Talk:Citroën 2CV

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Designed by Ferdinand Porsche?[edit]

I thought that the Citroen 2 CV was designed by Ferdinand Porsche when he was captured by the French during World War II. And it was called "Porsche's Revenge". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Furjaw (talk • contribs) 19:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You thought erroneously, like Moses. Porsche designed the VW Beetle (Or rather, pinched it from Tatra). -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC Ferdinand Porsche worked on the Renault 4CV while imprisoned by the French, though he wasn't the main designer. Mr Larrington (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Highly unlikely any French engineer at the time would be capable of designing an automobile. Porsche was already being held against his will so it would be unlikely he would get any design credit as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.196.20 (talk) 05:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I remember in the 60s and 70s they were referred to as "Porsche's Revenge" in Europe so I'm willing to bet there's some truth behind that. -- Jens Zastrow 12.185.193.35 (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the Renault 4cv, it is very unlikely that Porsche would stray from his rear engine idea, besides the 2cv had already been underway since the early 1930s 2.104.71.150 (talk) 10:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Cigarette Roller" nickname?[edit]

I seem to recall my parents, who spent quite a bit of time in France in the '60s, often referred to this car as the "cigarette roller" because of its appearance. Can someone confirm that this was a common nickname for the vehicle? 71.199.122.99 (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My German uncles called it that in the ‘50’s. I used it just giggle.

When I was a young child in the early 60s, we lived in France as my father was assigned there with the U.S. Army. I remember all of the Americans there referred to the Citroen 2cv as a "Cigarette Roller"...I never heard a definitive reason why, but was told it was because of the rounded shape of the car. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichP8 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of the term 2CV is not deux chevaux![edit]

The CV seems to be a unit used to place french cars in different tax classes based on how the engine power relates to the polluting level. Puissance fiscale is the french name for this unit, and there is a description of the formula on this page http://www.lewebdesconducteurs.com/guide/technique/unites.htm

This knowledge comes from a webpage run by a norwegian enthusiast http://home.no.net/kjellts/2cvev/a/hvorfor-cv.shtml

Christian Dyrop

CV = Cheval Vapeur (Steam Horse) the expression was already old fashioned in the 40's everybody said Cheval or Cheval Fiscal. Ericd 07:57, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Misc comments[edit]

I removed : "The car had no door locks, no indicators (half-windows allowing hand signals), no electric starter, almost no instrumentation, one rear light, one stop lamp, and no heating. " That was true for the prototype not for the production car.

By the wording structure(since corrected by me) combined with the tecnical layout, it appears there is a possibility that this article is no more than a quick, careless, cut and paste job. I believe therefore, the question of copright has to be a real concern. Perhaps it should be looked at further.Olga Bityerkokoff

The article was largely written by Ericd - I'd put money on it not being copyrighted. There's no problem here. --Camembert
Just read the history of this article you will see it's not cut and paste.
Ericd 08:57 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

Could we get an explanation for the curious phrase "suicide doors"? -- Infrogmation 01:13 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

Do you mean you need one, or that they should be in the article, or they should be their own article? In short, they're doors that face "the wrong way", hinge at the rear, opening at the front. -- John Owens 01:19 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
The first two. If there's quite a bit of interesting information on them, perhaps the third as well :-) I still would like to know the reason for the name. Thanks, -- Infrogmation 01:25 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
I can help with that last, they're called that because even more so than doors that face "the right way", getting out while the car is in motion is suicidal, since the door smacks you around then. There might be enough out there for an article, though I think a better candidate than suicide doors might be List of automobiles with suicide doors (or "cars", once that's settled), since there isn't much to say about them themselves beyond the dictionary entry. -- John Owens 01:30 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
Don't start List of automobiles with suicide doors you will have to list nearly all the pre-1940 cars ;)
Ericd 08:57 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
Is it more that if you open them even a little while the car's in motion, it'll catch the wind and be violently flung open (or even off it's hinges), possibly taking you with it? Plus it allows for much speedier exiting by simply lunging forward out of the gap rather than deliberately stepping out sideways. It's a more convenient, but all round decidedly more dangerous alternative to the now-conventional front-hinged doors. When they made a comeback in the RX8, they were both smaller, and designed such that the rear suicide door (flap?) couldn't be opened until the front one was. 82.46.180.56 (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the reference to the Stout Scarab should be kept. 9 Scarab only were produced. Does it qualify the Scarab as a production car ? Ericd 15:41 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

