PDA

View Full Version : The DS is back.



Fabrizio
February 4th, 2009, 04:42 PM
It looks like CitroŽn will soon (2012) be making a retro-styled car based on the mythic DS.

These photos are in the papers here today... and I think they'll give a few of you a big smile to see:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v33/ronaldo/Citroen_D5_Concept-1.jpg
-
-
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v33/ronaldo/Citroen_D5_Concept-2.jpg

---

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v33/ronaldo/CitroenDS_blu.jpg


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CitroŽn_DS

Ninjahedge
February 4th, 2009, 05:04 PM
Ugh!

Man that is a frumpy saggy looking car..... Like it is dragging its butt on the ground......

ZippyTheChimp
February 4th, 2009, 05:47 PM
Jim, Cinnamon, Rollin, Barney and Willy often left the scene in a DS. It had that Eastern Bloc look.

lofter1
February 4th, 2009, 06:34 PM
Will it raise and lower like the old ones?

ablarc
February 4th, 2009, 06:37 PM
The old one looked MUCH better. Flaminio Bertoni.

Alonzo-ny
February 4th, 2009, 06:42 PM
Are there no new ideas anymore?

Fabrizio
February 4th, 2009, 07:25 PM
I love the old ones. When I lived on the UWS a fellow in my building had one and even kept it parked on the street. Now today a guy in the building next to mine has a beautifully maintained one and it's often parked out front. They are fun to ride in and have a wild floating feeling.

ZippyTheChimp
February 4th, 2009, 08:02 PM
The old one looked MUCH better. Flaminio Bertoni.I dislike most of the retros - T-Bird, Beetle. They're often like movie sequels, and miss the mark.

The Mini is an exception. It's the Godfather II.

Jasonik
February 4th, 2009, 08:44 PM
The butt looks familiar.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v33/ronaldo/Citroen_D5_Concept-2.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/79/232994249_a760f74f2e.jpg?v=0

Citroen SM styled by Robert Opron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Opron)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3e/CitroŽn_SM_interior%2C_brown_%281%29.jpg/250px-CitroŽn_SM_interior%2C_brown_%281%29.jpg
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CitroŽn_SM_interior,_brown_(1).jpg)
The SM shared a dashboard with the Maserati Merak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maserati_Merak)

lofter1
February 4th, 2009, 09:20 PM
The new one's butt is not so sexy. Lost too much weight too fast.

Looks like it doesn't know if it's coming or going.

ZippyTheChimp
February 4th, 2009, 09:37 PM
I suppose you'd have had to drive, or at least ride in, the original DS.

It was technologically innovative. The idea was a balance between a soft ride and good handling. Most good handling cars of that time had a harsh ride. You needed tough kidneys.

What's the point of this new model?

kz1000ps
February 5th, 2009, 01:23 AM
It looks nice enough, but like Zippy said, what is the point of this? Why now? What does it do to revive the avant-garde spirit (and not just the body shape) of the original?

And while the DS and 2CV get all the love, I gotta say my favorite Citroen is the SM. First time I saw it was in a Janet Jackson music vid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYK_pPJaWEg) from the late-'90s, and I spent months scouring the relatively-new internet trying to figure out what the hell it was. I almost gave up and assumed it was a late-'70s Celica with some trick coachwork, lol.

Alonzo-ny
February 5th, 2009, 07:12 AM
The Mini is an exception. It's the Godfather II.

Really? Id have to disagree there. There isnt much 'mini' about it.

Fabrizio
February 5th, 2009, 11:22 AM
The new Mini is far removed from the old Mini, but IMHO I think it does hold up on it's own as a nice design.... it doesn't look cartoonish. It really is the best of the retro lot.

The new Beetle makes no sense but I kind of like the convertible's looks with the top up. The new FIAT 500 is nice too.

ablarc
February 5th, 2009, 12:24 PM
Revivalism is not restricted to architecture.

Rumor has it that BMW is working on a revival of the Isetta.

