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.
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.
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)
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.
> 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.
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!
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.
A smaller range that is only 2x the needed range of the average longer distance commuter.
The Nissan Leaf original 80 mile range was perfect for my colleagues that lived in the suburbs and commuted 25+ miles each way every day. Especially with a charger at the work parking deck.
> A smaller range that is only 2x the needed range of the average longer distance commuter.
The problem is that commuting is not the only thing people do, and not everyone has the space or finances to have multiple cars.
Short term rentals are an option sometimes but I can understand how having a car and renting one feels like a waste of money, and is hardly an amazing experience both intrinsically and in terms of freedom and spontaneity (I live without a personal car and rent one once in a while as needed).
TBF most cars of the time were by necessity, while you could run them into the ground over time maintenance to keep them running and adjust them was constant.
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.
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
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.
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.
Yes, and if you’d read my comment properly you’d have realised I briefly surveyed some of the factors that influence cabin noise perception (though by no means all of them), and I also mentioned that many other manufacturers were making similar vehicles that performed well at motorway speeds, so I’m not really sure what you’re trying to say here.
> 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
> Because there's literally a market carve-out for city-driving electric cars like the Leaf and the BMW i-series.
And? Do you think these cars are incapable of highway driving? What do you think happens when manufacturers release cars that are terribly noisy in the cabin at highway speeds?
I’ll tell you: what’s always happened. Reviewevers and consumers will slag them off and people will vote with their wallets.
A lightweight car is not a car that inherently has to be unpleasant to drive at speed.
And you think cost cutting is new? Robert McNamara and his “whizz kids” near ruined the reputation of the Ford Motor Company due to quality issues stemming from his relentless cost cutting in the 1950s and 1960s. What he and, really, what the rest of Detroit were doing enabled the success of Japanese manufacturers in the USA because they made a higher quality product and charged less for it.
> And these days the over-reliance on plastics for structure and cost reduction
People have been complaining about this since the 1980s. Plastics have been used extensively in cars for decades, including in ways that compromise the durability of critical components and sensors. This is not a new problem.
It is sheer ignorance to claim that any car weighing less than a ton will inherently be unpleasant to drive at highway speeds.
I've had 700 kg cars that rivalled sports cars for grip and ability to accelerate. To say that sub 1 ton cars are going to be unpleasant to drive at highway speeds is a statement that does not jive with my 43 years of driving experience on three continents and in many types of vehicle and road conditions.
What is far more important than total mass is mass distribution, width of the tires (which can be an advantage and a disadvantage depending on the conditions) and traction model. Noise is a function of isolation and shape of the body and road contact and here lighter cars have the advantage: substantially reduced tire noise.
I don't think it's impossible to have a small car that drives great - I drove a CR-X as a starter car and upgraded to a 00's Celica. I think the likelihood of a sub-1-tonne EV being specced outside of it's intended market niche at this price point in this stage of corporate wealth hoarding is extremely low. If it does turn up that the car is well-suited for highway driving, I'm happy to eat crow but that doesn't mean that I won't still think the probability of the inverse is higher until that point.
There are plenty of small cars that drive great. In fact some of the best driving cars are the smaller ones. But you have your mind made up in spite of lots of evidence so I think that maybe there are other reasons or other definitions that make 'driving great' land in a different set of qualities than most people would associate with 'driving'. I normally associate that with handling, ability to accelerate/decelerate and in general that the car does what I want it to. Heavier cars have a very clear disadvantage here.
But if, for instance, you're hauling lumber then most small cars are not going be driving great. Ditto if you have to move a family of five (or more). So without your definition of what 'well suited for highway driving' is specified in terms that I can appreciate that do not include the actual driving characteristics of the car then it is very hard to have a productive conversation, regardless of 'corporate wealth hoarding' or other off-topic bits. FWIW I've had just about every type of Citroen and without exception they handled very well within their respective weight class, and they also held their own in terms of hauling capacity. Reliability, now that is something where we can probably come into agreement, the French car industry for the longest time had serious issues (but not as many as their UK counterparts). Even so that too is a thing that is mostly in the past.
I mean a Toyota Yaris (first facelift) from 2016 for example sits around a ton (1070), and it's completely comfortable to drive on the highway.
And it's not some niche car, it's one of the most sold compact cars on the planet. And the 2026 versions are actually slightly lighter at 1025 and are very comfortable.
Of course comfort is up to interpretation, and as cars get better, our window of expectation moves, the cars my dad used to drive for 8 hours in a row for our summer vacations in the 1970s are considered ridiculously loud and cramped by today's standards. Just like Kings of the past had no tropical fruit in winter, while even unknown shitty corps hand them out for free to their unpaid interns at this point, our standards move.
But even with today's standards I think a modern Yaris at 1 ton (+2%) is completely fine for highway driving.
I wanted to chime in with another example - sort of related to the European hatchbacks you mentioned.
For some reason, the Peugeot 405 is way lighter than I expected. Also not much above 1000kg for some versions. I was also shocked by how nice a place it was to be in, even at highway speeds, on not particularly great roads. I don't remember anything about the road noise, but the ride quality was good.
Well off-topic: One thing I always remember, is that one time I paid attention to the number of different shades of grey there were in the interior, and it was ridiculous. Almost nothing matched anything else. And yet, it was a very pleasant place to be. That car has by far the largest discrepancy of any vehicle, between how much I mocked it and how much I liked being in it or driving it. I was just completely wrong!
I am coordinating a 504 restoration and realised yesterday that the new Morgan is almost as heavy as the 504. It would weigh more that a 405. A Morgan!
OT - if the Iran regime collapses, it will be an amazing time for 405 restoration in the west. They can still make so many new parts.
> 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.
My first car was a (UK) Ford Fiesta Mk 1 (1981). It had a sub 1l engine, something like 960cc and weighed not much.
At the time I lived in Plymouth, Devon and my parents live in Exeter and still do. In between is the A38, which is a dual carriageway and quite a lot of fun to drive. Halden Hill is a good test of a vehicle!
My old Fester managed about 60mph at the top of Halden Hill, going from Exeter. My current EV can be doing 120mph at that point.
The fester used to start chattering at about 65 and then quietened down at 70-75. After 75 (which of course I never achieved, what with that being illegal) it made a strange whining sound, which was not unpleasant. It passed away at M5 J30 (Exeter Services) with at least two shot cylinders.
My mx5 will happily sit at 150kph cruising, it's just a bit over 1000kg. At 200+ it feels like it's growing wings and about to take into the air. (motorsport)
Yes, when you feel the front end getting light it is time to call it a day. That's how the e-type got its reputation as an rich kid killer: they were so fast the front end would be lifted off the ground and that's a positive feedback loop.
MX5 is a great little car, you can carve your name with those.
Yep. I was competing in what's called VMAX - top speed racing - and it was really reaching the limits of aerodynamics at 230 and above. Other people using these cars end up building full aero for them however I pivoted to lower speed things with it.
I've been campaigning the car for about a decade though, fantastic machine.
Very cool. Be careful! I've had a 'Copen', that was the most fun I ever had in a car, it is even lighter than the MX5 (but not as light as a souped up classic Mini (the only real mini imho)).
I did lots of highway driving in my 2010 Yaris (weighs about a tonne) this weekend and I was perfectly comfortable. Though I guess the more used you get to larger, heavier cars the more you would find such a small car uncomfortable.
The noise floor of economy cars is something you could possibly not notice until you actually experience a long highway trip in a luxury brand. That lower amount of road noise is a subtle but noticeable impact on fatigue.
Like a nice pair of expensive headphones, you don’t understannd difference until you experience it. Like a nice pair of headphones, it’s not a necessity, either.
That said, I don’t think that has a whole lot to do with weight. NVH reduction techniques like insulating material and structural adhesives are not a major weight consideration, it’s more of a cost issue.
You can't meaningfully compare cars that are in entirely different price brackets. Of course a $150K top of the line luxury vehicle is going to drive nicer than a $15K economy one. But one person is highly unlikely to be shopping between the two and wondering which one to choose.
Expensive headphones and expensive cars are in that sense completely different things.
That definitely isn’t the kind of price comparison I was intending. I’m talking like “Lexus RX vs. Toyota RAV4,” which is the sort of thing where the right lease deal, certified pre-owned, or loaner vehicle discount could lead to a cross-shop.
And of course in the subcompact ultra-cheap segment like the Yaris was in you’d see a difference just from going up segment within the same brand without touching their luxury marquee.
Going further down this tangent I have always felt like the budget segments have really struggled in the US because paying cash or getting unsubsidized new car financing is so rare. Financing is easy to come by that the purchase of a penalty box economy car starts making a lot less sense when you think of the idea of “$50 more per month gets me into a higher segment.” Over 5-7 years that cost difference is significant, large even, but at some point you stretch out that cost difference enough and it’s hard to argue with the consumerist impulse.
Then you’ve got the “everything is a hybrid” setup with brands like Toyota where you’re not really saving any gas money by buying a smaller car anymore. This is also a significant reason why everything is an SUV these days. (And it’s not like you can get a cheap one, see the Chevy Trax or Kia Niro)
Lexus and Toyota are the same thing really, except for the small detail that Lexus is the premium brand created with the express goal of having distance between it and Toyota. As soon as you're going to mix in things like "the right lease deal, certified pre-owned, or loaner vehicle discount" you are no longer comparing apples to apples and if you were to apply the same right lease deal, certified pre-owned or loaner vehicle discount to both sides of the equation there would still be different audiences in play.
And yes, within a single brand there is price differentiation too. That's the whole point: different priced vehicles for people with different budgets and matching expectations. Absolutely nobody is going to expect the same kind of luxury from a Yaris as from a Lexus.
I agree that when you spend other people's money it is easier to overspend, no contest on that.
I’m using Toyota and Lexus specifically because they are very similar vehicles. You buy a Lexus version of the same vehicle and you get more noise reducing materials and a measurably quieter ride, among other niceties. That also can happen when you step up from a Corolla to a Camry, definitely from a Yaris to a Camry.
I never intended to make an apples to apples comparison. I’m not even really making much of a commentary on how much money people have to spend.
To own a 2010 Yaris someone had to buy that as a brand new car off the lot. The value proposition of that sort of new car purchase is a difficult sell because someone on a budget like that isn’t buying a new car typically, and because of how car buying is financed in America.
If a new car buyer is bothered that the 15 year TCO of a Camry is $750 per year ($60/month) higher than a Yaris [1] when considering fuel economy and purchase price spread, that person is likely not going to be buying a new vehicle at all.