Nope. Tannin

I remember of a 2CV destroyed by helicopters in "Apocalypse Now" who can confirm ? Ericd 16:07 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

I can confirm myself see http://www.magicsurfbus.com/surfmovies3.htm Ericd

I'm not completely sure how the mechanical wipers worked. I remembrer driving a 1953 2CV under the rain once in 1980. I know there was only one cable to fore the tachometer and the wipers but how did Citroën manage to make them move (even slowly) when the car was stopped ? Is it possible that they was an inertial system ? I haven't tested if they would stop after a sufficient time. Ericd 22:34, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

From ownership of 1954 2CV - the wipers had a handle that could be rotated back and forth by hand to wipe windows when stationary.

This is in the article. But I was not sure if the wipers stopped or only slowed when the car was stationary. Well they are connected with the tachometer to the gearbox and they stop. ~~

It would be nice if someone could put in some basic information about model year changes and what the various names mean" "Chalreston" Dolly" etc. I am trying to learn about these cars but cannot find this information. Thanks

2cv4![edit]

In this history part you are saying that 2cv4 was produced with 425cc engine. Thats not true! There was some 435cc engine in 2cv4. This 435cc engine is a black sheep from citroen. The torque is lousy and it takes fuel almoust as much as 602cc engine. 2cv4 was in production in years 1970-1975. Make a note: there was also model called dyane 4. Dyane 4 was fitted also with 435cc engine and producted in the same years as 2cv4. 2cv4 is unfamiliar everywhere exept in Finland. Finland has been some kind of garbage for these 2cv4´s. It´s sad that most of these citroen 2cv internet pages doesent tell anything about 435cc engines... But trust me, i´m building one 1968 dyane with 435cc engine at the moment. (Not original, but my Very Special :) )

From: Young citronist from Finland.

Silliness?[edit]

"Citroën never sold this engine in the 2CV, however some enthusiasts have converted their 2CVs to 652 engines,basically a wicked bo car." Is this sort of language allowed on Wiki? I didn't think colloquialisms were banned, or somesuch. Doesn't seem very proper to be honest.

I'm going to edit this out. Any protests?

Edit: Haha, looks like someone beat me to it! The page has been cleaned up since I posted this...

I wish it had been left, as that whole section is quite poorly written and unencyclopaedic as it is.
I would attempt a more neutral-language rewrite... again... but it'd only get undone by whoever wrote that bit who seems a bit zealous about keeping their text intact. 193.63.174.211 (talk) 12:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yagán[edit]

I think that the Yagán belongs more to the Citroën FAF article.Hektor 00:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First generation 2CV picture[edit]

The 2CV pictured was build after 1958 I'm quite certain of it. Ericd 10:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need help for picture[edit]

hey could someone check the picture on the page about the Sten gun. There is a picture about a french partisan with an american officer. We are trying to find what the car is. If anyone with an idea give me your opinion? Any help is thanked! paat 19:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This reply is pretty late in coming, but the curve of the hoodline and the location of the vent flap look like a Simca 8. Ejbrush (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC) [1][reply]

Advertisements[edit]

The advertising deserves a mention.

I remember a great advertisement for the 2CV (in the British magazine Car, in the late 1980s), with a specification sheet and a "No" against every feature - reconstruction here. (More 2CV ads at [here http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/3788/ads/adverts.htm 2CV Advertisements]

See also A comparison between the Citroën 2cv and its closest rival (the camel). (This page also has a tiny image of the ad mentioned above, and more Citroen ads can be seen by starting here and clicking Next at the bottom of each page.)