ZippyTheChimp
February 5th, 2009, 12:27 PM
Really? Id have to disagree there. There isnt much 'mini' about it.The BMW Mini would succeed as a stand alone if the original didn't exist. I don't think many would say, "What were they thinking" if the Mini Cooper were never made.

The styling evokes the original, low horsepower/good fuel economy, seating for four, fun to drive.

As for 'mini,' you have to keep in mind what was considered mini then as compared to now.

The 60s Mini Cooper:
Length 120 "
Wheelbase 80"
Weight 1400 lb

BMW Mini:
Length 143"
Wheelbase 97"
Weight 2500

For perspective, a 70s Honda Civic was 140" long and weighed 1500 lbs. Today it's 176" and 2600 lbs.

The added length of the BMW Mini is balanced by a corresponding increase in wheelbase, pushing the wheels to the corners - the original design concept. The wheelbase-to-length ratio is exactly the same for both models.

Alonzo-ny
February 5th, 2009, 04:43 PM
Thats what I mean. Its not mini because its the size of alot of other cars on the road today, but the original was smaller in comparison to other cars at the time.

ablarc
February 5th, 2009, 06:03 PM
The original Minis were especially attractive in convertible guise:

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/mini/cooper.jpg

These were, however, extremely rare.

ZippyTheChimp
February 5th, 2009, 08:37 PM
Thats what I mean. Its not mini because its the size of alot of other cars on the road today, but the original was smaller in comparison to other cars at the time.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/images/icons/icon5.gif

I thought I was showing the opposite. How many of today's cars are 140" long?

Another comparison: The entry level BMW sedan in the 1960s was the 1600. It weighed 2000 lbs. Today's successor, the E90 3 series is 3200 lbs.

Before comparing the Minis, you should compare these:

http://www.bmw2002.co.uk/images/Chris%201600%2001.jpghttp://www.finerdetails.co.uk/images/silverE90320D.jpg

Ninjahedge
February 6th, 2009, 10:22 AM
EVERYTHING got bigger.

It was the Masculation of even the minis and "sub compacts".

Hell, I remember the Rabbit, the car you could get a few guys to help you physically lift into and out of a tight parking spot!

Thing is also this, HP. The new Minis are not necessarily econo-boxes. They were VERY expensive for such a toy-like visage. They also had power. The European versions also utilized a non-gearbox transpission (what did they call it? A slip-belt or something? Where it kept it at peak RPM through a conical mechanical interface on its transmission rather than seperate distinct gear sizes).

We turned into a generation of "Haves" in the past 10 years moreso than I have ever known. The Ares K is not the poor mans station wagon anymore. (Good bad or otherwise).

I was hoping that the gas crunch would fuel (HA! pun) a shift back to reasonable sized transport. Back to what was needed for everyday rather than the 3 times you take the entire family, including pets and inlaws, to CostCo. We got a little of that shift, but I am afraid that the recent drop will not put the stake through the heart of the Hummer and we will still see production if the "Me"-UV's.

It is interesting to see how much this has all changed in the last XX years... Has Europe changed so much that what was their smaller standards no longer fit, or were they just trying to sell to the American market so much that they forgot their own identity?

Fabrizio
February 6th, 2009, 10:35 AM
Oh c'mon.... a little logic please. Take the the Mini pictured above. Add front and rear bumpers that satisfy current safety standards (US and European). Add required hood and bumper height. Add required internal door bracing for side impacts. Add required structural frame strength. Add required airbags. Add window A-pillars that conform to roll-over requirements. Add reinforced fuel tank. Required wheel size. Required interior impact padding. And so on.

And that Mini becomes as big as today's Mini.

That Mini shown above is like riding in a go-cart. Autos simply cannot be made that way today and be sold in American and European markets.... by law. A Smart is about as small as it gets today... but it's a 2 seater and the only reason it can be that short is because it's 60 inches tall.

--

Jasonik
February 6th, 2009, 10:52 AM
I thought it was evil car manufacturers that won't produce cars with improved fuel economy.

