The DS *was* like a spaceship. It landed and totally freaked everyone out, but in a good way. The magazines of the time seem to regard it as the promise of what automakers *could* do.
I think it spurred the world on, to do better things, even if nobody directly copied this very unusual car in all its aspects.
The suspension and braking technology was good enough for Rolls Royce to license it, as well as Maserati.
Look at so many cars today---aero body, 4 cylinder, FWD, radial tires, power disk brakes, great ride, great handling, adjustable suspensions, excellent visibility, 30+ mpg, comfortable and roomy passenger compartments.
Everyone should take a ride in one before they die. It's really trippy. Aside from the seats that feel like a cushy living room, the carpets are laid over foam, so that your feet sink into the rugs as you get into the car. The brake pedal is nothing more than a round rubber pedastal on the floor. There is no stem to the pedal. It's like stepping on an inflated dinner plate. The steering wheel has only one spoke.
It's indeed a remarkable car. I had a cousin, a surgeon, who owned one in Italy, which I drove from La Spezia to Florence. It was a very pleasant experience. He drove at relatively high speeds (140-150 kph), when conditions permitted, but never recklessly. No mashing on the accelerator from a dead stop type of thing. On the contrary, he used what we would now call some hyper-miler techniques, but in a sensible way. I came to admire his driving style, and incorporated elements that apply to U.S. road conditions to my driving.
Among other cars this cousin owned, at various times were a Porsche, a Mini snf s Golf Diesel.
Back to driving styles, I've noticed that many Europeans drive at higher speeds than Americans do, but more gently. This may be a generalization, but it describes what I've observed in many countries of western and central Europe. I haven't observed the maximum acceleration at low speed style that Americans exhibit, in Europe. The last 1/3 of accelerator travel is reserved for passing maneuvers or coming out of curves. In fact, the last 10% is virtually never used by some drivers, and I've ridden with many.
Does your experience in Europe support what I'm saying, or not?
Will we ever see the Citroen brand officially sold in the U.S. again? How about Pugeot? I imagine the Citroen-Pugeot Group is carefully watching how Fiat does in the U.S.
I don't know how mid-sizers Fiat will sell here, but I expect to see a lot of 500s in our large cities. That'll be partially due to the fact that, like the MINI and the new Beetle, the 500 gets noticed. Unlike Sentras snd Lancers, say, you take note of these retro-syle cars when they cross your line of vision.
I know nothing about CD, but I know the '53 Studebaker did not have a "high stance". There was nothing lower on the American market that had a back seat.
Actually, CD has nothing to do with how tall a vehicle is, merely how well it slices through the air. To get the whole story, I think it's something like CD x frontal area.
So you can have a car that has poor CD, but not a lot of frontal area, or a car that has excellent CD and a lot of frontal area, and end up with the same result.
And, I don't really know how they measure frontal area. I'm sure it's not as simple as width x height. Perhaps you could get a close approximation if you drew a box that was the width and height of the car, took a pic of the front of the car, made a silhouette out of it, put it in the box, and calculated what percentage of the box that silhouette filled up?
So, say you had a car that was 78" wide, 60" tall, and the silhouette took up 75% of that box. That would give you frontal area of 3510 square inches, or 29.25 square feet, or 3.25 square yards.
I wonder what speed coefficient of drag really comes into play, anyway? I doubt if it makes much difference until you get up above 65-70 mph or so in most cars, although it would probably vary by weight to hp, overall weight, frontal area, gearing, tires, etc.
For instance, I know that if I get one of my old 70's crates up to 80 mph on level ground, take my foot off the gas and put it into neutral, it keeps coasting for a good long time. So that's a pretty good indication that the brick-like aerodynamics of my '79 NYer or '76 LeMans probably don't matter much, unless I want to take it on the NASCAR circuit!
Will we ever see the Citroen brand officially sold in the U.S. again? How about Pugeot? I imagine the Citroen-Pugeot Group is carefully watching how Fiat does in the U.S.
My (completely unscientific) take on this:
Fiat is returning to the US because they now have a built in dealer network through Chrysler. Also, the 500 that will be sold here will be built in Chrysler's plant in Mexico.
Both French manufacturers would either have to partner with a brand that already has a dealer network or establish one from scratch. I don't see the latter option happening due to the costs.
The same is true with manufacturing .. I don't know if Renault or PSA have any manufacturing capabilities in either North, Central or South America. Otherwise, due to the weak dollar, the cost of these cars would be much higher if they were imported from Europe (anyone remember the Saturn Astra?).
From a product standpoint, I don't know if there is anything unique about the models currently offered that would have the same type of effect as the MINI, VW New Beetle or the Fiat 500. Mostly just A-, B- and C-class sedans and hatches.
I have the same questions about CD as andre does. It would be nice to get to a link to the site that lists these specifications because according to this site, the Citroen has a drag coefficient of 0.4 and that is supposed to be terrible. http://carspector.com/car/citroen/027159/
Around here, it is floor it until you hit the artificially low speed limit. Burns a lot more gas than accelerading moderately to your desired speed. Even on the Autobahn, you never really "floor it".