The way depreciation curves work there is a cost floor on a reliable transportation and that depreciation curve isn’t favorable to small economy cars. You don’t predominantly see lower income buyers driving Yaris, Mirage, and Chevy Sparks around. Instead you see them driving around in whatever vehicles depreciated the most and had enough new sales volume to be widely available as used vehicles.
Sure, that’s not an apples to apples comparison. But that’s the kind of real comparison that buyers make, in my opinion.
I’m not here to say that the person replied to is wrong for driving and enjoying a Yaris. I’m merely trying to explain why those economy cars have disappeared from the market, as well as talk a little bit about noise reducing materials.
[1] Yes, I did the math on this. The base model purchase price difference was about $8,000, so that’s $533 per year over 15 years of ownership. The mpg difference is 32 versus 26 combined, so over 200,000 miles at $5/gallon average that’s a fuel cost difference of $3233 or $215 per year. We are assuming maintenance and insurance costs are identical.
It doesn't even have to be a "luxury brand"; any full-sized mid-century car is going to feel much more comfortable at speed than a compact one today. Most of the latter seem to emphasise "sportiness" instead of comfort.
My first car was a Twingo 1, it was around 800kg, I traversed France highways from south to north mutiple times, never had any problem, very comfortable. It was even better than Lada 4x4 on snow (traversed plateau du Larzac fully covered in snow, no problem, without chains or winter tyres, saw some (french) Lada on the road side). Perfect car, but maybe you need to be French or Italian to appreciate it.
> I doubt a sub-1 tonne car is going to be pleasant to drive at highway speeds
I exclusively drive (sub) 1-tonne cars at highway speeds (and more, because Germany). No problem. Why would that be an issue? Sure, depending on the vehicle, it handles a certain way when I go over 150kph and I am alone without luggage, but I know how to drive, not just press 'go' on a train, don't I?
It will also have less drag than your typical electric brick of a SUV.
Also, at least here highway driving is quite a bit of slowing down and speeding up, rarely it is just one speed whole way (that unless you're sitting on right lane behind the trucks)
Ahhhh the 205 XS sweet spot. Twin carb 1.4 litre was indeed plenty enough to experience the horror of understeer on a wet road. Similar body kit to the GTI without, as the kids say today, being quite as much of a ditch magnet.
A new 3 series is wider, has a longer wheelbase, and approximately equal length of a 5 series from 2001. It's also ~500 lbs heavier, depending on options.
I drive a 1998 Lexus SC, a car that was built to compete with the contemporary 8-series and Mercedes SL. My car is comparable in size to a new Corolla. I'm longer, but I'm 4 inches shorter. Every other dimension is basically the same.
>The main reason kids get run over is unsafe crossing behaviors, such as running into the road after a ball. Older gets get run over because they're distracted by a smartphone.
(from the link)
Insane victim-blaming here. What is wrong with car people?
If you see an old car next to a modern car, the size difference is extreme!
My daily driver is 220 inches long and 80 inches wide, weighs around 4000 lbs and over 50 years old. Most cars of that era were roughly the same size. It is definitely larger than most other cars I see today, although it also has much better visibility.
It would also likely result in your death if you hit anything solid. Cars are bulkier and visibility has been compromised by better crash protection. I'm reminded of that test they did years ago between a 1959 Impala and a 2009 Malibu. It did not go well at all for the Impala.
That's an even more compelling video. Very small newer car vs a Volvo from the 90s, I would not have predicted that the Volvo would have done as poorly as it did. I totally expect cars from the 50s to basically disintegrate, but (showing my age) I had better opinions of 90s cars.
That was also a "specially engineered to show how far we've come" comparison. That generation of the impala was unconventional (in a bad way) for the time and considered particularly unsafe in a crash even by 1950s standards and they did a partial overlap with something much newer. They always do partial overlaps in these marketing videos (this is not a "test", they knew exactly what would happen when they spec'd it out) because that's where the biggest disparity is.
Yeah, that's why I said bulkier, I was trying to address the observation that visibility has gotten worse. I agree that it has, and a big reason is that A-pillars today are way wider than they used to be, because they are a critical part of the crash structure. They also typically have airbags, though in my experience those are compact and much narrower than the pillar itself.
I wonder if that difference is actually the safety standards rather than the efficiency ones though.
If you look at a modern vehicle, it's wide at the base and narrow at the top. The older ones were basically square, which is aerodynamically rubbish. But since the glass is at your eye level rather than below your waist, it meant you had a lot more glass.
I like to compare the 1960's Plymouth Suburban to the current Chevy Suburban both because of the name coincidence and because they cover roughly the same market segment (family hauler).
The Plymouth suburban is 9 inches shorter in length and well over 1000lbs lighter. I couldn't find specifications on height for the Plymouth, but the Chevy is obviously much taller.
Most likely European vs American perspective? E.g. put an old and new Mini next to each other and it's almost unbelievable how tiny the original Mini actually is. While when you see a vintage US 'street cruiser' in a European city it's longer and wider than most modern cars.
Have a look at the original Fiat 500, it's comically small. You need to remember that the average adult Italian man in 1955 was about 8 cm shorter than today's average, and it's probably similar in other european countries.
Indeed - their original design language doesn't really scale. A bit like Ferrari and Porsche - their 4-door monstrosities scream mid-life crisis louder than a red convertible.
When interviewed about the new (BMW) Mini circa 2001, the designer of the original BMC Mini's hydrolastic suspension, John Moulton, said that calling it 'Mini' was ridiculous: "For heaven's sake, it's the size of an Austin Maxi!"
Agree, but in this case the new 2CV is shorter than the original and I imagine if the original was built now with today's safety and EPA requirements there wouldn't be that much difference
The correlation between larger vehicles and profit margins is mostly because larger vehicles also cost more to operate, and then people with less money tend to avoid vehicles they can't afford to put gas in, so the people who buy larger vehicles usually have more money. In other words, nearly all large vehicles are premium vehicles whereas some small vehicles are the economy segment.
But that wouldn't stop them from making high margin vehicles that are low to the ground. The automaker with the highest margins is Ferrari.
The real problem is the nonsensical CAFE rules. If you want to make a high production volume small car with premium performance, you're going to blow your fuel economy target for that vehicle class, so they're de facto banned from making those. But >300 horsepower mid-sized SUVs? No problem. So premium performance cars are banned but premium performance "trucks" are fine, what are the premium buyers going to buy?
The companies are just making the thing people are buying. Pass stupid laws, get stupid cars.
> But because the person next to you drives a big car and you don't want to get crushed, you also need a big car.
My position on this changed to "ah, now I see" after seeing a video where a Miata got run over from a standing start by a lifted truck. They were both stopped at the lights, but because the truck driver lacked both forward vision and object permanence, when the lights went green he set off .. directly over the car in front.
US size escalation will continue until legislated against. It's creeping into the UK, but fortunately you can't go too large until you start colliding with solid objects. And the max weight is limited to 3500kg unless you're on a Boomer license.
I think the trend towards SUVs was mainly because some car tax code incentivized it. If cars were taxed by weight (as they should - heavy vehicles cause so much more wear for public roads), the trend could reverse. (Plus you get better mileage with a lighter vehicle)
It is tax code and efficiency standards; SUVs are legally speaking light trucks and have lower fuel economy standards, so the Big 3 in the US just made their cars bigger rather than try to compete with the likes of Toyota and Honda on fuel efficiency.
> If cars were taxed by weight (as they should - heavy vehicles cause so much more wear for public roads)
The problem with this argument is that because of the 4th power law, essentially all road wear due to vehicles is caused by 20+ ton commercial trucks and the difference between the different sizes of personal vehicle is immaterial.
If you want a tax that accurately reflects road wear it ends up being around $0.10/year for a 2500 pound subcompact, $1/year for a 4500 pound SUV and >$6500/year for a 20 ton commercial truck, assuming they all travel the same number of miles. And in practice the commercial truck will typically see ~10x more miles too.
A difference of $0.90/year in tax is probably not going to provide much incentive to anyone.
>It's ridiculous: Put a modern SUV next to a WW2 M4 Sherman and you will be surprised, the SUV is the same size. Some a bigger.
That would be what normal people would call a "bold faced lie" in normal conversation and is only above average levels of misleading compared to what's typical around here (which reflects upon the character of the people on HN, IMO).
A sherman is approx same length as the biggest modern SUVs but wider, taller and 10x the weight.
You may as well compare rowing shells to fishing vessels.
An M4 Sherman is about 6m long which production SUVs don't reach. That's about the length of an L3 delivery van, which is usually the longest version they make.
The M4 is 2.6m wide. No car is 2.6m wide. That's wider than a coach bus.
The M4 is 3m tall. Even the fattest SUVs do not come close.
My parents ID4 makes my old e39 touring look small by comparison. Funny thing is, it does not feel bigger on the inside, suppose modern safety standard have demanded a sizeable increase in vehicle size over time, and the battery bank also makes it grow on the, i suppose, x-axis
But you can buy used Tesla for same money that will be better in every way and will outlast this Citroen (which in real life will look nothing like this concept (I adore it))
Our Volkswagen e-Up is pretty much exactly a tonne. 36kWh battery, gets 160 miles range in summer, 120 in winter. Absolutely enough for everything we need - I've never been close to running out and I drive it every day. Great little car.
It's just a shame because it was clearly a compliance car for VW to reduce their CO2 emissions, and the price - while low compared to other EVs at the time - was unjustifiable compared to a normal petrol Up! - you could buy a brand new one for around £12k while the electric one was £22k - the price difference was just too much. But nowadays on the second hand market I genuinely believe these are some of the best electric cars you can buy for £7-8k, I love mine and I use it more than our 400bhp Volvo.
But it's also more than half it's price. France is full of small city vehicles, this will blend just well. Especially with the fact how car-patriotic French are
Categorising people who think Elon Musk is fascist-adjacent as mentally sick should be below the quality standards of a comment on HN.
Also, even if he either is or is not that, labelling anti-support of said person/movement/business as "virtue signalling" is also lazy and assuming bad faith. It's legitimate "activism" to not support a business if they engage in morally dubious activity (I'm not advocating that Tesla or Elon Musk are or are not engaging in that, but either way, it's not just virtue signalling).
That's why I liked the Twizzy and its successor, the Mobilize Duo, so much - it's the minimum viable car - two seats, small space for parking (can park in what is not a parking spot, legally a quadricycle). Low range, but still enough for a week of grocery shopping and school runs, and can charge overnight from an ordinary outlet.
Unfortunately, Renault decided to ax the Mobilize Duo before it was sold around here. It was a bit expensive compared to actual EVs, which is, I think, what made them fail.
