Seems like these would be at their best on a farm or off-road. Great suspension travel.
Daily driving? Yikes. (unless you were on easy secondary roads and not in a hurry)
Hang a tractor warning sign off the back.
The original prototype 1941
Originally Posted by David Votoupal
I daily drive a Fiat 126 with 26hp and I've been overtaken by a 2CV on a twisty b-road. Ok, that thing hat what looked like 185 width tyres, and it was sitting low, but it was friggin'awesome The 4 cylinder air-cooled boxer engine out of the Citroen GS fits with some mods. The car is so pure genious it hurts...
I'd say go for it. In germany there are stainless steel chassis available for less than 1000€. I don't know how traffic is in the US, but as Mr. Air and Water said, if you know the highway is empty I wouldn't mind. I have never had problems with my Fiat; the opposite is the case, people overtaking me (or being overtaken) can't help but smile Ok, in case of a crash chances to survive will be bad, but it's so much fun. And usually with such a car you drive very defensive and attentive. At least that's what happened to me.
Eh... the 1700 pound Rabbit? Not so much. But I think the comment is a reasonable one for all the small early cars.
And I was piggybacking on the following comment on page one:
Nice overview of the 2CV:
The 2cv is probably just as relevant today as it was when Pierre Boulanger laid out the criteria for the 2cv in 1936. It must be a simple design, capable of driving thirty MPH across plowed fields with a cargo of eggs. It must be able to carry five passengers and of course be comfortable.
The original concept was for an umbrella on wheels and to keep the expense down, must be built with a minimum of materials. For cheap operation it meant a small engine and of course that would mean it had to be very lightweight.
The silver one in Hand Cannon's post would be great and has all the early details I like. For the OP, beware that many 2CVs in the US are fraudulently registered as something they are not. THere are many Charlestons, (made in 90 or 91) that show up with 60s and 70s as their year. DOT problem and maybe a long term headache for a buyer. Just because it isn't a Skyline doesn't mean that you don't have to worry about it.
And if they won't go up a hill loaded, turn around and back up!
Love it. Do it.
Even when they're going 50mph and holding up traffic, everyone's happy to see them and instantly calms down and smiles when they see what the hold up is
| œ Orchid Euro Importation œ |
Currently driving or working on too many cars...
| '93 Fox 16v - PVW | '99 Greenland Polo Diesel | '89 Rallye Golf | '83 Golf GTi RHD | '75 Swallowtail |
| '82 Caddy 1.9D | '85 VW LT Car Transporter | Mk2 Jetta Limo | '90 Jetta 8V | '96 VW LT35D | '03 SpintLT35 | '02 GTI 337 | '03 GTI 20v |
| '09 Aprilia RS125 | '81 Kawasaki AR80 | '59 NSU Quickly | '64 Honda Cub C65 + '65 C105 | Trek Emonda SLR9 | Trek Crockett 9 |
When I met the project Isetta, my first comment was "holy ****, it's less car than a Deux Chevaux! Damnnnnnnnnn!"
A(u). Klasse A, unbeschrankt, ungedrosselt
Compared to a British roadster, all Volkswagens are reliable!
nevAr Lose - DE Minister of Foreign Affairs and Deputy Bankruptcy Controller - IPROfftopikstan, Den Mother - Team Emmett
Early in the thread someone question why this car isn't desirable. To me it looks like a craptastic kit car and doesn't make up for it with performance. Sure, maybe this car has an important place in history, but that's in the past. That doesn't make me want one in the present, not unless I open a museum.