You mean to tell me they're hamstrung by government regulations which add weight and bulk? Light sporty nimble efficient cars are effectively outlawed?

Does it come as a shock to anyone that myriads of safety regulations have (ostensibly) unintended consequences on efficiency?

ZippyTheChimp
February 6th, 2009, 10:57 AM
Has Europe changed so much that what was their smaller standards no longer fit, or were they just trying to sell to the American market so much that they forgot their own identity?Post WWII realities.

VW Beetle.

The BMW 1600 saved the company.

The 1950s Fiat 500 is a prime example. Less than 10 feet long. A new version, the Fiat Nuova 500, is under 140 inches long, a very small car by today's standards.

Compare:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_500

A note on the Mini: BMWs are RWD or AWD, but they retained the transverse engine FWD that the original Mini made popular.

On the other hand, the retro Beetle is a front engine FWD based on the Golf platform. Not much in common with the original, except the basic shape.

Ninjahedge
February 6th, 2009, 02:06 PM
I thought it was evil car manufacturers that won't produce cars with improved fuel economy.

You mean to tell me they're hamstrung by government regulations which add weight and bulk? Light sporty nimble efficient cars are effectively outlawed?

Does it come as a shock to anyone that myriads of safety regulations have (ostensibly) unintended consequences on efficiency?


They don't. There are a few examples that were shoved up my backside on another website showing the prototypes of some of the new cars, including that 1 person wide electric car (2 person deep) that looks to be rather small and clunky. It also goes quite fast and has the same steel roll-cage as a formula-1 racer (or some other similar standard).

The ONLY thing that can be placed to blame for additional length would be crumple zones, but those do not need to be huge so long as there is space for the impacted surfaces to compact.

Side bars are minimal when it comes to vehicular width.

As for efficiency, when they can make a car get over 300HP with mileages that are in the upper teens to low 20's, how is it that difficult to cut back the testosterone a bit and give us an extra 10/gallon?

My old '95 Mazda V6 gets 0-60 in a little over 6 at 168HP. It weighs about 2800lbs too! You would think that a little tweaking could get a few more of both HP and MPG (19/25, and I have gotten 28 on long hauls).

My question was simple. Why so much extra room? Are the customers that fat? Was this all for US markets?

Alonzo-ny
February 6th, 2009, 02:09 PM
http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/images/icons/icon5.gif

I thought I was showing the opposite. How many of today's cars are 140" long?


I dont know about that, Im just going on visual memory. Im sure the smaller fiats, renaults, citroens etc are the same size as the new mini. The new mini seems rather wide also.

ZippyTheChimp
February 6th, 2009, 02:26 PM
Light sporty nimble efficient cars are effectively outlawed?Although at odds with my nostalgic perception, any well engineered 4 door sedan made today will outperform all but the most expensive performance cars of the 60s.

ZippyTheChimp
February 6th, 2009, 02:45 PM
Im sure the smaller fiats, renaults, citroens etc are the same size as the new mini. The new mini seems rather wide also.I'm not sure what you're getting from my posts.

The Fiat 500 of the 1960s was about the same size as the Mini Cooper. The contemporary Fiat Nuova 500 is the same size as the BMW Mini. They are all considered very small cars for their eras.

As for width, look how both models have grown by the same proportion:

Fiat 500 52"..........Fiat Nuova 64"
Mini Cooper 55".....BMW Mini 66"


BTW, that BMW E90 was reason enough to say goodbye to Mr Bangle.

Alonzo-ny
February 6th, 2009, 02:48 PM
Gotcha now.

Fabrizio
February 6th, 2009, 03:42 PM
Ninja: automobile saftey standards add hundreds of pounds to a car, fortunately a lot of this has been offset with new materials and construction techniques... but cars would be much lighter today if safety standards were like they were in 1965.