Hope that helps. I would love the edit the page myself, but my friend is threatening to book me in to the Betty Ford clinic's Wikiholics ward... --Singkong2005 13:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember another one also, with a housewife and her kids pictured in the car, and the copy was mainly about how it could save you bundles of money compared to any other 'new' car (and possibly various used cars/the bus?)... including how you wouldn't get speeding fines as it topped out at 69.5mph or thereabouts :) a similar sentiment to that in http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/5268/anuncis/tortuga.gif , and another ad seen on that site where it is compared to certain luxury vehicles (faster (maxed at 70mph) than a ferrari (cruising at 65), as many wheels as a rolls royce, more spacious than a 911)... hehe. I thought it was quite funny when I saw it in the late 80s/early 90s not long before it was discontinued, though I don't think I'd go for such a (almost dangerously) slow car nowadays having lived with one of 'normal' performance, and another that could 'only' do 85~90mph. The austerity is more bearable however, the difference between it and the second example would be wind-up windows, a radio and a 60% larger, water-cooled engine... 82.46.180.56 (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons with other cars[edit]

I've removed this edit:

While Citroën never replaced the 2CV, companies like Chrysler with the PT Cruiser, Toyota with the Scion xB, and Honda with the Element have recognized the roomy, utilitarian 2CV concept and translated it to the modern era.

I can't see very much in common between these cars and the 2CV. It would be interesting to make comparisons, though I think what it would actually do is highlight the fact that more recent car production has simply not aimed for quite the same goals, and certainly hasn't achieved them with anything like the same success or creativity. Look at fuel consumption - if I have my facts straight, only very expensive cars such as the Toyota Prius are better qualified to be called low-energy vehicles.

Anyway, excuse my rant. Perhaps there is something worth writing though, about comparisons with other cars (but of course more factual and NPOV than my rant). --Singkong2005 (t - c - WPID) 14:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly open to debate what a "modern" 2CV would look like. Most industrialised nations have safety regulations that effectively bar a four passenger 1,500 lb car with wafer thin body panels. Would you get many customers with 2 cylinder power and acceleration these days? Yet it's not impossible to highlight certain core elements of the design - like:

  • -inexpensive
  • -roomy 4/5 door
  • -utilitarian
  • -comfortable suspension
  • -economical to run
  • -somewhat useful offroad
  • -'in your face' design

Honda, Chrysler, and Toyota have each tried to incorporate some of these elements in modern, saleable cars. The missing link between the 2CV and the Chrysler PT Cruiser BTW has a name - it's the Chrysler CCV. 66.229.151.43 07:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me the main point here is not a generic "comparisons with other cars" but the fact that while the 2CV (and R4) were not replaced by their makers, consumers in the real world actually have a demonstrated interest in a car like the 2CV.66.77.124.62 21:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: a Modern 2CV - was interested just today to come across this reference to a concept car that borrows (to an extent) from the design - although I'll bet they tone it down by the time/ if it comes to market (this article is 18 months old) - http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/autoexpressnews/58059/legend_returns_as_2cv_is_reborn.html --Ndaisley 21:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably something like the Tata Nano? Or even the Dacia Logan, though that's quite a bigger step, in terms of style and intent. Both are cheap, utilitarian basic cars that aren't particularly hot performers but do get you there much faster than walking. 82.46.180.56 (talk) 19:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to the nickname of 2 CV in Former Yugoslavia[edit]

"In the former Yugoslavia the car was called "Spaček" (pronounced "spa-check," meaning--affectionately--"oddity" or "abberation.")."

I'd like to add that in some parts of Bosnia and Croatia, I'm not sure to what extent, 2CV was also called "žaba" or "žabac" (pronaunced as zhaba or zhabac)in literal translation - a female or a male frog, or affectionaelly 'a froggy car'.