"if these Stradas are set up right can they be a fun weekend car to have?"
I'll defer to Shifty, but I'm afraid "old Strada", "set up right" and "weekend fun" is full of contradictions.
I like Fiats, but I think that Rabbits were more fun to drive in a sporty manner. If I recall correctly, Stradas were more softly sprung than Rabbits (maybe not the Rabbits assembled in Pennsylvania), and arguably were better cruisers. Stradas were also a bit roomier than Rabbits, if you could deal with the Italian driving position (stretched arms, tucked in legs).
One advantage is that you'd have a rare car for little money, so it could be fun for a short time.
Reality contradicts these assumptions, because in fact the Citroen can move along smartly on very little horsepower. The only way it could do this is through an efficient coefficient of drag.
When it's a contest between numbers on a page and who actually wins the race, pick the race.
Reality contradicts these assumptions, because in fact the Citroen can move along smartly on very little horsepower. The only way it could do this is through an efficient coefficient of drag.
One factor could be how much hp each engine puts out, at any given rpm. For instance, the Citroen might be designed to rev better, and have gearing that puts it in its sweet spot, so, say at 90 mph or whatever it's putting out its full 75 hp. Whereas the Studebaker might be geared less effectively, so, say, it might get its 120 hp at 75, and by 90 mph perhaps it's down to 100 hp, but struggling more because of the less aerodynamic body and greater weight?
Now I'm just guessing on those speeds and hp numbers, just using them as a hypothetical example.
Well, not really, even though it makes intuitive sense---because the faster you go, the more horsepower you need, exponentially, per mile of speed. So the fact that the Citroen can go as fast as the Studebaker with half the engine size more or less tells me that it's a lot more slippery.
Remember these top speeds you see listed are done by math, so again, paying attention to the real world might tell a different story.
Now, if the Studebaker were a diesel engine, I'd be more inclined to be right in line with your thinking.
Now, if the Studebaker were a diesel engine, I'd be more inclined to be right in line with your thinking.
I just looked up the specs online, and yeah, that Stude engine hit that 120 peak hp at 4000 rpm. For some reason I was thinking it would be a much lower rpm, but then that engine had a fairly short stroke, so I guess it didn't have problems revving.
0-60 in 21.2 seconds 1/4 mile in 22.3 seconds Top speed 98 mph.
And it got its 83 hp at 4500 rpm, really not too far off from the Stude.
Those figures might sound laughable, but when you factor in that's gross hp, and not today's net, I think they're actually pretty impressive. That Stude probably put out around 90-95 hp net, while I'd imagine that Citroen would be more like 65-70?
wow, look at those performance times? How did anyone survive in those days? Now, if your compact doesn't have at least 150 HP or your minivan 275, it is considered to be dangerously underpowered.
and anything more than about 8 secs. 0-60 is like taking a death ride!
I think if I were driving a typical '55 car in 2011, I'd be more concerned with how fast modern cars STOP today than how fast they go. Drum brakes on a 2-ton car really don't stop very well---you can lock 'em up with power brakes but you're all over the road.
Disc brakes in 1955 were quite the exotic thing. Some magazines called them "dangerous" and thought a car would "flip over" if the disc brakes were applied too forcefully---LOL!
One of my early cars (in HS) was a '74 Duster. Drums all around. I remember once leaving a parking lot, and there was a big dip just before the exit (a T onto a busy road). Well, one day it was full of water, so of course I make a big splash. Then try to stop at the corner. Yup, nothing happened. Whipped right out and hung a squealing right turn onto the main road. Took a little pumping or riding of some kind to get the brakes back.
that was fun to experience! But since no damage done, it was a good lesson learned, and from then on I was real careful about wet brakes.
Been there, done that. 66 Mustang with a 289, drums all 'round and a 16 year old driver. Not a good combo. It only took me a few times of scaring myself and passengers before I learned to really "drive".
2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee L Limited Velvet Red over Wicker Beige
2024 Audi Q5 Premium Plus Daytona Gray over Beige
2017 BMW X1 Jet Black over Mocha
I think the only time those slow acceleration times would really be a problem would be if you had to merge onto a busy road at high speed, such as an interstate, expressway, etc, where you might have to get up to speed in a big hurry.
If most of your driving is local, or the highways are low-volume enough that there are breaks in the traffic that you can merge in, it probably wouldn't be a problem.
Still, it's incredible how we get addicted to faster and faster speeds, and suddenly they seem so mundane. For example, when I first started driving, I thought my Granddad's '85 Silverado was pretty fast. It has a 305 V-8 with 165 hp, 3-speed automatic, and, according to the scale at the local landfill, weighs about 4200 lb. I've timed 0-60 in about 12 seconds with a stopwatch. Well, when I started driving, I had a 1980 Malibu with a V-6 that wasn't nearly as fast. And most of my friends had cars that made the Malibu look almost like a musclecar!