There 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 could actually see the van being more successful than the car, the city delivery vehicle market has gotten pretty dire and the electric ranges are awful so it’s not like the 2cv lcv would have to compete much on that.
That link [1] is an absolutely awful page from a usability perspective. There's no other way to navigate the site than with the scroll wheel, and the amount of scrolling required makes my finger hurt before I've even reached the end of the first segment. It also has no anchors and does not remember reading position when refreshing or navigating back.
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?
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:
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.
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".
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
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.
Thats why I settled on building and modifying a first generation mx5. I'd love a Sprite or something but they're just a bit harder to deal with due to age/condition, but I love happy looking cars too.
>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.
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.
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.
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 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... .
>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.
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.
> "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.
My father is 75. I got him Tesla earlier this summer.
2 months later he wouldn't change it for anything.
Just because you can't tell apart good UX from bad UX, doesn't mean the whole concept is bad.
He comes from Hyundai Kona EV, which some even declared a decent car lol.
Why is it illegal to operate a touchscreen mobile phone while driving but legal to operate what is essentially a large ipad stuck on your dash?
It just isn't logical at all.
The fact that one is fixed and one is not is irrelevant, your still looking at a screen and not at the road.
Both are extremely dangerous.
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.
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.
It's quite funny how VW is overcorrecting with their latest ID models. Something like 30 buttons on steering wheel because they messed up basics on previous model.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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...
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...
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.
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.
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.
Yes, of course it would be better if the cars were designed in the EU as well.
My main point was that them being built in the EU wasn't something auto makers did out of the goodness of their hearts, or for some marketing ploy: it was forced on them by EU law.
I suppose that design requirements could be imposed as well.
The "built in EU, designed in China" situation is more hypothetical. I don't think anyone would seriously say that Europeans have forgotten how to design cars (and designing an electrical car is, besides the battery, easier than designing a gasoline car), it's just that they can't sell them nearly as cheap as the (subsidized) Chinese models.
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).
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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 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.
"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 each their own needs, you won't always have space to park a big car, or the money to get a full driver license, or deal with the maintenance and insurance, you might not need to drive the highway more that once every blue moon and can borrow or rent something for these times etc.
Many have either no motored vehicle or a scooter for these needs, I'd zee the Zoe/Ami class of vehicles as a potential step up from that, more than a downgrade from traditional car.
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.
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.
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.
Range Rovers are extremely unreliable, and maybe more importantly, not suited for what they're being used for. Offroad vehicle with poor fuel economy being driven in the city. X5 is more reasonable but still definitely an expensive way to get around.
I was hoping for something more than myths and cliches.
X5 - despite its bad reputation - is actually very reliable nowadays. That B58 engine is one hell of a robust machine. And Range Rovers have 4 to 5 year manufacturer warranties.
Also, they're not off-road vehicles (Wranglers, Defenders and Broncos are); they're family cars that combine practicality with great driving dynamics, advanced tech, and a touch of luxury. Also, both have PHEVs, and now even BEVs variants.
I'm not a SUV guy myself, I know their bad sides - but calling these two models "objectively bad" is both ignorant, and patronising. Objectively (as in: let's take a bunch of cars and compare them to each other) they're two of the best ones out there.
This is what I've been told for years, and still the prejudice against Range Rovers has proven better than the "facts." There's no objective way to say what's unreliable, I'll agree there.
And even if this all magically changed in the past couple of years, the old reputation applies to all the ones people bought before, going back to the other person's original point that a large number of people buy cars based on looks. Also the ones that aren't off-roaders are a niche in their lineup.
>I 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.
Many older Land Rovers are not luxury vehicles. They are simply expensive (however, they seem to be still cheaper than newer vehicles; my stepfather told me he is paying £4000 for a new charger for his EV).
Part of this is the Land Rover tax; the other part is them requiring constant maintenance. Also, you don't know what sort of bush fixes have been done to it.
EV charger is inside the car, that thing you wire to house circuit and plug into the car is just a dongle/charging cable with couple sensors and enough smarts to tell the car about available voltage/current, not the charger. It should absolutely NOT cost more than already ridiculous $1000.
That would mean whole Inverter module (cars use same electronic that drives motor for charging), in that case new dealer £4000 price starts making some (but not a lot as I assume car still drives thus the expensive bits are working) sense. Still should be able to source something second hand if car is not under warranty.
No problem. I doubt that it is really user repairable or is safe for a owner to repair themselves.
Generally. I've had issues with electronic modules that need to be re-coded and can only be done at the dealer.
I've had a light cluster that would be a few thousand for a replacement after the ballast failed. The ballast failed after the sealed unit had water ingress due to the sealant (or whatever it was) failing between the light glass and the module body.
I sourced a second hand unit from a breaker but it needed to be coded to the computer. I sold the vehicle with the fault for as I didn't want to spend any more money fixing electrical faults (there were other previously).
The whole thing is built in a way where you cannot repair any of it and requires a dealer to be involved.
This is one of the reasons why I drive a vehicle that only has simple electronics now (my vehicle does not have an ECU) and generally avoid smart/IoT anything.
Jaecoos would not in anyway appeal to someone that likes Land Rovers / Range Rovers.
Range Rover / Land Rover unreliability is often overstated. I and my relatives have owned other brands of cars that were "more reliable", and they've had many of the same issues as Land Rovers.
What matters is whether the car has been looked after.
e.g., my sister's Toyota is plagued with electric issues. My sister-in-law's Mini engine blew up (a known engine issue, but unknown to them).
Often it is how well maintained that dictates whether it is reliable or not.
The notion that somehow LR reliability is misunderstood by Consumer Reports, JD Power, Car & Driver, Automobile etc. based on your subjective experience is...kinda hard to swallow. Unless you're talking about a mid-60s Landie w/ a dozen moving parts, all made of cast steel.
> The notion that somehow LR reliability is misunderstood by Consumer Reports, JD Power, Car & Driver, Automobile etc. based on your subjective experience is...kinda hard to swallow.
I said it was overstated. I won't pretend that some of the stuff (especially on the newer vehicles) can be quite poor, especially when it comes to vehicle security. However, often a lot of problems with these vehicles are because people buy a vehicle they can't afford to maintain, e.g., vehicles not having an oil change for a long time, and people wonder why it goes bang.
Landrovers require constant maintenance. If you don't like working on a vehicle or are on a budget, don't buy a Land Rover.
As for the other failure I mentioned, they are not subjective. The failure on the Mini is a known issue with a particular Mini engine (the BMW N14 engine). There are known electrical issues with many Toyotas, especially with the Yaris.
> Unless you're talking about a mid-60s Landie w/ a dozen moving parts, all made of cast steel.
Any series up until the TD5 Defender are simple to repair. Electronics make modern vehicles a nightmare to work on. While the electronics in many of those vehicles aren't the best. You can fix it with nothing more than a Haynes manual and multimeter.
See, I think we may be having a difference of semantics-"maintenance", to me and much of the rest of the USAian carbuying public means "regular oil changes, filter changes, and timing belts/chains & water pumps at 60-120K miles."
It does not mean:
-new cam cover, rear main seal & oilpan gaskets at 60K.
-4x suspension airbags @ $2000/per at 85K
-high-pressure fuel pump at 90K (for the GDI ones)
...these are the first three things I think of when I hear "bought a used RangeRover."
Euros are weirdly tolerant of some of this shit. An Audi fan said to me that their GDI V8 was "easy to maintain"; even in light of having to have it brought in to walnut-shell-blast the coke off of the intake valves every 40K miles. No, buddy, your engine was misdesigned.
Land Rovers are high maintenance. However, from what I've seen of some newer US cars, they don't seem to be much better. It's hard to really care, though, as I basically decided I am going to keep my current vehicle until I can no longer drive, unless it gets involved in an accident.
The older ones, while requiring high maintenance, were very easy to repair because, to be quite honest, the design didn't really change that much for 40 years. I had someone best explain it as "1950s vehicle using 1880s tech".
Their newer vehicles IMO are crap, but I think all new vehicles are crap (and that includes EVs)."
> 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.
This and the current Twingo are made to be affordable. No reason why a cheap car can't look good. Making it ugly won't make it cheaper. These cares were modelled after economic cars that never had expensive design elements anyway.
yeah, definitely no such thing as people with low income driving audi's and BMW's that cost more then their rent to lease! :P But if you are buying new cars, you're already not low income
It looks adorable, like something characters from Japanese anime or "Animal Crossing" game would drive. It feels like a modern day reboot, akin to the Volkswagen New Beetle[1] in 1998.
They don't feel like paying engineers or factory workers anymore, but at least the design and marketing teams at Stellantis seem to have fun. Good on them. Renault is sadly on the same treadmill, they were on a good ramp being early in EVs, but all their recent cars have been only about design. Meanwhile I had to get the motor of my electric Mégane swapped after 20000km, as well as many other smaller things that broke.
The cerise sur le gâteau is the new electric Twingo: "designed" in France, engineered in Renault's offices in China. [0]
I like it, but, I think the original didn't have its CUTE slider turned all the way to the max like this new one.
The original was dialled-in to be small (obviously), dignified, reserved, charming, practical.
If you look at the original through the eyes of the late 40s, early 50s French consumer then it wasn't leaning so heavily on the Cute factor. That only came out later as we look back on it with nostalgia.
So I don't think the new one is a faithful representation of the original's ethos.
> The original was dialled-in to be small (obviously), dignified, reserved, charming, practical.
I disagree. It was designed to be affordable (both in sales price and in maintenance) and practical. It only was small because that was needed to meet those goals. Reserved as in “no frills” also comes from “affordable”.
Dignified I don’t think it ever was. What do you think made it that?
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 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.
The best selling car of the 90s was consistently a Taurus and yet everyone who grew up riding around in one or learned to drive in one or had one as a first car in the 00s is nostalgic for whatever Toyota product their rich AF friend's stock broker/surgeon dad was driving around then.
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.
No it doesn't, even if you stack every possible subsidy and discount for the bare-bones trim it would be more like €13K. Getting some of those subsidies involves scrapping your old car, takes over a year, and later gets taxed as income. The actual MSRP starts closer to €20K.
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.
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 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 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'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.
> 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.
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.
>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.
The ID.3 is a de facto BEV version of the VW Golf. It was initially priced close to €50K. VW was marketing it as a "premium product" for which customers should pay a "premium price." Or so they thought.
They later found out that wasn't going to fly and they even had to idle some factories which produced the car due to lack of demand.
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.
> 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.