Diesel 2 CV[edit]

Also, in the summer of '82-83, if i remember correctly, i was 17 -18 y.old, a friend of mine and I have instaled a one cylinder diesel engine from a small tractor "Tomo Vinković" made in Bjelovar, Croatia, in order to save big $$ on fuel. This tractor manufacturer had some conections with Italian "Lombardini" company.

File:Tomo vinkovic 523.jpg

However we ended up returning the old engine back due to the maximum speed being about as fast as a faster walking pace and 'cling-clang' very noisy sound of one cylinder diesel loud engine turning heads of people along the streets of Tuzla in Bosnia. The plan was to get to Adriatic Sea and back on about 20 liters of diesel fuel - due to the shortage funds in our teenage years.

61.68.231.134 06:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well... that's nice... but what is the relevance? :) 193.63.174.211 (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 2CV sold 9 million units?[edit]

I don't think so, unless you are being incredibly liberal with the truth.

The 2CV has as much in common with the Mehari, Dyane and Ami variants as the VW Beetle with the Type 2 Van/Bus, as the Renault 4 does with the Renault 5,6,7, and the the mark one Ford Fiesta does with every Fiesta from 1976 to 2001.

The 2CV sold 3.8 million units, to add all of the other models is to tell a lie

The 2CV is largely mechanically identical to its other variants - the entire chassis and running gear can be interchanged. That is not true of any of the other examples, even the VW Type 2 had chassis members added to the lengthened Beetle floor pan. In any case, the article states quite clearly what the total production of the 2CV itself was, and that the 9 million total was "spawned" by the 2CV design. Your comment about the variants having no body parts in common is also wrong, by the way - the AK van shares the front part of the 2CV body. -- Ian Dalziel 14:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that the AK van shares the front panel of the 2CV body, but I was not disputing the addition of that car. By the way, the VW Type 2's lenghthened floorpan hardly differentiates it more than the Citroen Ami from the 2CV - all mercedes models come in different wheelbase lengths, that does not make them different models.

Baint just lengthened - there are external chassis members which the Beetle doesn't have. I know about this - I've had to replace a few of them on my Bay. They tried the Beetle pan on the prototype and it wasn't strong enough. On the A series, AFAIK only the rear chassis extensions are different on the 2CV variants. -- Ian Dalziel 21:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the A-Series models, here's the total I get: 2CV sedan 3,872K 2CV camionette 1,246K Dyane 1,400K Acadiane 253K Ami 1,840K Mehari 144K FAF TBD TOTAL A-SERIES 8,755K 76.171.244.226 (talk) 17:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2CV competitive for 42 years?[edit]

"The 2CV was produced for 42 years, the model finally succumbing to customer demands for speed and safety, areas in which this ancient design had fallen significantly behind modern cars"

This implies that the 2CV was seriously considered alongside modern cars. I seriously doubt this, and think it is fanciful thinking by 2CV devotees. It is more likely that the 2CV bought for the fact that it was different, old and weird looking. It was definitely a niche car. 213.202.166.118 (21:45) 13 September 2006

The highest year of production was 1974 - there just aren't that enough whimscal niche buyers to make that possible. The 2CV occupied a special class of sub VW Beetle low price auto, and within that sector it's performance was competitive with similar priced vehicles, like Moskvitch, Skoda, and low spec Mini's. With the end of the bitter economic recession in Europe and economic progress in the late 1980's, this class of vehicle disappeared. Towards the mid-1980's, the 2CV did indeed develop more expensive variants to attract nostalgia buyers.76.168.255.29 06:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I remember the speed and safety were still not things massively playing on people's minds when it was phased out, as it could still put up a fight against a contemporary 750cc Panda in the city or cross-country (if not on the motorway), and NCAP had not yet been formed to wipe away similarly deadly machines like the Mini and the AX. The word at the time (in contemporary magazines I read) was more that they were unable to (economically?) make the ancient air-cooled and carburetted engine comply with emissions regulations despite its economy, a similar problem also doing for the Beetle in some markets, so they let it die in favour of heavier, larger engined, but overall less polluting machines from which they could make more profit. 82.46.180.56 (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Galvanized Steel 2CV (Poor Man's Delorean)[edit]

I encountered a fully galvanized steel 2CV while stationed in Germany during the early 1980's. I think I was traveling in France at the time, and did not have a camera to record the event. But I remember it vividly!