But, back in 2002 when the truck got handed down to me, the first time I had to really stomp on it, I was thinking damn this sucker is slow! But, in the intervening years I had gotten used to faster cars, like my '68 Dart V-8, '67 Catalina, '86 Monte Carlo (another 305 with only 150 hp, but a LOT lighter than the truck), '89 Gran Fury copcar, and '00 Intrepid. Initially I was thinking damn, what's it taking this truck to get up to 60, like 20 seconds?! But that's when I put the stopwatch to it.
I think my '00 Park Ave Ultra is the fastest car I've ever had, in 0-60 at least. I think something like 7.6 seconds? But even that, once I got used to it, it didn't seem all that. But then part of it could be that the Buick tends to isolate you, so you don't feel like you're taking off as fast as you really are. If my old rattletrap Dart did 0-60 that fast, it probably would've seemed like much more of an adventure!
Same here - I had a '72 Duster 6 w/drums, drove it for 5 years, including cross country, once with a UHaul trailer. I must have gotten used to it, only time I really remember poor braking was right after I did a brake job, before the shoes had a chance to 'bed in'.
I really like those Citroen images posted by Fintail because they show how narrow the passenger compartment is compared to the bottom of the car and how you could not possibly seat three passengers across (unless they were very good friends). No wonder it has a low drag coefficient. . .the car is shaped like a bell!
Now that I have criticized the Citroen, I have to admit that it is a very streamlined shape for a four-door car. Studebaker never figured out how to make its four door cars low and streamlined like its Lowey coupes and hardtops. Stude's coupes and hardtops were amazing low considering the body-on-frame construction and they were riding on 15 inch wheels. But they could not make that shape into a 4 door model without making it taller, which also made it look narrower. Therefore, I admit that Citroen had the most streamlined four door car of the 1950s.
I think the point was more about showing the Citroen's startling modernity for 1955. Both cars might have pointy noses, but Citroen's was pointed to the future. It was a good 20 years ahead of its time.
Nobody makes RWD, body-on-frame, drum brake, leaf spring suspension cars anymore.
Citroën was weak and unable to withstand the softening of the automobile market thataccompanied the 1973 oil crisis. That year FIAT withdrew from PARDEVI and returned its 49% stake to Michelin. This was an ominous sign of things to come and, less than a year later, Citroën went bankrupt. The French government feared large job losses and arranged talks between Michelin and Peugeot, in which it was decided to merge Automobiles Citroën and Automobiles Peugeot into a single company. In 1974, Peugeot purchased 38.2% of Citroën and became responsible for managing the combined activities, in particular their research, purchasing, and investments departments.
The goverment did not bail out Studebaker or merge it with another company. Nobody kept the Citroen DS in production after the parent company closed, as was done with the Avanti. The Avanti "coke bottle" shape is still seen on cars today, while the Citroen taco bell shape went nowhere.
Studebaker never figured out how to make its four door cars low and streamlined like its Lowey coupes and hardtops.
To be fair, those 2/4 door sedans and wagons probably WERE pretty low-slung for 1953. But as time marched on and everybody else got lower, longer, and wider, Studebaker simply couldn't afford to do that thorough of a redesign.
In all fairness though, I thought that the '56-58 Studes (and Packardbakers) didn't seem too out-of-date, style-wise. My only real issue with them was those horribly grafted-on quad headlights for '58. If they had the money to actually design new fenders properly, they wouldn't have been bad looking cars.
Hmm...Porsche 911 is #5? Great car, long-lived, sure, but the #5? Not a car anybody copied, more a monument to making a difficult layout work through years of refinement...but #5 :confuse:
Well nobody actually copied the Model T either. The influence was technology, precision, racing, innovation. The 911 sort of defined what a truly modern sports car was. Personally I would have picked the Alfa Sprint as #5 for that very reason, also a totally modern sports car.
When you speak of “historians” I believe that the word “European” should be added as a prefix.
The twenty six cars on the Car of the Century list are very impressive, and it is nice to see that four American cars made the cut along with twenty-two European designs. But I suppose one has to expect that coming from the experts at the Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Geneva auto shows, under the presidency of Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.
The four American cars are the Corvette Sting Ray, Ford Model T, Ford Mustang and Willys Jeep. There are three Citroens, two Volkswagens (Beetle and Golf) and two Jaguars, but no Cadillac, Buick, Oldsmobile, Chrysler, Lincoln, Packard, Auburn, Dusenberg or Cord made the list, so I guess those cars are as historically insignificant as Studebaker.
In addition to the iconic bullet-nosed Studebakers of 1950 and 1951, the team created the 1953 Studebaker line, highlighted by the Starliner and Starlight coupes. The Starlight has consistently ranked as one of the best-designed cars of the 1950s in lists compiled since by Collectible Automobile, Car and Driver, and Motor Trend. At the time, however, the Starlight was ridiculed as bizarre, due to its being very similar in front or back. The '53 Starliner, recognized today as "one of the most beautiful cars ever made", was radical in appearance, as radical in its way as the 1934 Airflow.