I would explain in more detail but why listen to me when you can have Tintin and Captain Haddock walk you through features such as the dual purpose tyre-iron / starter-crank?:
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
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.
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 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.
If they ever bring out an actual electric DS (and hopefully without too much spyware) I would consider getting one even if I've sworn off modern vehicles and consider my current daily driver (30 years old) my last car. But the 2CV has a soft spot, it was my second car (after having a junker beetle for a few weeks) and it served me well until the day that a skidding Volvo turned it into a convertible. Not fast but super good mileage and the easiest car I've had to work on.
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.
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.
> Original 2cv is wonderfully simple. If they can keep that simplicity, they will win.
In general, an EV powertrain is far simpler than the equivalent Internal Combustion Engine vehicle. Like only 10% of the number of moving parts. Or fewer.
So it depends if you're comparing this vehicle against its ICE predecessor (far simpler!), or against other EVs now on the market for around 20K euros (not yet known).
Been a long time: Peugeot-Citroen merger was in 1976. They just keep acquiring more mergers; the Peugeot-Citroen-Fiat-Chrysler merger that created Stellantis was in 2019. It's got to be slightly embarrassing being a retirement home for failed national car brands.
Of Euro brands, that leaves basically .. Renault (part owned by the French government and Nissan), and Ferrari (publicly traded), as well as a few even more boutique luxury brands.
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!
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.
What I've always found neat about the original Mini:
-Went from a sketch by Issigonis to volume production at Cowley in 24 months.
-Moulton's suspension; which allowed for a car that was drivable even with 4 200lb adults in it, almost doubling its kerb weight.
-The (apocryphal) design of the original map pockets, whose 9.5"x3"x3" dimensions were suspiciously close to the exact size of the 1/2 pint bottle of Gilbey's Dry Gin.
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 :/
One of the british car youtubers had some episodes on a place doing EV-converted 2CVs (with other upgrades so it wasn't purely minimal) - would be interesting to see it benchmarked against this, if it ever makes it out of concept phase...
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.
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.
S. can have all the 'advanced manufacturing' in the world but there is only ~250k new car sales a year. Compare to 34M in China it's 250k+ sales a month.
Which means population isn't the factor of making great cars. Take Sweden as the example. They have great innovative cars and a small population and small market.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It seems they are listening to potential buyers' wishes. Since the first evs appeared in the market, everyone wanted technologically upgraded classic models.
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.
I was thinking the same thing. It's adorable, but for a car primarily driven in cities around lots of pedestrians, those headlights are going to lead to injuries even at very low speeds.
Like the outside look of it, and a fan of the retro look of electric cars ie the Renault 5e.
On the inside of the Citroen 2CV from photos I’ve seen elsewhere, do the designers even drive?!
Speedometer display, tiny, then a large display to the right of the steering wheel with all the other controls.
As a driver, having to deal with speed limits and speed cameras I want the speedometer to be highly visible infront of my line of sight, not an afterthought.
Then the steering wheel. Why does every new electric car have to have a non round steering wheel just because it looks good in a photo. There’s a reason steering wheels have been round, basically forever.
This is my biggest gripe with electric cars. I want to like this as like the retro style but they go and ruin it adding tech and design for the sake of tech and looking good in photos, not as an improvement to the driving experience. Cars primary purpose are for driving, not tech masterbation.
my grandma had one of these in rural France. she would drive around town and scoop up horse/cow manure from the road and put it in her trunk for her garden
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.
The 2cv and the smart electric, if they can get them up to 4~500km range and will charge overnight on a street side meter it becomes the step up from scooters and bikes that can go intercity, meetings, events, visiting, etc.
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 :-)
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.
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.
Yes, I definitely agree. The Scenic is probably the one I'd get given the choice. I've driven one and liked it a lot. Good range, easy to handle and very comfortable IMHO.
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.
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).
In Australia the fully electric BYD Atto 1 starts at $AUD 20K. That's 12.5K Euros. It's not a bad car.
In Australia Chinese cars had 4% of the market in 2020. They now have 35% and Chinese cars have the greatest share of any country.
https://www.anz.com/institutional/insights/articles/2026/07/...
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 think folks may underestimate Dacia on this front. At least on their ICE vehicles, the corners they cut rarely seem to impact long-term value
No, the data is in on the Spring. It's just bad. But it's also not even a Dacia/Renault, but rather badge engineered Dongfeng.
The original had a top speed of 40 mph and its only security feature was prayers.
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.
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)
Something most modern (and expensive cars) don't have because of endless cost cutting on the mechanical side.
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
>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.
You can still get it on some DS models.
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
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...
My first was a 2CV, so there may be nostalgia goggles. Also, my current is a Wrangler, and, well, suspension is not its winning move :)
> 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.
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...
Is there a no french Vichy ? :)
No, but very much no-Vichy french.
Should I have written nazi-occupied France?
Presumably with louder prayers, because of the road and wind noise.
It worked: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLOI5rPVols
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziyzsN8-6C4
I have done at least 70mph with a friend's 2CV on the Autobahn downhill. Doing 170 with a Porsche felt way safer.
The marketing text says it is a tribute. Not sure where your basing it as a replica look-a-like is coming from
new one is actually smaller than the original (3760 mm long vs 3830 mm). but batteries and modern safety makes it heavier
It didn't have an EV battery either.
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.
>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.
A smaller range that is only 2x the needed range of the average longer distance commuter.
The Nissan Leaf original 80 mile range was perfect for my colleagues that lived in the suburbs and commuted 25+ miles each way every day. Especially with a charger at the work parking deck.
> A smaller range that is only 2x the needed range of the average longer distance commuter.
The problem is that commuting is not the only thing people do, and not everyone has the space or finances to have multiple cars.
Short term rentals are an option sometimes but I can understand how having a car and renting one feels like a waste of money, and is hardly an amazing experience both intrinsically and in terms of freedom and spontaneity (I live without a personal car and rent one once in a while as needed).
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...
It will be interesting to see how serviceable it is. The 2CV was pretty famous for being easy to disassemble.
TBF most cars of the time were by necessity, while you could run them into the ground over time maintenance to keep them running and adjust them was constant.
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.
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
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.
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.
Yes, and if you’d read my comment properly you’d have realised I briefly surveyed some of the factors that influence cabin noise perception (though by no means all of them), and I also mentioned that many other manufacturers were making similar vehicles that performed well at motorway speeds, so I’m not really sure what you’re trying to say here.
> 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
> Because there's literally a market carve-out for city-driving electric cars like the Leaf and the BMW i-series.
And? Do you think these cars are incapable of highway driving? What do you think happens when manufacturers release cars that are terribly noisy in the cabin at highway speeds?
I’ll tell you: what’s always happened. Reviewevers and consumers will slag them off and people will vote with their wallets.
A lightweight car is not a car that inherently has to be unpleasant to drive at speed.
And you think cost cutting is new? Robert McNamara and his “whizz kids” near ruined the reputation of the Ford Motor Company due to quality issues stemming from his relentless cost cutting in the 1950s and 1960s. What he and, really, what the rest of Detroit were doing enabled the success of Japanese manufacturers in the USA because they made a higher quality product and charged less for it.
> And these days the over-reliance on plastics for structure and cost reduction
People have been complaining about this since the 1980s. Plastics have been used extensively in cars for decades, including in ways that compromise the durability of critical components and sensors. This is not a new problem.
It is sheer ignorance to claim that any car weighing less than a ton will inherently be unpleasant to drive at highway speeds.
> like the Leaf and the BMW i-series.
I don't know about the i-series but the current Leaf is not a city car. Nissan's small city car is the Pixa.
The Leaf is mid sized and well designed for longer distance travel with a range of 387 miles.
The current i5 is a 2.3 ton car with 600 horsepower. A city car.
A big city car. Interpret as you wish :)
I've had 700 kg cars that rivalled sports cars for grip and ability to accelerate. To say that sub 1 ton cars are going to be unpleasant to drive at highway speeds is a statement that does not jive with my 43 years of driving experience on three continents and in many types of vehicle and road conditions.
What is far more important than total mass is mass distribution, width of the tires (which can be an advantage and a disadvantage depending on the conditions) and traction model. Noise is a function of isolation and shape of the body and road contact and here lighter cars have the advantage: substantially reduced tire noise.
I don't think it's impossible to have a small car that drives great - I drove a CR-X as a starter car and upgraded to a 00's Celica. I think the likelihood of a sub-1-tonne EV being specced outside of it's intended market niche at this price point in this stage of corporate wealth hoarding is extremely low. If it does turn up that the car is well-suited for highway driving, I'm happy to eat crow but that doesn't mean that I won't still think the probability of the inverse is higher until that point.
There are plenty of small cars that drive great. In fact some of the best driving cars are the smaller ones. But you have your mind made up in spite of lots of evidence so I think that maybe there are other reasons or other definitions that make 'driving great' land in a different set of qualities than most people would associate with 'driving'. I normally associate that with handling, ability to accelerate/decelerate and in general that the car does what I want it to. Heavier cars have a very clear disadvantage here.
But if, for instance, you're hauling lumber then most small cars are not going be driving great. Ditto if you have to move a family of five (or more). So without your definition of what 'well suited for highway driving' is specified in terms that I can appreciate that do not include the actual driving characteristics of the car then it is very hard to have a productive conversation, regardless of 'corporate wealth hoarding' or other off-topic bits. FWIW I've had just about every type of Citroen and without exception they handled very well within their respective weight class, and they also held their own in terms of hauling capacity. Reliability, now that is something where we can probably come into agreement, the French car industry for the longest time had serious issues (but not as many as their UK counterparts). Even so that too is a thing that is mostly in the past.
I mean a Toyota Yaris (first facelift) from 2016 for example sits around a ton (1070), and it's completely comfortable to drive on the highway.
And it's not some niche car, it's one of the most sold compact cars on the planet. And the 2026 versions are actually slightly lighter at 1025 and are very comfortable.
Of course comfort is up to interpretation, and as cars get better, our window of expectation moves, the cars my dad used to drive for 8 hours in a row for our summer vacations in the 1970s are considered ridiculously loud and cramped by today's standards. Just like Kings of the past had no tropical fruit in winter, while even unknown shitty corps hand them out for free to their unpaid interns at this point, our standards move.
But even with today's standards I think a modern Yaris at 1 ton (+2%) is completely fine for highway driving.
I wanted to chime in with another example - sort of related to the European hatchbacks you mentioned.
For some reason, the Peugeot 405 is way lighter than I expected. Also not much above 1000kg for some versions. I was also shocked by how nice a place it was to be in, even at highway speeds, on not particularly great roads. I don't remember anything about the road noise, but the ride quality was good.
