technical advances. Ground clearance is more of an issue than the suspension travel. This looks more like it's targeted towards city use than the countryside use of the original, especially as it looks to have a notably shorter wheelbase. There's a usecase for small city cars that look cute though.
Why does it need the same qualities as the old car?
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.
Small electric city cars are convenience mobility for affluent consumers, not a proper car proposition.
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 a small city car will drive to the next town and in much of Europe to the beach.
"In Europe 100 miles is a long way in USA/Australia 100 years is long ago"
2CV and ID Polo would do that for me. There is a market for it.
Retro styling doesn't age well and it just makes the overall vehicle harder to repair. Just take parts from your existing inventory and build me a good looking tiny car. EVs should be ground up designs, not some artistic regurgitation of some 40 year old idea with bespoke parts and inflated costs.
Lane assist on post 2016 Audi cars. Ugh. I'm the one in control. Not some stupid SBC box.
Why do they have to make it look like the car Barbie & Ken ride in?
I like the lego wheels
True, those are the most honest and least horrible car wheels I've seen for a long time. Everything else has pretentious alloys in a unique but meaningless swirl or flower shape.
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.
Looks like a similar move to the one Renault took with Renault 5 model. Might not be a bad move, I see a lot of Renault 5 cars on the road.
I see no second commandment violations here.
When I was about 12, my slightly younger friend told me his family were getting rid of the Ford Granada with its high fuel consumption and getting "a convertible". I naturally pictured a Cadillac or something but it was....a 2CV Dolly. Went to Belgium from London via the ferry. It was quite comfortable but not only slow (60mph flat out) but it was brand new and had to be "run-in" so mostly 50mph all the way :-)
https://www.goodingco.com/lot/1986-citroen-2cv-dolly
Companies fundamentally don't understand the want for older things. I recently moved and threw out my old microwave and toaster, which were long due for replacement.
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.
My mom and dad and 6 kids could fit into one of these back in the day (road safety regulations, what's that?). a real workhorse, and easy to fix at home.
Come vw make me an ev bug.
Ahh Heritage ! Design
I wouldn't want to be hit by those headlights as a pedestrian..
Which are your favorite to be hit by?
Headlights on a very rich person's car.
Maybe a Waymo or Coca-cola truck. Or time travel back to the unlimited PIP days and get hit by anything
Miata!
I really wanted to hate this cause the 2CV was everything that newer cars arent:
- 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.
Who in the name of the Twelve Hells did they hire to fuck up one of the greatest utilitarian car designs (especially in its Fourgonnette iteration)?
In the image, the plate reads as La douche.
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.
French cars are hopeless (since the 2010s). Stay away from them especially if they're such marketing stunts.
I disagree. I think the current crop from Renault are really good.
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.
Also the Scenic, a slightly larger Megane.
I would be more precise and say since June 2012, when the last Twingo 1 was produced.
I used to think that (I preferred the Clio 2, but the Twingo was such a fun car), but I really like the modern R5.
Mais laisse-les acheter !