The reason the Starliner is not of historical interest is pretty apparent to me---it is a modern body on a 1935 car. A mechanic from 1915 could fix one. That's not the way a car makes history unfortunately.
Calling any car "one of the most beautiful cars ever made" is rather...er...hyperbolic to say the least and should be uttered with caution. One of a 1,000 maybe. But not 'one of' a few. If said car were that beautiful, it would be priceless, n'est pas?
If you call *everything* historical or influential or beautiful, you then render *nothing* historical or influential or beautiful. In order to avoid the perils of language inflation, one has to discriminate, and that's probably why so few American cars make the cut I think. American cars are judged, wisely I think, to have been traditionally somewhat backward compared to European cars despite being produced in incredible numbers.
Having said that, surely in evolutionary terms, the Tyrannosaurus does deserve a high order of respect, but he wasn't particularly innovative. Ferocious to be sure, outlandish at times, biggest kid on the block, highly successful at what he did--all that---but still just a larger version of a previous reptile.
American cars would do better in polls about power, numbers made, durability, outlandish styling---things like that, IMO.
The 1937 Cord had front wheel drive, semi automatic shifting and it was fast. The 1939 Studebaker Champion had 75 horsepower and it was a compact car with more room than the Citroen. The 1953 Studebaker Commander was low, long and you could get one with a V-8 and automatic transmission (which Ford tired to buy and Jaguar and Mercedes did buy).
The 1955 Citroen had the power of a 1939, Champion, the front drive and semi-automatic transmission of the Cord, the front end of the '55 Studebaker, the reliability of all French cars and a hydraulic suspension system that made it the world's first "low rider." (Maybe that is why it made the list.)
And they tried to sell it in America for the price of a Cadillac!
Packard used to say, "Ask the man who owns one."I owned four Studebakers because I really liked them. I certainly would not own four cars of the same make that I did not like.
Didn't Raymond Lowey have a reputation of taking credit for others work? I'm thinking designers like Bourke were really the talent behind those Studebaker designs, but I guess Lowey owned the design firm.
The 1955 Citroen had the power of a 1939, Champion, the front drive and semi-automatic transmission of the Cord, the front end of the '55 Studebaker, the reliability of all French cars and a hydraulic suspension system that made it the world's first "low rider." (Maybe that is why it made the list.)
And they tried to sell it in America for the price of a Cadillac!
I think that's a problem with a lot of European cars. They might be high-tech, very well-built, etc, but they simply aren't suited to American needs. For example, it's techinically impressive that a 1955 Citroen can reach a top speed similar to a 1953 Studebaker despite having half the displacement and about 3/4 the hp, but the typical American driver probably didn't give a rat's patootie about that. And FWD, rack and pinion steering, disc brakes, etc, really don't mean THAT much, if you're accustomed to RWD, recirculating ball, and drums. Some drum setups are actually pretty good. And so are some recirculating ball setups. And the real kicker is that they were trying to sell this odd French Pastry thing for the price of a Cadillac, yet the typical American driver probably saw it as not even comparable to a 6-cyl Chevy, Ford, or Plymouth, as any of them were bigger and had more standard hp (even if performance was tame in them, too)
American cars, while not always the most innoative things in the world, always gave you a lot of bang for your buck.
Both nice lookers really, but I'll take the XKE over the MG (as long as I don't have to work on either one!)
I am in complete agreement with that statement. I came home from the army with my first wife and she had a 1967 MGBGT just like that one sitting in the garage waiting for me to get it running. What a hassle that was!
The car was designed like the Brits stayed up late nights thinking of difficult ways to do things. Lucas electrical systems are a curse. They say Brits like warm beer because they have Lucas refrigerators.
The MG had two six-volt batteries located under the rear seat, wired in series to give 12 volts, positive "earth" (i.e. ground.) Her brother put a negative ground radio in the dash and tried to insulate it with styrofoam to keep it from shorting out, but it did short out and blew fuses, usually at night, sometimes when we were on the freeway.
The oil filter came apart in three pieces with two gaskets that were hard to seal and a rod running through the middle of it. To change the oil filter, I had to get the starter motor out of the way, and that was twice as long as it needed to be because the starter gear was on the opposite side of the flywheel ring gear and pulled into it. Every time I tried to seal the oil filter I had to pull the starter motor too.
The brakes and hydraulic clutch did not work, so I cleaned them and put in brake fluid. After the brake fluid leaked all over the place, I found out that I had to use Girling fluid. Si I did that after I replaced all rubber parts that were ruined by using the regular brake fluid. There went another weekend.
It all seemed so simple at first. Just put in a new battery, change the oil and put in some brake fluid. Basic maintenance, nothing complicated, sure, I can do that, easy. No problem.