Well off-topic: One thing I always remember, is that one time I paid attention to the number of different shades of grey there were in the interior, and it was ridiculous. Almost nothing matched anything else. And yet, it was a very pleasant place to be. That car has by far the largest discrepancy of any vehicle, between how much I mocked it and how much I liked being in it or driving it. I was just completely wrong!
I am coordinating a 504 restoration and realised yesterday that the new Morgan is almost as heavy as the 504. It would weigh more that a 405. A Morgan!
OT - if the Iran regime collapses, it will be an amazing time for 405 restoration in the west. They can still make so many new parts.
> 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.
My first car was a (UK) Ford Fiesta Mk 1 (1981). It had a sub 1l engine, something like 960cc and weighed not much.
At the time I lived in Plymouth, Devon and my parents live in Exeter and still do. In between is the A38, which is a dual carriageway and quite a lot of fun to drive. Halden Hill is a good test of a vehicle!
My old Fester managed about 60mph at the top of Halden Hill, going from Exeter. My current EV can be doing 120mph at that point.
The fester used to start chattering at about 65 and then quietened down at 70-75. After 75 (which of course I never achieved, what with that being illegal) it made a strange whining sound, which was not unpleasant. It passed away at M5 J30 (Exeter Services) with at least two shot cylinders.
Condolences. But it served valiantly.
My mx5 will happily sit at 150kph cruising, it's just a bit over 1000kg. At 200+ it feels like it's growing wings and about to take into the air. (motorsport)
Yes, when you feel the front end getting light it is time to call it a day. That's how the e-type got its reputation as an rich kid killer: they were so fast the front end would be lifted off the ground and that's a positive feedback loop.
MX5 is a great little car, you can carve your name with those.
Yep. I was competing in what's called VMAX - top speed racing - and it was really reaching the limits of aerodynamics at 230 and above. Other people using these cars end up building full aero for them however I pivoted to lower speed things with it.
I've been campaigning the car for about a decade though, fantastic machine.
Very cool. Be careful! I've had a 'Copen', that was the most fun I ever had in a car, it is even lighter than the MX5 (but not as light as a souped up classic Mini (the only real mini imho)).
Thanks! Yeah certainly less of a risk taker now I've got kids haha.
I quite like the Copens, they're fun little cars!
My 2007 Suzuki Swift felt horrible at 130km/h or above!
Not as bad as my 1996 Swift ;)
Had a 2005 too, didn't find it too bad but the engine was noisy due to the high rpms at highway speed.
I did lots of highway driving in my 2010 Yaris (weighs about a tonne) this weekend and I was perfectly comfortable. Though I guess the more used you get to larger, heavier cars the more you would find such a small car uncomfortable.
The noise floor of economy cars is something you could possibly not notice until you actually experience a long highway trip in a luxury brand. That lower amount of road noise is a subtle but noticeable impact on fatigue.
Like a nice pair of expensive headphones, you don’t understannd difference until you experience it. Like a nice pair of headphones, it’s not a necessity, either.
That said, I don’t think that has a whole lot to do with weight. NVH reduction techniques like insulating material and structural adhesives are not a major weight consideration, it’s more of a cost issue.
You can't meaningfully compare cars that are in entirely different price brackets. Of course a $150K top of the line luxury vehicle is going to drive nicer than a $15K economy one. But one person is highly unlikely to be shopping between the two and wondering which one to choose.
Expensive headphones and expensive cars are in that sense completely different things.
That definitely isn’t the kind of price comparison I was intending. I’m talking like “Lexus RX vs. Toyota RAV4,” which is the sort of thing where the right lease deal, certified pre-owned, or loaner vehicle discount could lead to a cross-shop.
And of course in the subcompact ultra-cheap segment like the Yaris was in you’d see a difference just from going up segment within the same brand without touching their luxury marquee.
Going further down this tangent I have always felt like the budget segments have really struggled in the US because paying cash or getting unsubsidized new car financing is so rare. Financing is easy to come by that the purchase of a penalty box economy car starts making a lot less sense when you think of the idea of “$50 more per month gets me into a higher segment.” Over 5-7 years that cost difference is significant, large even, but at some point you stretch out that cost difference enough and it’s hard to argue with the consumerist impulse.
Then you’ve got the “everything is a hybrid” setup with brands like Toyota where you’re not really saving any gas money by buying a smaller car anymore. This is also a significant reason why everything is an SUV these days. (And it’s not like you can get a cheap one, see the Chevy Trax or Kia Niro)
Lexus and Toyota are the same thing really, except for the small detail that Lexus is the premium brand created with the express goal of having distance between it and Toyota. As soon as you're going to mix in things like "the right lease deal, certified pre-owned, or loaner vehicle discount" you are no longer comparing apples to apples and if you were to apply the same right lease deal, certified pre-owned or loaner vehicle discount to both sides of the equation there would still be different audiences in play.
And yes, within a single brand there is price differentiation too. That's the whole point: different priced vehicles for people with different budgets and matching expectations. Absolutely nobody is going to expect the same kind of luxury from a Yaris as from a Lexus.
I agree that when you spend other people's money it is easier to overspend, no contest on that.
I’m using Toyota and Lexus specifically because they are very similar vehicles. You buy a Lexus version of the same vehicle and you get more noise reducing materials and a measurably quieter ride, among other niceties. That also can happen when you step up from a Corolla to a Camry, definitely from a Yaris to a Camry.
I never intended to make an apples to apples comparison. I’m not even really making much of a commentary on how much money people have to spend.
To own a 2010 Yaris someone had to buy that as a brand new car off the lot. The value proposition of that sort of new car purchase is a difficult sell because someone on a budget like that isn’t buying a new car typically, and because of how car buying is financed in America.
If a new car buyer is bothered that the 15 year TCO of a Camry is $750 per year ($60/month) higher than a Yaris [1] when considering fuel economy and purchase price spread, that person is likely not going to be buying a new vehicle at all.
The way depreciation curves work there is a cost floor on a reliable transportation and that depreciation curve isn’t favorable to small economy cars. You don’t predominantly see lower income buyers driving Yaris, Mirage, and Chevy Sparks around. Instead you see them driving around in whatever vehicles depreciated the most and had enough new sales volume to be widely available as used vehicles.
Sure, that’s not an apples to apples comparison. But that’s the kind of real comparison that buyers make, in my opinion.
I’m not here to say that the person replied to is wrong for driving and enjoying a Yaris. I’m merely trying to explain why those economy cars have disappeared from the market, as well as talk a little bit about noise reducing materials.
[1] Yes, I did the math on this. The base model purchase price difference was about $8,000, so that’s $533 per year over 15 years of ownership. The mpg difference is 32 versus 26 combined, so over 200,000 miles at $5/gallon average that’s a fuel cost difference of $3233 or $215 per year. We are assuming maintenance and insurance costs are identical.
It doesn't even have to be a "luxury brand"; any full-sized mid-century car is going to feel much more comfortable at speed than a compact one today. Most of the latter seem to emphasise "sportiness" instead of comfort.
There's highway driving while going to work vs going on a road trip. Small cars on road trips suck.
My first car was a Twingo 1, it was around 800kg, I traversed France highways from south to north mutiple times, never had any problem, very comfortable. It was even better than Lada 4x4 on snow (traversed plateau du Larzac fully covered in snow, no problem, without chains or winter tyres, saw some (french) Lada on the road side). Perfect car, but maybe you need to be French or Italian to appreciate it.
I’ve driven k-cars on Japan highways. Granted, the speed limit is only 100km/h, but it is absolutely fine, if you can live with the slow acceleration.
Much less noise than in my FJ Cruiser.
Only thing is being overtaken by a large truck - that is scary!
> I doubt a sub-1 tonne car is going to be pleasant to drive at highway speeds
I exclusively drive (sub) 1-tonne cars at highway speeds (and more, because Germany). No problem. Why would that be an issue? Sure, depending on the vehicle, it handles a certain way when I go over 150kph and I am alone without luggage, but I know how to drive, not just press 'go' on a train, don't I?
It will also have less drag than your typical electric brick of a SUV.
Also, at least here highway driving is quite a bit of slowing down and speeding up, rarely it is just one speed whole way (that unless you're sitting on right lane behind the trucks)
The announced range of this car is 250km / 150 miles
Gives me hope for an inevitable electric Mazda mx-5 to not suck.
Where do I sign up?
Mazda famously built the worst EV, almost on purpose it seems
https://electrek.co/2023/11/27/ceo-of-mazda-which-makes-one-...
Its been a decade of sandbagging. Fuck them https://electrek.co/2016/11/17/madza-electric-cars/
They now have the Mazda 6e, built on a Chinese platform.
Which is almost good, unfortunately, mostly because of terrible software.
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.
Ahhhh the 205 XS sweet spot. Twin carb 1.4 litre was indeed plenty enough to experience the horror of understeer on a wet road. Similar body kit to the GTI without, as the kids say today, being quite as much of a ditch magnet.
early 205 GTI has pretty much same performance as entry level BYD Atto 1
If you see an old car next to a modern car, the size difference is extreme!
It's ridiculous: Put a modern SUV next to a WW2 M4 Sherman and you will be surprised, the SUV is the same size. Some a bigger.
All that weight needs power to get into motion. It is incredibly wasteful from a money and resource perspective.
But because the person next to you drives a big car and you don't want to get crushed, you also need a big car..
> If you see an old car next to a modern car, the size difference is extreme!
Apparently modern BMW 3-series are as big (on the outside?) as their 5-series from the 1980/90s.
> It's ridiculous: Put a modern SUV next to a WW2 M4 Sherman and you will be surprised, the SUV is the same size. Some a bigger.
Bit of a meme/trope that main battle tanks have better forward visibility than pickup trucks:
* https://carbuzz.com/news/the-abrams-m1-tank-has-better-visib...
A new 3 series is wider, has a longer wheelbase, and approximately equal length of a 5 series from 2001. It's also ~500 lbs heavier, depending on options.
I drive a 1998 Lexus SC, a car that was built to compete with the contemporary 8-series and Mercedes SL. My car is comparable in size to a new Corolla. I'm longer, but I'm 4 inches shorter. Every other dimension is basically the same.
>The main reason kids get run over is unsafe crossing behaviors, such as running into the road after a ball. Older gets get run over because they're distracted by a smartphone.
(from the link)
Insane victim-blaming here. What is wrong with car people?
If you see an old car next to a modern car, the size difference is extreme!