The perfect agricultural vehicle, I recall thinking at the time. Any information on this particular "option"?

ejdavid@operamail.com

Not sold by Citoën IMO. Ericd 20:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hot dupping was a thing in the seventies and eighties around Germany and Scandinavia. 2.104.71.150 (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
dipping..not dupping, my bad 2.104.71.150 (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

non-review[edit]

I removed this text - which contains no informational value about the car, only about the bizarre predjudices of an unrelated individual. "Jeremy Clarkson the british motoring journalist claims the 2CV is "one of the worst cars ever made" In the DVD "Heaven and Hell" he is quoted as saying - "..for a time this car was indeed bourght by French farmers, but then it became to company car of choice for the anti-nuclear veg-head mob who got it into their heads that it was kind to the enviroment - they couldn't have been more wrong!" Other quotes include: "it was incapable of going around any corner without falling to pieces," said as the driver's side door opened. "What did anyone see in it" "I've turned it off, and it's still killing the planet" said as the key was removed from the starter and the engine continued to tick over. "the engines going to be on forever," which, in fact, could be stopped by stalling it. The report on this car ended when a gravel skip with "CND" spray-painted on it was dropped on the car from 100 feet, flattening it." 76.168.253.242 08:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure[edit]

"The car would use no more than 3 litres of gasoline to travel 100 km"?? Are you sure about that fact? How can you know? Tomer T 20:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was in it the design requirements. But not sure it was met IMO this article is missing something important : the long evolution between the the original project and the last stock 2CVs. Ericd 20:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The design spec did call for 3l/100km, but I doubt if it would be attainable. Perhaps driving a 375cc version very gently might do it. I know that the 602cc Dyane was lucky to do better than 4l/100km.Gordonjcp (talk) 02:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could see a 375cc one, driven at the 50km/h design speed, achieving that figure. Very little aero drag because of the speed, skinny tyres and light weight so not much rolling resistance, boxer engine having quite high mechanical efficiency and the small displacement, relatively high (for the time) compression engine and "overdrive" gearing meaning it wouldn't use as much fuel at the moderate load needed to maintain the speed as a larger engine in a heavier car would at the same speed. Or at least, it'd manage 3.5L... 3.0 was probably a target. They ended up making something that went faster but was probably less efficient. But if we consider modern economy scooters that use 2.0L or sometimes quite a bit less when ridden at similar speeds... might not a car that's not THAT much heavier achieve better than half the economy? 193.63.174.211 (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TPV[edit]

What exactly is the connection between this project and the Citroen 2CV car? Tomer T 20:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? The 2CV was based on the TPV. That's a connection, surely? -- Ian Dalziel 20:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a connection, but it's not understandable enough through the text or not emphasized enough in it. It should be fixed. Tomer T 13:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up of External links[edit]

This article was tagged with the Clean-Up Spam Tag. As part of WP:WPSPAM I have cleaned up the external links section. My decisions were based on the guidelines found on WP:WPSPAM and WP:EL.

Why did you removed Jeroen Cats page? It has been the 2cv reference pages for a lot of people since the early 90s!!!!!!! 85.136.34.153 08:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The late Jeroen Cats actually had an extensive collection of classic Citroëns. The link to his website is definitely positively contributing. Likewise the link to the difflock.com article on the 2CV Sahara. Gordonjcp (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Jeroen Cats site seems to have been discontinued. I tried to link to an archived version of the pages - archive.is/www.cats-citroen.net - but it is blacklisted. Can anyone sort this out? 87.113.207.205 (talk) 00:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish nickname[edit]

In Spanish-speaking countries they were nicknamed "patito feo" ("Ugly 
duckling"), "citrola" or "citroneta" (derived from "Citroën").