Once I finally got the car running and stopping without leaking oil and brake fluid, it was fun to drive, had wonderful steering and disc brakes. But I gave up working on the thing and when we got divorced I was glad to see her take it with her. If she had a car that was easy to work on (like a Studebaker or a Citroen), we might still be married now. :shades:
Well - I've been driving a typical 1948 Vintage car occasionally since last Summer. She weighs in at 3300 pounds and has 11 inch non-boosted drum brakes. With 90 HP under the hood and a 4:11 rear axle, she can only cruise comfortably at around 60. I drive her very defensively, and, getting her on the interstate gets interesting. My biggest problem - idiots who pull up very close to my back bumper when I have to stop on a hill. I have to hold her with the emergency brake, give her gas, and work the clutch so I don't roll back any at all.
Regards; Oldengineer 1948 Chevrolet Fleetmaster Town Sedan
Nice try to get the neverending "1938 Fastback"-titled posts stopped, hope it works.
Love that big Chrysler wagon obviously, but I have seen it before. It was advertised in Hemmings a couple of months back. Don't know if it didn't sell or if the buyer is trying to flip it. Maybe it has some disappointments hidden away.
A high-school friend had a '72 Town and Country which I remember well. This one for sale is missing its front wheel-opening moldings. They must have been nicked up or something and not put back on after the paint job.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
When I was a kid, my uncle briefly had a 1971 or so Town and Country wagon. My granddad got it for my uncle, either free or really cheap. Uncle drove it for awhile until its 440 threw a rod. Got left in the grandparents' yard, and I think Granddad called the junkyard or local towing company to come get it. This was around 1981 I think.
Thinking back on it, seems such a shame, but back then it was just a big, cheap, old busted car.
Ah, you just didn't understand the car perhaps? Which is/was the problem the car had in the USA for most people. Also you picked the absolutely lousiest year, 1975. The MGB is one of the easiest cars in the world to work on really, and is a very reliable automobile. It also enjoys outstanding aftermarket product support in the world. It's no different than an old Studebaker---pushrod engine, RWD, generator, standard gearbox, standard brakes. There's really nothing exotic about it---it's 1935 technology British style, just like any 50s American car. I'm a bit surprised it threw you. Too bad you weren't a neighbor, I could have made you a master MG tech in about 5 easy lessons. :P
Here's the Shiftright Simple Survival Kit for MGs:
1. Replace the battery cables 2. Replace all the fuses 3. Get an SU carburetor service manual and do what it says 4. Pretend the engine is American and remember it is bullet-proof 5. Don't let your father in law "adjust it" for you.
is thinking about bidding on this 1970 Buick Riviera. I think the '70 is about my least favorite Riv, up until the shrunken 1986 models, but this does look like a nice one. Seems reasonably priced too, although I wonder what it might be hiding?
I doubt very much it has 70,000 original miles just looking at it. Also there are no pictures of underneath---I noticed rust/scrapped paint on the seat anchors, missing weatherstrip on the doors, rust under the trunk weatherstripping, incorrect engine parts.
I'd rate this as a #3 car with unrestored undercarriage and I'd value it at $6000 to $7500 if it runs really well.
Also I don't know what he means by "matching numbers"---matching to what?
Comments
I think it spurred the world on, to do better things, even if nobody directly copied this very unusual car in all its aspects.
The suspension and braking technology was good enough for Rolls Royce to license it, as well as Maserati.
Look at so many cars today---aero body, 4 cylinder, FWD, radial tires, power disk brakes, great ride, great handling, adjustable suspensions, excellent visibility, 30+ mpg, comfortable and roomy passenger compartments.
All done in the CS in 1955. Remarkable.
I don't yearn to have one either, but I can admit the positives when I see them. Huge milestone car, that nobody really saw coming.
Among other cars this cousin owned, at various times were a Porsche, a Mini snf s Golf Diesel.
Back to driving styles, I've noticed that many Europeans drive at higher speeds than Americans do, but more gently. This may be a generalization, but it describes what I've observed in many countries of western and central Europe. I haven't observed the maximum acceleration at low speed style that Americans exhibit, in Europe. The last 1/3 of accelerator travel is reserved for passing maneuvers or coming out of curves. In fact, the last 10% is virtually never used by some drivers, and I've ridden with many.
Does your experience in Europe support what I'm saying, or not?
I don't know how mid-sizers Fiat will sell here, but I expect to see a lot of 500s in our large cities. That'll be partially due to the fact that, like the MINI and the new Beetle, the 500 gets noticed. Unlike Sentras snd Lancers, say, you take note of these retro-syle cars when they cross your line of vision.
Actually, CD has nothing to do with how tall a vehicle is, merely how well it slices through the air. To get the whole story, I think it's something like CD x frontal area.
So you can have a car that has poor CD, but not a lot of frontal area, or a car that has excellent CD and a lot of frontal area, and end up with the same result.
And, I don't really know how they measure frontal area. I'm sure it's not as simple as width x height. Perhaps you could get a close approximation if you drew a box that was the width and height of the car, took a pic of the front of the car, made a silhouette out of it, put it in the box, and calculated what percentage of the box that silhouette filled up?
So, say you had a car that was 78" wide, 60" tall, and the silhouette took up 75% of that box. That would give you frontal area of 3510 square inches, or 29.25 square feet, or 3.25 square yards.