My daily driver is 220 inches long and 80 inches wide, weighs around 4000 lbs and over 50 years old. Most cars of that era were roughly the same size. It is definitely larger than most other cars I see today, although it also has much better visibility.
It would also likely result in your death if you hit anything solid. Cars are bulkier and visibility has been compromised by better crash protection. I'm reminded of that test they did years ago between a 1959 Impala and a 2009 Malibu. It did not go well at all for the Impala.
Here's the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF4fBGNK0U
There's also a good Fifth Gear video with the same concept: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBDyeWofcLY
I've always wanted to restore an old car. If I ever do these videos will haunt me!
That's an even more compelling video. Very small newer car vs a Volvo from the 90s, I would not have predicted that the Volvo would have done as poorly as it did. I totally expect cars from the 50s to basically disintegrate, but (showing my age) I had better opinions of 90s cars.
That was also a "specially engineered to show how far we've come" comparison. That generation of the impala was unconventional (in a bad way) for the time and considered particularly unsafe in a crash even by 1950s standards and they did a partial overlap with something much newer. They always do partial overlaps in these marketing videos (this is not a "test", they knew exactly what would happen when they spec'd it out) because that's where the biggest disparity is.
Notably those two cars weigh around the same amount and the 1959 one is slightly heavier, so this isn't the "modern cars weigh more" thing.
Yeah, that's why I said bulkier, I was trying to address the observation that visibility has gotten worse. I agree that it has, and a big reason is that A-pillars today are way wider than they used to be, because they are a critical part of the crash structure. They also typically have airbags, though in my experience those are compact and much narrower than the pillar itself.
I wonder if that difference is actually the safety standards rather than the efficiency ones though.
If you look at a modern vehicle, it's wide at the base and narrow at the top. The older ones were basically square, which is aerodynamically rubbish. But since the glass is at your eye level rather than below your waist, it meant you had a lot more glass.
I like to compare the 1960's Plymouth Suburban to the current Chevy Suburban both because of the name coincidence and because they cover roughly the same market segment (family hauler).
The Plymouth suburban is 9 inches shorter in length and well over 1000lbs lighter. I couldn't find specifications on height for the Plymouth, but the Chevy is obviously much taller.
Most likely European vs American perspective? E.g. put an old and new Mini next to each other and it's almost unbelievable how tiny the original Mini actually is. While when you see a vintage US 'street cruiser' in a European city it's longer and wider than most modern cars.
Have a look at the original Fiat 500, it's comically small. You need to remember that the average adult Italian man in 1955 was about 8 cm shorter than today's average, and it's probably similar in other european countries.
Everytime I see a new Mini, I wonder if they could be sued for false advertising.
"Smart", known for extremely small cars with just two seats, now seems to sell huge ugly SUVs. It's truly ridiculous.
Indeed - their original design language doesn't really scale. A bit like Ferrari and Porsche - their 4-door monstrosities scream mid-life crisis louder than a red convertible.
MINI Countryman
If BMW Group made a Maxi, maybe it'd be tiny car. They do have history in that sector too.
When interviewed about the new (BMW) Mini circa 2001, the designer of the original BMC Mini's hydrolastic suspension, John Moulton, said that calling it 'Mini' was ridiculous: "For heaven's sake, it's the size of an Austin Maxi!"
Agree, but in this case the new 2CV is shorter than the original and I imagine if the original was built now with today's safety and EPA requirements there wouldn't be that much difference
It is a race to a bottom, where everyone loses, except perhaps the car companies.
What do the car companies gain from having a higher materials cost?
More profit on bigger cars?
The correlation between larger vehicles and profit margins is mostly because larger vehicles also cost more to operate, and then people with less money tend to avoid vehicles they can't afford to put gas in, so the people who buy larger vehicles usually have more money. In other words, nearly all large vehicles are premium vehicles whereas some small vehicles are the economy segment.
But that wouldn't stop them from making high margin vehicles that are low to the ground. The automaker with the highest margins is Ferrari.
The real problem is the nonsensical CAFE rules. If you want to make a high production volume small car with premium performance, you're going to blow your fuel economy target for that vehicle class, so they're de facto banned from making those. But >300 horsepower mid-sized SUVs? No problem. So premium performance cars are banned but premium performance "trucks" are fine, what are the premium buyers going to buy?
The companies are just making the thing people are buying. Pass stupid laws, get stupid cars.
Fun size comparison thread: https://bsky.app/profile/threadinburgh.scot/post/3mdfh4e63xc...
> But because the person next to you drives a big car and you don't want to get crushed, you also need a big car.
My position on this changed to "ah, now I see" after seeing a video where a Miata got run over from a standing start by a lifted truck. They were both stopped at the lights, but because the truck driver lacked both forward vision and object permanence, when the lights went green he set off .. directly over the car in front.
US size escalation will continue until legislated against. It's creeping into the UK, but fortunately you can't go too large until you start colliding with solid objects. And the max weight is limited to 3500kg unless you're on a Boomer license.
I think the trend towards SUVs was mainly because some car tax code incentivized it. If cars were taxed by weight (as they should - heavy vehicles cause so much more wear for public roads), the trend could reverse. (Plus you get better mileage with a lighter vehicle)
I am sure the profits from selling SUVs more than compensates for the campaign donations needed to enact favorable law.
It is tax code and efficiency standards; SUVs are legally speaking light trucks and have lower fuel economy standards, so the Big 3 in the US just made their cars bigger rather than try to compete with the likes of Toyota and Honda on fuel efficiency.
> If cars were taxed by weight (as they should - heavy vehicles cause so much more wear for public roads)
The problem with this argument is that because of the 4th power law, essentially all road wear due to vehicles is caused by 20+ ton commercial trucks and the difference between the different sizes of personal vehicle is immaterial.
If you want a tax that accurately reflects road wear it ends up being around $0.10/year for a 2500 pound subcompact, $1/year for a 4500 pound SUV and >$6500/year for a 20 ton commercial truck, assuming they all travel the same number of miles. And in practice the commercial truck will typically see ~10x more miles too.
A difference of $0.90/year in tax is probably not going to provide much incentive to anyone.
Boomer? There are people under 50 with a grandfathered C1 licence.
>It's ridiculous: Put a modern SUV next to a WW2 M4 Sherman and you will be surprised, the SUV is the same size. Some a bigger.
That would be what normal people would call a "bold faced lie" in normal conversation and is only above average levels of misleading compared to what's typical around here (which reflects upon the character of the people on HN, IMO).
A sherman is approx same length as the biggest modern SUVs but wider, taller and 10x the weight.
You may as well compare rowing shells to fishing vessels.
An M4 Sherman is about 6m long which production SUVs don't reach. That's about the length of an L3 delivery van, which is usually the longest version they make.
The M4 is 2.6m wide. No car is 2.6m wide. That's wider than a coach bus.
The M4 is 3m tall. Even the fattest SUVs do not come close.
The M4 weighs 30+ tons.
Even the Hummer H2 is only 2m wide and 2m tall. And it's 5m long. It's about 3,000 kg.
The HMMWV is somewhat heavier in many of its configurations. but that's an actual military model. It's still a bit under 4,000 kg.
Those are some of the biggest SUV models extant.
> All that weight needs power to get into motion
I doubt that modern SUV is heavier.
My parents ID4 makes my old e39 touring look small by comparison. Funny thing is, it does not feel bigger on the inside, suppose modern safety standard have demanded a sizeable increase in vehicle size over time, and the battery bank also makes it grow on the, i suppose, x-axis
> Put a modern SUV next to a WW2 M4 Sherman and you will be surprised, the SUV is the same size. Some a bigger.
The M4 Sherman tank weighs over 30 tons. The average modern SUV is around 2. The exterior dimensions aren't what makes a tank heavy.
But you can buy used Tesla for same money that will be better in every way and will outlast this Citroen (which in real life will look nothing like this concept (I adore it))
Anything that enables people to move off a gas car, especially older/cheaper/falling apart gas cars, is positive.
EVs aren't going to win over capitalism if they cost more than the competition. This sort of option is necessary.
Our Volkswagen e-Up is pretty much exactly a tonne. 36kWh battery, gets 160 miles range in summer, 120 in winter. Absolutely enough for everything we need - I've never been close to running out and I drive it every day. Great little car.
It's just a shame because it was clearly a compliance car for VW to reduce their CO2 emissions, and the price - while low compared to other EVs at the time - was unjustifiable compared to a normal petrol Up! - you could buy a brand new one for around £12k while the electric one was £22k - the price difference was just too much. But nowadays on the second hand market I genuinely believe these are some of the best electric cars you can buy for £7-8k, I love mine and I use it more than our 400bhp Volvo.
This car is less efficient than model 3
But it's also more than half it's price. France is full of small city vehicles, this will blend just well. Especially with the fact how car-patriotic French are
And it is being compared to a Tesla, that wildly considered fascist-adjacent nowadays.
A lot less likely to get keyed with an electric 2CV.
Yeah, by mentally sick people.
And counties built on colonialism has no right to virtue signal.
We just don't like giving money to fascists since we have had to fight many of them at great cost in the past.
Categorising people who think Elon Musk is fascist-adjacent as mentally sick should be below the quality standards of a comment on HN. Also, even if he either is or is not that, labelling anti-support of said person/movement/business as "virtue signalling" is also lazy and assuming bad faith. It's legitimate "activism" to not support a business if they engage in morally dubious activity (I'm not advocating that Tesla or Elon Musk are or are not engaging in that, but either way, it's not just virtue signalling).
> Categorising people who think Elon Musk is fascist-adjacent as mentally sick should be below the quality standards of a comment on HN
Weren’t they referring to keying?
I guess maybe so
That's a different story. I was replying to the claim that small = efficient.
That's why I liked the Twizzy and its successor, the Mobilize Duo, so much - it's the minimum viable car - two seats, small space for parking (can park in what is not a parking spot, legally a quadricycle). Low range, but still enough for a week of grocery shopping and school runs, and can charge overnight from an ordinary outlet.
Unfortunately, Renault decided to ax the Mobilize Duo before it was sold around here. It was a bit expensive compared to actual EVs, which is, I think, what made them fail.
I like the lower weight, but how will it survive a crash with a large and heavy SUV?
Anything over 2.5 metric tons should require a commercial driver license to operate.
There, problem solved.
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 could actually see the van being more successful than the car, the city delivery vehicle market has gotten pretty dire and the electric ranges are awful so it’s not like the 2cv lcv would have to compete much on that.
For some reason I cannot stop loving the cartoonish and slightly ridiculous interior.
I can see a lot of people buying this regardless of how it performs.