I've never heard those nicknames, citrola and citroneta seem italian instead
, the only nickname known in spain is "dos caballos" the spanish
for two horses refering to CV that is the spanish for HP.IRU 14:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit by Alan Guilenea: In Argentina we call this car "La Rana" (The Frog) or "Citroneta" for the version wihouth back seats. In chile they call the car: "Citrola".

"Cuatro Latas" is the nickname in Spain for the Renault 4, not the 2cv. 85.136.34.153 08:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clutch Quirk[edit]

In the mid-1960's my cousin in Hawaii had a 2CV that was inoperative. In a two-day attempt to start it, I found that it had both a conventional foot-actuated clutch AND a centrifugal clutch (IIRC). The latter precluded push-starting, and the effort at resurrection was soon abandoned.LorenzoB 01:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This quirk is shared by the Dyane and Ami, and possibly others. Does anyone know whether it's on the early model 2CVs? The Dyane and Ami came with a starting handle doubling as a wheel brace. --King Hildebrand 17:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the next one who will try to start a 2CV by pushing. Use the crank until late in the sixties most French car could be started by the same crank that was used to change a wheel. The small 2CV engine is very easy to start with the crank I remember a friend of mine using his 2CV is every day during several weeks with a broken electric starter. 62.212.105.216 Ericd 20:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Citroën GSA, made until around 1986, had a fitting for a starting handle. I used one a couple of years ago in the very severe winter of 2004 - while nearly every other car in the street refused to start, I could get the GSA up and running in about a minute using the handle.Gordonjcp (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a hunch this could still be used on a variety of modern cars in extreme circumstance, but you would need a racheting torque wrench (for safety - you could use a plain breaker bar but it might snap your wrist, as well as potentially flying off into the air at speed) with a long extension on it, and to remove the right-hand side front wheel. This has been the way I've had to gain access to the accessory belt pulley in order to remove it so I could change the cambelt (though it's typically held on with a number of smaller bolts rather than the main central crankshaft bolt), and in both cases (different cars from different manufacturers) the bodywork was either shaped such to allow access to this part of the engine from within the wheel well, or had a small cutout just large enough to accomodate a socket wrench extension to undo the main bolt or the smaller ones one at a time. This was a useful access to manually turn the engine over also, whilst the pulley was still in place (becoming accessible from the engine bay itself once the pulley was off), and as both engines would, once sufficiently primed from either having run within the last few minutes, or a few non-firing turn-overs, happily start from a single half-turn "bump" provided by the vehicle's motion, it's conceivable the same effect could be achieved by hand. Never had the opportunity to try it, however! I imagine it may take somewhat more effort to get a typical modern hatchback going than hand-starting a 2CV (higher compression and cylinder volume, larger mass, more cylinders), but the extra length of the torque wrench should help, and it could be feasible if it was given a good yank. The thing turns quite nicely with the head off, for certain, so it would only be compression creating trouble. Mind you, it would have to be particularly extreme circumstances, such as being trapped with a jack and comprehensive toolkit, but a half-flat battery at the bottom of a hill with no-one else around :) 82.46.180.56 (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Design[edit]

I've just read that the car was based upon an original design by Le Corbusier; "Le Corbusier se lance lui-meme dans l'étude d'une voiture populaire. Andre Citroen copiera ce prototype pour donner naissance a la celebre 2CV". (de l'aventure Automobile; Serge Bellu). In other words, Le Corbusier had a try and Citroen based the 2CV on his design. Assuming this is true, should it not be in the article? (I'd put it in myself but I don't know much about the car and so I think other editors would be better placed to put this in). Marcus22 18:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide Doors[edit]

Article doesn't seem to mention when the switch from suicide doors to regular doors was made. I believe it was the 1965 model year, but the 2CV featured in a 1968 episode of Get Smart had suicide doors.76.168.255.29 08:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 2CV goes to war[edit]

I have the evidence of an anecdote from an ex-Royal Navy engineer, that a small number of Citroen 2CVs were taken to the Falklands in 1982 with a view to using them as transport. The theory was apparently, that they would be able to go places that Land Rovers could not, across the scrubby peat bogs on the islands, because they were so light.