I wonder what speed coefficient of drag really comes into play, anyway? I doubt if it makes much difference until you get up above 65-70 mph or so in most cars, although it would probably vary by weight to hp, overall weight, frontal area, gearing, tires, etc.
For instance, I know that if I get one of my old 70's crates up to 80 mph on level ground, take my foot off the gas and put it into neutral, it keeps coasting for a good long time. So that's a pretty good indication that the brick-like aerodynamics of my '79 NYer or '76 LeMans probably don't matter much, unless I want to take it on the NASCAR circuit!
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/cto/2204198158.html
I haven't seen one in so many years that I feared they'd all be rusted away by now. Typical early '80s Fiat.
Shifty - if these Stradas are set up right can they be a fun weekend car to have?
My (completely unscientific) take on this:
Fiat is returning to the US because they now have a built in dealer network through Chrysler. Also, the 500 that will be sold here will be built in Chrysler's plant in Mexico.
Both French manufacturers would either have to partner with a brand that already has a dealer network or establish one from scratch. I don't see the latter option happening due to the costs.
The same is true with manufacturing .. I don't know if Renault or PSA have any manufacturing capabilities in either North, Central or South America. Otherwise, due to the weak dollar, the cost of these cars would be much higher if they were imported from Europe (anyone remember the Saturn Astra?).
From a product standpoint, I don't know if there is anything unique about the models currently offered that would have the same type of effect as the MINI, VW New Beetle or the Fiat 500. Mostly just A-, B- and C-class sedans and hatches.
I note that the height and width dimensions of the Citroen and Studebaker coupe are very similar. The Citroen has a height of 57.9 in and width of 70.5 in , The Studebaker has a height of 56.4 inches and a width of 71 inches. Therefore, the Stude is the lower of the two. Here are my
sources. http://www.carsession.com/car-specs/1955-citroen-ds-19.html and
http://www.ehow.com/list_7612795_1953-studebaker-specs.html
I'll defer to Shifty, but I'm afraid "old Strada", "set up right" and "weekend fun" is full of contradictions.
I like Fiats, but I think that Rabbits were more fun to drive in a sporty manner. If I recall correctly, Stradas were more softly sprung than Rabbits (maybe not the Rabbits assembled in Pennsylvania), and arguably were better cruisers. Stradas were also a bit roomier than Rabbits, if you could deal with the Italian driving position (stretched arms, tucked in legs).
One advantage is that you'd have a rare car for little money, so it could be fun for a short time.
A coupe
And a cabrio
Regarding Citroen ever coming back to NA...I doubt it. Nothing really cutesy enough to go like a Mini or 500, no dealer network, high prices.
When it's a contest between numbers on a page and who actually wins the race, pick the race.
One factor could be how much hp each engine puts out, at any given rpm. For instance, the Citroen might be designed to rev better, and have gearing that puts it in its sweet spot, so, say at 90 mph or whatever it's putting out its full 75 hp. Whereas the Studebaker might be geared less effectively, so, say, it might get its 120 hp at 75, and by 90 mph perhaps it's down to 100 hp, but struggling more because of the less aerodynamic body and greater weight?
Now I'm just guessing on those speeds and hp numbers, just using them as a hypothetical example.
Remember these top speeds you see listed are done by math, so again, paying attention to the real world might tell a different story.
Now, if the Studebaker were a diesel engine, I'd be more inclined to be right in line with your thinking.
I just looked up the specs online, and yeah, that Stude engine hit that 120 peak hp at 4000 rpm. For some reason I was thinking it would be a much lower rpm, but then that engine had a fairly short stroke, so I guess it didn't have problems revving.
Found the specs here:
http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/?car=45705#a_engine
A few performance tidbits:
0-60 in 16.9 seconds
1/4 mile in 20.4 seconds
Top speed 93 mph.
For comparison, here's what I found for a 1956 Citroen DS19 (they didn't list a 1955):
http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/?car=35794#a_engine
0-60 in 21.2 seconds
1/4 mile in 22.3 seconds
Top speed 98 mph.
And it got its 83 hp at 4500 rpm, really not too far off from the Stude.
Those figures might sound laughable, but when you factor in that's gross hp, and not today's net, I think they're actually pretty impressive. That Stude probably put out around 90-95 hp net, while I'd imagine that Citroen would be more like 65-70?
and anything more than about 8 secs. 0-60 is like taking a death ride!
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Disc brakes in 1955 were quite the exotic thing. Some magazines called them "dangerous" and thought a car would "flip over" if the disc brakes were applied too forcefully---LOL!
that was fun to experience! But since no damage done, it was a good lesson learned, and from then on I was real careful about wet brakes.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee L Limited Velvet Red over Wicker Beige
2024 Audi Q5 Premium Plus Daytona Gray over Beige
2017 BMW X1 Jet Black over Mocha
If most of your driving is local, or the highways are low-volume enough that there are breaks in the traffic that you can merge in, it probably wouldn't be a problem.