--

ZippyTheChimp
February 6th, 2009, 04:25 PM
My old '95 Mazda V6 gets 0-60 in a little over 6 at 168HP. It weighs about 2800lbs too!MX-6/626, 2.5L V6?

No way.

Over 7 seconds, closer to 7.5 with an auto transmission.

Jasonik
February 6th, 2009, 07:38 PM
If I can street-legally defy death on a motorcycle, why not in an Areil Atom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Atom)?

It doesn't make any sense. :confused:

*edit*

Some Atoms have been registered (http://forum.atomclub.com/index.php/topic,3177.0.html) as "kit built" cars or whatever term individual states use to exempt regulations. For instance (http://www.andysatom.com/legal.html), California allows 500 per year and includes an emissions exemption.

ablarc
February 6th, 2009, 09:28 PM
The Fiat 500 of the 1960s was about the same size as the Mini Cooper. The contemporary Fiat Nuova 500 is the same size as the BMW Mini. They are all considered very small cars for their eras.

As for width, look how both models have grown by the same proportion:

Fiat 500 52"..........Fiat Nuova 64"
Mini Cooper 55".....BMW Mini 66"
http://66.230.220.70/images/post/mini/minis.jpg

The new mini is 144" (12'-0"); the old one was 120" (10-0"). The newer car is 20% longer and 20% wider. No wonder it weighs a whole lot more.

lofter1
February 6th, 2009, 09:29 PM
Really cute -- but my legs hurt just looking at them :o

kz1000ps
February 7th, 2009, 12:20 AM
Ninja: automobile saftey standards add hundreds of pounds to a car, fortunately a lot of this has been offset with new materials and construction techniques... but cars would be much lighter today if safety standards were like they were in 1965.

And the IIHS is thinking of proposing new standards* for stronger roof structures. Current regulations date back to 1973 (remember when "collonade" roofs suddenly made extinct all the two- and four-door hardtops?) and state that a roof must be able to support 1 1/2 times the car's weight, while the new standards would go up to 2 times the weight.

Of course this means cars will (literally) be even more bogged down by safety concerns than they already are. And automakers can't just add more regular steel to their existing frames because that would make the pillars thicker, creating bigger blind spots and thus creating another problem; instead, they'll have to use higher-grade (and more costly) steel.

So for the consumer: slightly safer, more costly, lower fuel efficiency.

* the IIHS isn't a regulating body, so they can only press the NHTSA to go along with their recommendations.

ZippyTheChimp
February 7th, 2009, 01:54 PM
The DS Cabrio

Built in limited quantity by carrossier Henri Chapron (http://www.citroenet.org.uk/passenger-cars/michelin/ds/chapron/chapron-01.html) in the 60s and early 70s. Less than 1500, maybe 150 in the US. I've never seen one in person. Perfect for the Pacific Coast Highway.

http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/525/dscabriorn5.jpg

http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/1751/dscabrioromeum9.jpg

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/7149/dscabriorome2mg1.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Citro%C3%ABn_DS_Cabrio.jpg

Fabrizio
February 7th, 2009, 02:43 PM
I have seen one at a sea resort here. Just beautiful. A friend of mine had a station wagon for a while.

-------------------

Below are some brochure images of the DS:


--
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v33/ronaldo/DS591213.jpg
-
In case you are wondering: it's a avant-garde dance interlude timed to the beat of the windshield wipers.
You can't tell from the photo, but we were freezing our asses off...

---


Below are DS color selections, shown with contrasting cocktail dresses and optional letch.
--
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v33/ronaldo/196031.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v33/ronaldo/196030.jpg

Jasonik
February 7th, 2009, 04:14 PM
What's that fellow on his knees up to?

Fabrizio
February 7th, 2009, 04:29 PM
He told us he was looking for his keys.

Ninjahedge
February 9th, 2009, 10:01 AM
MX-6/626, 2.5L V6?

No way.

Over 7 seconds, closer to 7.5 with an auto transmission.

Well, my bad. I am seeing 7.2 for a good stick driver, I may have swapped a number.