That link [1] is an absolutely awful page from a usability perspective. There's no other way to navigate the site than with the scroll wheel, and the amount of scrolling required makes my finger hurt before I've even reached the end of the first segment. It also has no anchors and does not remember reading position when refreshing or navigating back.
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?
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!
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.
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-...
It's like someone turned this meme from way back into an article
https://starecat.com/content/wp-content/uploads/bmw-grille-c...
(pretty sure that's not the original but you get the point)
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
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.
Thats why I settled on building and modifying a first generation mx5. I'd love a Sprite or something but they're just a bit harder to deal with due to age/condition, but I love happy looking cars too.
>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.
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.
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.
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 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... .
>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.
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.
> "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.
My father is 75. I got him Tesla earlier this summer.
2 months later he wouldn't change it for anything.
Just because you can't tell apart good UX from bad UX, doesn't mean the whole concept is bad.
He comes from Hyundai Kona EV, which some even declared a decent car lol.
Why is it illegal to operate a touchscreen mobile phone while driving but legal to operate what is essentially a large ipad stuck on your dash? It just isn't logical at all. The fact that one is fixed and one is not is irrelevant, your still looking at a screen and not at the road. Both are extremely dangerous.
It's legal to operate "touchscreen mobile phone" as long as it is mounted tho
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)
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.
It's quite funny how VW is overcorrecting with their latest ID models. Something like 30 buttons on steering wheel because they messed up basics on previous model.
>Something like 30 buttons on steering wheel
Great for us aliens with 12 fingers on each hand.
>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.
Premium is a step below Luxury, which is where Audi fitted.
After the 50, Audi didn’t even have a supermini until the early 2000s.
Is VW seen as a premium brand in Europe? I doubt it. The name means "people's car" and AFAIK Audi is the premium brand of the VW Group.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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)
My complain about the Ami is that it can't go much above 50 kph. I'm still angry Renault killed the Mobilize Duo.
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.
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...
"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.
Collision avoidance isn't crash safety, and while both are valuable, they are not the same.
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...
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.
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.
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.
It's not to brag, it's to qualify for state aid.
In France, if a car is not built in the EU, it won't qualify for the 6k€ reduction.
And you don't see the issue with that? Like negative long term second order effects down the line.
Yes, of course it would be better if the cars were designed in the EU as well.
My main point was that them being built in the EU wasn't something auto makers did out of the goodness of their hearts, or for some marketing ploy: it was forced on them by EU law.
I suppose that design requirements could be imposed as well.
The "built in EU, designed in China" situation is more hypothetical. I don't think anyone would seriously say that Europeans have forgotten how to design cars (and designing an electrical car is, besides the battery, easier than designing a gasoline car), it's just that they can't sell them nearly as cheap as the (subsidized) Chinese models.
Dacia Spring is basically Dongfeng EX1, so it's a Chinese car.
And Dongfeng EX1 is basically Renault kwid (but electric) so we have a Renault recursion here.
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).
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.
Could be integrated into the instrument dash screen.
You could have the screen and also knobs and buttons. It’s not really that difficult.
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.)
Original Ioniq is pretty close. There's a screen for media, nav and backup, but that's it. I think there's others I've seen that hit close.
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!
> 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
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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 same CEO was ultimately responsible for both those cars.
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.
When I grew up anything with 5 seats was a family car. Kids have short legs. They will do just fine.
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.
The success of the Fiat 500 and new Mini renders the GP comment completely moot.
Selling Renault 5 in actual colours is smart, everyone notices them against the sea of grey.
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.
I feel like the Mustang has been able to go pretty far on heritage and vintage looks.
"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...
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
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.
Do you get any discounts on parking?
Yes, street parking in Paris is free for this car.
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 each their own needs, you won't always have space to park a big car, or the money to get a full driver license, or deal with the maintenance and insurance, you might not need to drive the highway more that once every blue moon and can borrow or rent something for these times etc.
Many have either no motored vehicle or a scooter for these needs, I'd zee the Zoe/Ami class of vehicles as a potential step up from that, more than a downgrade from traditional car.
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're mistaking status for fashion.
The two are inexorably related
I think you're mistaken
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.
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 I read you correctly, you are both arguing with me and in my favour.
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.
potato potato
How they are “objectively bad”?
They’re usually around the bottom of the reliability rankings.
Range Rovers are extremely unreliable, and maybe more importantly, not suited for what they're being used for. Offroad vehicle with poor fuel economy being driven in the city. X5 is more reasonable but still definitely an expensive way to get around.
I was hoping for something more than myths and cliches.
X5 - despite its bad reputation - is actually very reliable nowadays. That B58 engine is one hell of a robust machine. And Range Rovers have 4 to 5 year manufacturer warranties.
Also, they're not off-road vehicles (Wranglers, Defenders and Broncos are); they're family cars that combine practicality with great driving dynamics, advanced tech, and a touch of luxury. Also, both have PHEVs, and now even BEVs variants.
I'm not a SUV guy myself, I know their bad sides - but calling these two models "objectively bad" is both ignorant, and patronising. Objectively (as in: let's take a bunch of cars and compare them to each other) they're two of the best ones out there.
This is what I've been told for years, and still the prejudice against Range Rovers has proven better than the "facts." There's no objective way to say what's unreliable, I'll agree there.
And even if this all magically changed in the past couple of years, the old reputation applies to all the ones people bought before, going back to the other person's original point that a large number of people buy cars based on looks. Also the ones that aren't off-roaders are a niche in their lineup.
Range Rover 4x4 is for when you have leaves on the estate driveway in autumn, or when you need to take the hounds grousing by the lake on weekends.
I don't thing anyone is _actually_ taking their range rover offroading in any "real" way.
>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.
…spending every weekend wretching
A hilarious typo, or actual response after seeing the mechanic’s bill?
A typo unfortunately, but an apt one nonetheless.
yes, because new cars are also cheaper (then outside the UK)
the people that buy vehicle like that for status will only learn that after getting one.
What was that saying, "there is no car more expensive to own than cheap luxury car?"
Many older Land Rovers are not luxury vehicles. They are simply expensive (however, they seem to be still cheaper than newer vehicles; my stepfather told me he is paying £4000 for a new charger for his EV).
Part of this is the Land Rover tax; the other part is them requiring constant maintenance. Also, you don't know what sort of bush fixes have been done to it.
EV charger is inside the car, that thing you wire to house circuit and plug into the car is just a dongle/charging cable with couple sensors and enough smarts to tell the car about available voltage/current, not the charger. It should absolutely NOT cost more than already ridiculous $1000.
This is the charger inside the car IIRC. The vehicle won't charge properly unless it is in his garage.
It is £4000 for a new replacement and you can't get it from anywhere other than the dealer.
He was complaining that he was utterly reliant on the dealer for repairs.
Sorry, I misunderstood.
That would mean whole Inverter module (cars use same electronic that drives motor for charging), in that case new dealer £4000 price starts making some (but not a lot as I assume car still drives thus the expensive bits are working) sense. Still should be able to source something second hand if car is not under warranty.
No problem. I doubt that it is really user repairable or is safe for a owner to repair themselves.
Generally. I've had issues with electronic modules that need to be re-coded and can only be done at the dealer.
I've had a light cluster that would be a few thousand for a replacement after the ballast failed. The ballast failed after the sealed unit had water ingress due to the sealant (or whatever it was) failing between the light glass and the module body.
I sourced a second hand unit from a breaker but it needed to be coded to the computer. I sold the vehicle with the fault for as I didn't want to spend any more money fixing electrical faults (there were other previously).
The whole thing is built in a way where you cannot repair any of it and requires a dealer to be involved.
This is one of the reasons why I drive a vehicle that only has simple electronics now (my vehicle does not have an ECU) and generally avoid smart/IoT anything.
Hence the popularity of (leased) Jaecoos, which are landrover-shaped objects that can't possibly have worse reliability.
Jaecoos would not in anyway appeal to someone that likes Land Rovers / Range Rovers.
Range Rover / Land Rover unreliability is often overstated. I and my relatives have owned other brands of cars that were "more reliable", and they've had many of the same issues as Land Rovers.
What matters is whether the car has been looked after.
e.g., my sister's Toyota is plagued with electric issues. My sister-in-law's Mini engine blew up (a known engine issue, but unknown to them).
Often it is how well maintained that dictates whether it is reliable or not.
The notion that somehow LR reliability is misunderstood by Consumer Reports, JD Power, Car & Driver, Automobile etc. based on your subjective experience is...kinda hard to swallow. Unless you're talking about a mid-60s Landie w/ a dozen moving parts, all made of cast steel.
> The notion that somehow LR reliability is misunderstood by Consumer Reports, JD Power, Car & Driver, Automobile etc. based on your subjective experience is...kinda hard to swallow.
I said it was overstated. I won't pretend that some of the stuff (especially on the newer vehicles) can be quite poor, especially when it comes to vehicle security. However, often a lot of problems with these vehicles are because people buy a vehicle they can't afford to maintain, e.g., vehicles not having an oil change for a long time, and people wonder why it goes bang.
Landrovers require constant maintenance. If you don't like working on a vehicle or are on a budget, don't buy a Land Rover.
As for the other failure I mentioned, they are not subjective. The failure on the Mini is a known issue with a particular Mini engine (the BMW N14 engine). There are known electrical issues with many Toyotas, especially with the Yaris.
> Unless you're talking about a mid-60s Landie w/ a dozen moving parts, all made of cast steel.
Any series up until the TD5 Defender are simple to repair. Electronics make modern vehicles a nightmare to work on. While the electronics in many of those vehicles aren't the best. You can fix it with nothing more than a Haynes manual and multimeter.
>Landrovers require constant maintenance.
See, I think we may be having a difference of semantics-"maintenance", to me and much of the rest of the USAian carbuying public means "regular oil changes, filter changes, and timing belts/chains & water pumps at 60-120K miles."
It does not mean: -new cam cover, rear main seal & oilpan gaskets at 60K. -4x suspension airbags @ $2000/per at 85K -high-pressure fuel pump at 90K (for the GDI ones)
...these are the first three things I think of when I hear "bought a used RangeRover."
Euros are weirdly tolerant of some of this shit. An Audi fan said to me that their GDI V8 was "easy to maintain"; even in light of having to have it brought in to walnut-shell-blast the coke off of the intake valves every 40K miles. No, buddy, your engine was misdesigned.
Land Rovers are high maintenance. However, from what I've seen of some newer US cars, they don't seem to be much better. It's hard to really care, though, as I basically decided I am going to keep my current vehicle until I can no longer drive, unless it gets involved in an accident.