Still, it's incredible how we get addicted to faster and faster speeds, and suddenly they seem so mundane. For example, when I first started driving, I thought my Granddad's '85 Silverado was pretty fast. It has a 305 V-8 with 165 hp, 3-speed automatic, and, according to the scale at the local landfill, weighs about 4200 lb. I've timed 0-60 in about 12 seconds with a stopwatch. Well, when I started driving, I had a 1980 Malibu with a V-6 that wasn't nearly as fast. And most of my friends had cars that made the Malibu look almost like a musclecar!
But, back in 2002 when the truck got handed down to me, the first time I had to really stomp on it, I was thinking damn this sucker is slow! But, in the intervening years I had gotten used to faster cars, like my '68 Dart V-8, '67 Catalina, '86 Monte Carlo (another 305 with only 150 hp, but a LOT lighter than the truck), '89 Gran Fury copcar, and '00 Intrepid. Initially I was thinking damn, what's it taking this truck to get up to 60, like 20 seconds?! But that's when I put the stopwatch to it.
I think my '00 Park Ave Ultra is the fastest car I've ever had, in 0-60 at least. I think something like 7.6 seconds? But even that, once I got used to it, it didn't seem all that. But then part of it could be that the Buick tends to isolate you, so you don't feel like you're taking off as fast as you really are. If my old rattletrap Dart did 0-60 that fast, it probably would've seemed like much more of an adventure!
Now that I have criticized the Citroen, I have to admit that it is a very streamlined shape for a four-door car. Studebaker never figured out how to make its four door cars low and streamlined like its Lowey coupes and hardtops. Stude's coupes and hardtops were amazing low considering the body-on-frame construction and they were riding on 15 inch wheels. But they could not make that shape into a 4 door model without making it taller, which also made it look narrower. Therefore, I admit that Citroen had the most streamlined four door car of the 1950s.
Nobody makes RWD, body-on-frame, drum brake, leaf spring suspension cars anymore.
But they still make Citroens.
Citroën was weak and unable to withstand the softening of the automobile market thataccompanied the 1973 oil crisis. That year FIAT withdrew from PARDEVI and returned its 49% stake to Michelin. This was an ominous sign of things to come and, less than a year later, Citroën went bankrupt. The French government feared large job losses and arranged talks between Michelin and Peugeot, in which it was decided to merge Automobiles Citroën and Automobiles Peugeot into a single company. In 1974, Peugeot purchased 38.2% of Citroën and became responsible for managing the combined activities, in particular their research, purchasing, and investments departments.
The goverment did not bail out Studebaker or merge it with another company. Nobody kept the Citroen DS in production after the parent company closed, as was done with the Avanti. The Avanti "coke bottle" shape is still seen on cars today, while the Citroen taco bell shape went nowhere.
To be fair, those 2/4 door sedans and wagons probably WERE pretty low-slung for 1953. But as time marched on and everybody else got lower, longer, and wider, Studebaker simply couldn't afford to do that thorough of a redesign.
In all fairness though, I thought that the '56-58 Studes (and Packardbakers) didn't seem too out-of-date, style-wise. My only real issue with them was those horribly grafted-on quad headlights for '58. If they had the money to actually design new fenders properly, they wouldn't have been bad looking cars.
Studebaker isn't on the list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_of_the_Century
Sorry but....hey, if you like 'em, that's great. :shades:
The twenty six cars on the Car of the Century list are very impressive, and it is nice to see that four American cars made the cut along with twenty-two European designs. But I suppose one has to expect that coming from the experts at the Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Geneva auto shows, under the presidency of Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.
The four American cars are the Corvette Sting Ray, Ford Model T, Ford Mustang and Willys Jeep. There are three Citroens, two Volkswagens (Beetle and Golf) and two Jaguars, but no Cadillac, Buick, Oldsmobile, Chrysler, Lincoln, Packard, Auburn, Dusenberg or Cord made the list, so I
guess those cars are as historically insignificant as Studebaker.
I favor this wikipedia review of the 1953 Studebaker filed under Raymond Lowey: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Loewy
In addition to the iconic bullet-nosed Studebakers of 1950 and 1951, the team created the 1953 Studebaker line, highlighted by the Starliner and Starlight coupes. The Starlight has consistently ranked as one of the best-designed cars of the 1950s in lists compiled since by Collectible Automobile, Car and Driver, and Motor Trend. At the time, however, the Starlight was ridiculed as bizarre, due to its being very similar in front or back. The '53 Starliner, recognized today as "one of the most beautiful cars ever made", was radical in appearance, as radical in its way as the 1934 Airflow.
Calling any car "one of the most beautiful cars ever made" is rather...er...hyperbolic to say the least and should be uttered with caution. One of a 1,000 maybe. But not 'one of' a few. If said car were that beautiful, it would be priceless, n'est pas?
If you call *everything* historical or influential or beautiful, you then render *nothing* historical or influential or beautiful. In order to avoid the perils of language inflation, one has to discriminate, and that's probably why so few American cars make the cut I think. American cars are judged, wisely I think, to have been traditionally somewhat backward compared to European cars despite being produced in incredible numbers.