The guy concerned was not able to tell me whether the cars were actually put to use, nor do I have any other witnesses to this. Can anyone confirm or deny this tale? --Ndaisley (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard about that. I think I do remember reading about a member of the Fortress Falklands force who kept a 2CV there - could that be the origin of the story? -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there were some Argentine Spec A series (Acadiane variant maybe rings a bell) brought over by the Argentinians during the conflict, as they were already used as military vehicles in the Argentinian Army at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.54.144.229 (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Royal Navy use of 2cv. In the 90s there was an article in the 2CVGB club magazine about the use of 2CV pickups in the 1950s aboard an RN helicopter carrier. The helicopters had limited payload and the only vehicle they could use minus detachable panels for lifting was the 2CV pickup. I remember they said that they were used in Malaya, by the Royal Marine Commandos. They were scrapped by being dumped in the Indian Ocean, after the helicopters were upgraded and lightweight land-rovers were developed.

Also, shouldn't the van section be expanded? Was the 2cv van the first car based van with the large box body on the back? Or was it the Morris Minor or something else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.119.112.144 (talk) 12:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Citroën Bijou.jpg[edit]

Image:Citroën Bijou.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Use of Magnesium[edit]

Can anyone verify that at least one of the early prototypes was built with magnesium swing arms, and was destroyed in a fire?

Nick 3216 (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing unsourced information[edit]

As the template:refimprove has been on the article page for over a year, I think it's time someone removed all information presented without a reference. It's really stupid but must be done to comply with Verifiability policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.53.181 (talk) 09:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Screw the policy. If it is followed there would be hardly anything left of the article. If that policy is implemented then bogus book references could appear by people wanting to stop that happening. How would all those get checked? When the article is mature and stops expanding the references will be done. Why don't you go and do something useful - like go and find some references instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.119.112.102 (talk) 02:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Bashing[edit]

Is it really relevant to speak ill of the suspension of American cars when discussing the 2CV suspension? User: Trifoot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.13.129.188 (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very few cars roll as much as a 2CV. It is usually a sign of the ride/handling compromise being very strongly in favour of ride. This was usual in the US, along with the continued use of a live rear beam axle and leaf/cart spring suspension. This affects roadholding over twisting roads that are more prevalent in Europe. This is why generally, Europeans prefer the compromise biased to handling. The 2CV suspension and French suspension generally, does a good job of delivering both. That is what is unusual and noteworthy. 85.119.112.163 (talk) 12:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2CV in Films[edit]

Wasn't the 2CV also in the 1998 film Madeline? I remember seeing the car in a number of scenes. For example, when Miss Clavel drives after the circus truck to save Pepito and Madeline, you can clearly see the model. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.137.134 (talk) 05:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be shocked and amazed if a film set in mid-20th-century France wouldn't have a 2CV in it somewhere... 193.63.174.211 (talk) 13:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

pictures[edit]

Does this page need so much pictures that it has now? --Typ932 T·C 17:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree there are too many pictures. After I removed some excessive galleries, the article currently has 60 images. I think it would be better to reduce this by around a half. --John (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of film appearances[edit]

I removed this from the article: the list is in French and is unverified. Without third-party verification to establish truth and notability, this is pure listcruft. Drmies (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Film appearances[edit]

I cannot understand why this was removed (unless we don't trust anything said by the French, of course, which I would entirely understand). I would have thought most of this was very easy to check and all of it should be returned to the article as being important material that's almost certainly correct. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WPACT may help you to understand. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The guidance there helps me understand the principle of writing articles, however, that is not why the listing above was removed. Furthermore, the 2CV is iconic and has likely been used in that capacity many times. It deserves at least some coverage, and likely far more than yer average 5-door hatchback. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline that has been widely accepted for automotive subjects is that mention of pop-culture references should be strictly limited to cases where the fact of that reference influenced the sales, design or other tangible aspect of the vehicle. It is not sufficient to note that the vehicle had a major influence on its owner or some movie or TV show—such facts belong in the article about the owner, movie or TV show. - WP:WPACT

This may not be the reason why the list was taken out, but it is the reason why it should not be put back. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 01:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wheelsage.org/simca/8/53584/pictures/
  2. ^ "Citroën 2CV 6 Club in "For Your Eyes Only, 1981"". IMCDb.org. Retrieved 2010-04-30.

