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 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..
Lighter weight does improve range a bit in stop and go city driving, but not really on longer trips. Once the weight of the car is up to speed, most of the energy is spent fighting aerodynamic drag. Lower weight would probably reduce rolling resistance and has other benefits to vehicle handling and costs.
I doubt a sub-1 tonne car is going to be pleasant to drive at highway speeds (thinking about the noise insulation here) and especially if there's even a little bit of wind. This is clearly designed for localized city driving. I suspect that it's also more (though not totally) pedestrian friendly in that the kinetic energy stored will be far less given any kind of impact.
I personally love that it is running counter to the trend of car masses and sizes increasing across the world [0]. There's a reason why there's a small, very fun and niche community of Kei car enthusiasts - the case against pavement princesses and absurdist masculine performativity is a strong one.
[0] https://hannahritchie.substack.com/p/global-car-economy
> I doubt a sub-1 tonne car is going to be pleasant to drive at highway speeds
My car is 945kg and the biggest issue with longer trips is that the chairs aren’t that comfortable. Although at higher speeds it feels a bit dodgy. It does 170 no problem and that feels quite fast already. Top speed is 190 which I only tried once on the autobahn but that’s quite scary. At about 170 acceleration drops significantly and it takes a few minutes to go from 170 to 190. Won’t ever try that again. Cruising at around 150 for several hours is perfectly fine.
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.
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 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
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
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.
> 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.
> 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.
[dead]
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.
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 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.
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.
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).
The original had a top speed of 40 mph and its only security feature was prayers.
I have done at least 70mph with a friend's 2CV on the Autobahn downhill. Doing 170 with a Porsche felt way safer.
It worked: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLOI5rPVols
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziyzsN8-6C4
Ahem. Having driven a 2CV, that top speed literally only applies to the first revision. (So, yes, technically "the original")
Later versions could do 65mph. 75mph downhill with the wind at your back.
Presumably with louder prayers, because of the road and wind noise.
So a scooter with a sidecar are enclosed?
No, a moveable couch. One of the most comfortable cars ever. (It was designed to be a vehicle that farmers could use to e.g. transport eggs to the market - hence, soft seating and amazing suspension)
My dad has a Citroen B11 from -54 that he bought when he was young at the end of the sixties and has kept alive since. The design is from the thirties and revolutionized suspension at the time, winning races. Citroen has always been at the forefront of suspension development.
The Traction Avant is a thing of beauty. Literally the only car I ever lusted after. Pure class, with a slight air of lawful evil.
The one my dad has isn't polished and perfected in renovation, he uses it as his summer car and its got great patina. No exhibition car. He's around 80 now so he had it for 60 years. He took it apart and reassembled it completely at some point. Also drove it from mid Sweden to Italy and back with my mom.
It feels like going 200 kmh when you push it to 80 :)
It was also the ultimate gangster car for European film makers.
The Vichy-french cops use it in Joseph Losey's movie Mr. Klein, there are lots of them on screen at some point. Great film!
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074916/?ref_=nm_flmg_job_1_acc...
Something most modern (and expensive cars) don't have because of endless cost cutting on the mechanical side.
> Something most modern (and expensive cars) don't have because of endless cost cutting on the mechanical side.
No it's because Citroen had super nifty _non-independent_ suspension back then. Pushing the front wheel up would push the rear wheel down making the car feel like it's floating across bumps. Present in various forms on several models in the 70's.
Turns out linked suspension isn't great for handling and road feel at higher speeds. Modern cars are fast and heavy so these systems have fallen out of favor.
https://www.hotcars.com/extraordinary-suspension-of-citroen-...
The "Frog" (can't remember official name) had a similar system but with hydraulics.
The Citroen 4 had this but with twisting rods instead of springs. You could easily get it up on 3 wheels with spirited cornering.
I wouldn't take the 2CV as an example of suspension that modern cars don't match, but Citroën's later hydropneumatic suspension[1] are indeed unmatched.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKyWKKs4ISo
Those were amazing! But also Bose made some incredible electro magnetic suspension system, which might see the commercial usage only now:
https://www.autoevolution.com/news/this-is-how-bose-s-failed...
>Citroën's later hydropneumatic suspension[1] are indeed unmatched
Yes, and ask yourself why they aren't making it anymore. Answer: cost and reliability, which is also a function of cost.
ClearMotion has the Bose technology now and apparently is productizing it again.
my father owned a series of CXs with that suspension and it was magic. the car went round corners like it was on rails - completely flat
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.
new one is actually smaller than the original (3760 mm long vs 3830 mm). but batteries and modern safety makes it heavier
The marketing text says it is a tribute. Not sure where your basing it as a replica look-a-like is coming from
It didn't have an EV battery either.
The original was - no joke - absolutely mind-blowing off-road. The dumb places we could go in a 2CV when I had abandoned my car way way back...
It will be interesting to see how serviceable it is. The 2CV was pretty famous for being easy to disassemble.
The announced range of this car is 250km / 150 miles
Gives me hope for an inevitable electric Mazda mx-5 to not suck.
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/
Where do I sign up?
>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.
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.
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.