The older ones, while requiring high maintenance, were very easy to repair because, to be quite honest, the design didn't really change that much for 40 years. I had someone best explain it as "1950s vehicle using 1880s tech".
Their newer vehicles IMO are crap, but I think all new vehicles are crap (and that includes EVs)."
> 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.
> Working class people still choose best bang/range for the buck car since their car is a tool, not a fashion statement bag.
Patently false, working-class people drive a monsterous truck to their crummy job because psyops convinced them that good mileage is gay.
This and the current Twingo are made to be affordable. No reason why a cheap car can't look good. Making it ugly won't make it cheaper. These cares were modelled after economic cars that never had expensive design elements anyway.
yeah, definitely no such thing as people with low income driving audi's and BMW's that cost more then their rent to lease! :P But if you are buying new cars, you're already not low income
It looks adorable, like something characters from Japanese anime or "Animal Crossing" game would drive. It feels like a modern day reboot, akin to the Volkswagen New Beetle[1] in 1998.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_New_Beetle
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...
Oh we can only dream!
They don't feel like paying engineers or factory workers anymore, but at least the design and marketing teams at Stellantis seem to have fun. Good on them. Renault is sadly on the same treadmill, they were on a good ramp being early in EVs, but all their recent cars have been only about design. Meanwhile I had to get the motor of my electric Mégane swapped after 20000km, as well as many other smaller things that broke.
The cerise sur le gâteau is the new electric Twingo: "designed" in France, engineered in Renault's offices in China. [0]
[0] https://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202501/20/WS678db15fa310a...
I like it, but, I think the original didn't have its CUTE slider turned all the way to the max like this new one.
The original was dialled-in to be small (obviously), dignified, reserved, charming, practical.
If you look at the original through the eyes of the late 40s, early 50s French consumer then it wasn't leaning so heavily on the Cute factor. That only came out later as we look back on it with nostalgia.
So I don't think the new one is a faithful representation of the original's ethos.
> The original was dialled-in to be small (obviously), dignified, reserved, charming, practical.
I disagree. It was designed to be affordable (both in sales price and in maintenance) and practical. It only was small because that was needed to meet those goals. Reserved as in “no frills” also comes from “affordable”.
Dignified I don’t think it ever was. What do you think made it that?
>Dignified I don’t think it ever was. What do you think made it that?
it was a car designed to get rural farmers to stop riding horses everywhere.
it's slightly more dignified when your mode of transportation doesn't take a literal shit in the street.
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 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.
There's more to it than "sell a bunch"
The best selling car of the 90s was consistently a Taurus and yet everyone who grew up riding around in one or learned to drive in one or had one as a first car in the 00s is nostalgic for whatever Toyota product their rich AF friend's stock broker/surgeon dad was driving around then.
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!
> 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.
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.
No it doesn't, even if you stack every possible subsidy and discount for the bare-bones trim it would be more like €13K. Getting some of those subsidies involves scrapping your old car, takes over a year, and later gets taxed as income. The actual MSRP starts closer to €20K.
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.
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.
> 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 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 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...
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.
>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.
> 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.
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?
>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.
> 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
The ID.3 is a de facto BEV version of the VW Golf. It was initially priced close to €50K. VW was marketing it as a "premium product" for which customers should pay a "premium price." Or so they thought.
They later found out that wasn't going to fly and they even had to idle some factories which produced the car due to lack of demand.
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, they're large because they're new, and there's been significant car size inflation in recent years.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
It was less about form and more about function.
I would explain in more detail but why listen to me when you can have Tintin and Captain Haddock walk you through features such as the dual purpose tyre-iron / starter-crank?:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/266233955544
One of their best innovations was the four wheel drive version that did away with front/rear transmission by having separate front/rear engines!
https://citroenvie.com/1964-citroen-2cv-sahara-a-love-story/
(Not my site, but I have an almost identical set of photos from the same auction in Berlin. What a treat!)
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
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.
TIL
https://vitrinelinguistique.oqlf.gouv.qc.ca/fiche-gdt/fiche/...
confusingly, the units are
ch for cheval vapeur (HP horse power, literally horse steam)
CV for cheval fiscal
Ils sont fous les romains
Thank you so much for the unexpected Astérix & Obélix reference, it brightened up my day :D
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 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.
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 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
There's also the Dacia Hipster, which I'm honestly more excited about.
Launch price £9500-£11500, up to 150mi. Seems very practical if you live in a city apartment and need to do grocery runs or go to work.
Love the design too, reminds me of a futuristic, mini Jimny.
If they ever bring out an actual electric DS (and hopefully without too much spyware) I would consider getting one even if I've sworn off modern vehicles and consider my current daily driver (30 years old) my last car. But the 2CV has a soft spot, it was my second car (after having a junker beetle for a few weeks) and it served me well until the day that a skidding Volvo turned it into a convertible. Not fast but super good mileage and the easiest car I've had to work on.
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.
Missed opportunity to call it Citroën Deux but stylized dEVx - being an EV (read it as the french word `deux` aka 2)
And only ten years after it was obvious to do. Looking at you fiat as well
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.
> Original 2cv is wonderfully simple. If they can keep that simplicity, they will win.
In general, an EV powertrain is far simpler than the equivalent Internal Combustion Engine vehicle. Like only 10% of the number of moving parts. Or fewer.
So it depends if you're comparing this vehicle against its ICE predecessor (far simpler!), or against other EVs now on the market for around 20K euros (not yet known).
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
Been a long time: Peugeot-Citroen merger was in 1976. They just keep acquiring more mergers; the Peugeot-Citroen-Fiat-Chrysler merger that created Stellantis was in 2019. It's got to be slightly embarrassing being a retirement home for failed national car brands.
Of Euro brands, that leaves basically .. Renault (part owned by the French government and Nissan), and Ferrari (publicly traded), as well as a few even more boutique luxury brands.
Someone should do a good infographic for this.
>It's got to be slightly embarrassing being a retirement home for failed national car brands.
This would be an obstacle; except that in auto executives, shamelessness is a heavily selected trait.
There's already a 2CV electric conversion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lE7rcN4EnE
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!
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.
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.
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.
What I've always found neat about the original Mini:
-Went from a sketch by Issigonis to volume production at Cowley in 24 months.
-Moulton's suspension; which allowed for a car that was drivable even with 4 200lb adults in it, almost doubling its kerb weight.
-The (apocryphal) design of the original map pockets, whose 9.5"x3"x3" dimensions were suspiciously close to the exact size of the 1/2 pint bottle of Gilbey's Dry Gin.
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 :/
Lloyd Cole playing his 80's song, "2CV" on KEXP: https://youtu.be/L8FNQiKtMY0
One of the british car youtubers had some episodes on a place doing EV-converted 2CVs (with other upgrades so it wasn't purely minimal) - would be interesting to see it benchmarked against this, if it ever makes it out of concept phase...
Citroen, Renault, and Peugeot are putting out some great compact EV cars this year.
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.
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.
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.
'Economies of scale'.
S. can have all the 'advanced manufacturing' in the world but there is only ~250k new car sales a year. Compare to 34M in China it's 250k+ sales a month.
"Crash programs fail; because they assume that with nine women pregnant, you can get a baby in a month."
Some things don't scale.
You are free too look at the numbers above and explain them with some other witty comment.
Sure.
"“Quality is more important than quantity. One home run is much better than two doubles.” — Steve Jobs
India has an even larger consumer base than China.
sigh
Yes. It's also differs on a bazillion of other things with China.
Which means population isn't the factor of making great cars. Take Sweden as the example. They have great innovative cars and a small population and small market.
They have dark factories ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCBdcNA_FsI
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.
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
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.
Related: I’ve had my eye on a Type Ami for a a while now, the Ami with the mini bread von body kit:
https://www.typeami.com/
I can't open the OP's BBC link, so I don't know if it's mentioned, but Citroen also revealed the van version of the new 2CV today:
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/electric-cars/fourgonnett...
The original is one of the most beautiful cars, and this one is one of the ugliest I've ever seen. At least it looks like it's in a good mood.
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.
And yet, the original 2CV and a number of other small cars sold for decades with exactly this feature.
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.
How heavy is the battery, relative to the original's gas tank?
Was this cute electric light garland the cabin light featured in the original 2CV?
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.
It seems they are listening to potential buyers' wishes. Since the first evs appeared in the market, everyone wanted technologically upgraded classic models.
Should bring back the Ferrari 250 GTO
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
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.
I wouldn't want to be hit by those headlights as a pedestrian..
Which are your favorite to be hit by?
Miata!
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
I was thinking the same thing. It's adorable, but for a car primarily driven in cities around lots of pedestrians, those headlights are going to lead to injuries even at very low speeds.
Aw, it's smiling! :3
(Before anyone says anything, the face that the consumer-friendly vehicle has an endearing "face" is salient.)
Like the outside look of it, and a fan of the retro look of electric cars ie the Renault 5e.
On the inside of the Citroen 2CV from photos I’ve seen elsewhere, do the designers even drive?!
Speedometer display, tiny, then a large display to the right of the steering wheel with all the other controls.
As a driver, having to deal with speed limits and speed cameras I want the speedometer to be highly visible infront of my line of sight, not an afterthought.
Then the steering wheel. Why does every new electric car have to have a non round steering wheel just because it looks good in a photo. There’s a reason steering wheels have been round, basically forever.
This is my biggest gripe with electric cars. I want to like this as like the retro style but they go and ruin it adding tech and design for the sake of tech and looking good in photos, not as an improvement to the driving experience. Cars primary purpose are for driving, not tech masterbation.
my grandma had one of these in rural France. she would drive around town and scoop up horse/cow manure from the road and put it in her trunk for her garden
Lane assist on post 2016 Audi cars. Ugh. I'm the one in control. Not some stupid SBC box.
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.
The 2cv and the smart electric, if they can get them up to 4~500km range and will charge overnight on a street side meter it becomes the step up from scooters and bikes that can go intercity, meetings, events, visiting, etc.
Come vw make me an ev bug.
Maybe Ian McCollum can trade in his original 2CV for one of these.
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.
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
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.
Why do they have to make it look like the car Barbie & Ken ride in?
Ahh Heritage ! Design
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.
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.
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)?
French cars are hopeless (since the 2010s). Stay away from them especially if they're such marketing stunts.
Mais laisse-les acheter !
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.
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.
Yes, I definitely agree. The Scenic is probably the one I'd get given the choice. I've driven one and liked it a lot. Good range, easy to handle and very comfortable IMHO.
Something tells me you haven't seen the new Fiat Multipla, or should I say Multiplay? The French have nothing on it, nothing! :)