Having said that, surely in evolutionary terms, the Tyrannosaurus does deserve a high order of respect, but he wasn't particularly innovative. Ferocious to be sure, outlandish at times, biggest kid on the block, highly successful at what he did--all that---but still just a larger version of a previous reptile.
American cars would do better in polls about power, numbers made, durability, outlandish styling---things like that, IMO.
The 1955 Citroen had the power of a 1939, Champion, the front drive and semi-automatic transmission of the Cord, the front end of the '55 Studebaker, the reliability of all French cars and a hydraulic suspension system that made it the world's first "low rider." (Maybe that is why it made the list.)
And they tried to sell it in America for the price of a Cadillac!
Packard used to say, "Ask the man who owns one."I owned four Studebakers because I really liked them. I certainly would not own four cars of the same make that I did not like.
ON ANOTHER SUBJECT----
I saw one of these today. Influential? Perhaps, as (I think) the world's first mass-produced hatchback coupe ??
And they tried to sell it in America for the price of a Cadillac!
I think that's a problem with a lot of European cars. They might be high-tech, very well-built, etc, but they simply aren't suited to American needs. For example, it's techinically impressive that a 1955 Citroen can reach a top speed similar to a 1953 Studebaker despite having half the displacement and about 3/4 the hp, but the typical American driver probably didn't give a rat's patootie about that. And FWD, rack and pinion steering, disc brakes, etc, really don't mean THAT much, if you're accustomed to RWD, recirculating ball, and drums. Some drum setups are actually pretty good. And so are some recirculating ball setups. And the real kicker is that they were trying to sell this odd French Pastry thing for the price of a Cadillac, yet the typical American driver probably saw it as not even comparable to a 6-cyl Chevy, Ford, or Plymouth, as any of them were bigger and had more standard hp (even if performance was tame in them, too)
American cars, while not always the most innoative things in the world, always gave you a lot of bang for your buck.
Same name, but the name doesn't fit
This probably seats about 20...
I can't see why it didn't sell
Brand getting lots of discussion here...just an old used car in Europe
Compact truck
"Roadster"
"Hard to find"
Little gnat
Not one to "restore", but for the money, no harm done
High price
Not many left like this
"Woody"
Odd diesel
Frankenbenz
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
I am in complete agreement with that statement. I came home from the army with my first wife and she had a 1967 MGBGT just like that one sitting in the garage waiting for me to get it running. What a hassle that was!
The car was designed like the Brits stayed up late nights thinking of difficult ways to do things. Lucas electrical systems are a curse. They say Brits like warm beer because they have Lucas refrigerators.
The MG had two six-volt batteries located under the rear seat, wired in series to give 12 volts, positive "earth" (i.e. ground.) Her brother put a negative ground radio in the dash and tried to insulate it with styrofoam to keep it from shorting out, but it did short out and blew fuses, usually at night, sometimes when we were on the freeway.
The oil filter came apart in three pieces with two gaskets that were hard to seal and a rod running through the middle of it. To change the oil filter, I had to get the starter motor out of the way, and that was twice as long as it needed to be because the starter gear was on the opposite side of the flywheel ring gear and pulled into it. Every time I tried to seal the oil filter I had to pull the starter motor too.
The brakes and hydraulic clutch did not work, so I cleaned them and put in brake fluid. After the brake fluid leaked all over the place, I found out that I had to use Girling fluid. Si I did that after I replaced all rubber parts that were ruined by using the regular brake fluid. There went another weekend.
It all seemed so simple at first. Just put in a new battery, change the oil and put in some brake fluid. Basic maintenance, nothing complicated, sure, I can do that, easy. No problem.
Once I finally got the car running and stopping without leaking oil and brake fluid, it was fun to drive, had wonderful steering and disc brakes. But I gave up working on the thing and when we got divorced I was glad to see her take it with her. If she had a car that was easy to work on (like a Studebaker or a Citroen), we might still be married now. :shades:
Regards;
Oldengineer
1948 Chevrolet Fleetmaster Town Sedan
Love that big Chrysler wagon obviously, but I have seen it before. It was advertised in Hemmings a couple of months back. Don't know if it didn't sell or if the buyer is trying to flip it. Maybe it has some disappointments hidden away.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Thinking back on it, seems such a shame, but back then it was just a big, cheap, old busted car.
Here's the Shiftright Simple Survival Kit for MGs:
1. Replace the battery cables
2. Replace all the fuses
3. Get an SU carburetor service manual and do what it says
4. Pretend the engine is American and remember it is bullet-proof
5. Don't let your father in law "adjust it" for you.
I'd rate this as a #3 car with unrestored undercarriage and I'd value it at $6000 to $7500 if it runs really well.
Also I don't know what he means by "matching numbers"---matching to what?
This earlier car is pretty
The most expensive fintail for sale in Germany right now...wow. Several others over 30K Euro as well.