Wasted spark first used by Citroen on the 2CV?[edit]

Are we to understand that the wasted spark system was invented by Citroen and first used on the 2CV? It sounds eminently possible, but it would be nice to have a reference before we add it to the article. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am in full agreement with this. Superlative claims need references.Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Big Twins discard their distributor and adopt waste spark ignition in 1927." – Doug Mitchel, Harley-Davidson Chronicle, p. 64, 1997, Publications International, ISBN 0-7853-2514-X
This pretty much disproves that idea. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 23:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Units[edit]

I will change the distances to km (with mi between brackets) and the speeds to km/h. This is the international system and also the system used in France. Nico (talk) 11:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think its consistent now:
  • mass in kg (lb)
  • distance in km (mi)
  • speed in km/h (mph)
  • engine volumes in cc
  • engine power in hp (kW)

Nico (talk) 12:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is still not consistent. Someone used bhp (I suppose it is British horse power as brake horse power does not make sense here), somebody knows how to change to hp? Nico (talk) 12:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BHP, as in brake horsepower, is the usual method of measuring engine power at the crank, and even if no-one from the RAC or wherever put a 2CV on a rolling road, or an engine and hooked it up to a suitable dynamometer there are standards for converting it at least approximately into and from PS (pferdstarke) and the like as used on the continent... 193.63.174.211 (talk) 13:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Citroen FAF.jpg[edit]

The image File:Citroen FAF.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Production[edit]

Do these two statements conflict?

Production was increased from four units per day in 1949 to 400 units per day in 1950.

In 1951 production reached over 100 cars a week.[6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.151.13.8 (talk) 13:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears so, maybe it was 4 units, 40 units, then 100?
I'll have a look at what the references say anyway, thanks for pointing it out Jenova20 16:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Jenova20 17:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External Links and Linkspamming[edit]

Removed about 10 sites that were just blatantly advertising their forums/sites or services.
All we have now are a french 2CV museum and another site giving detailled information that would be beneficial to include in the article if it wasn't already huge.
Please read the rules on external links before advertising in the article to see if a site is worth adding.
Thanks Jenova20 16:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous length[edit]

At 8,000 words, and with 83 photos, this article is overlong, overly detailed and excessively illustrated (the entry on the VW Beetle, the most popular car ever built, contains 26 photos). Apparently, those who assembled it suffer from an intense fascination with the Deux Chevaux, which certainly will not be shared by the average encyclopedia user. An interesting and charming microcar, but not worth nearly so much froth. The French Wiki article, for comparison, comprises about 4,500 words.

Sca (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are complaining that an encyclopedia entry is overly encyclopedic? If users do not wish to read all the detail then they don't have to, they can choose what to read or not to read. They could just read the introduction for example. If they were really averse to detail they could go and read the Simple English 2CV article. If the detail were to be deleted then those who are interested won't have access to it. Perhaps the articles that you compare to are less encyclopedic than this one, and you should go and make them more encyclopedic?

Merriam-Webster Definition of ENCYCLOPEDIC (adjective)

of, relating to, or suggestive of an encyclopedia or its methods of treating or covering a subject : comprehensive

Oxford Dictionary encyclopedic (also encyclopaedic) Definition of encyclopedic: adjective

comprehensive in terms of information: Example: he has an almost encyclopedic knowledge of food

87.114.100.86 (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emile Leray[edit]

Isn't anybody going to mention Emile Leray and his ad hoc motorcycle built from a 2CV? Heyzeuss (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Ian Dalziel (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links at an encyclopaedia[edit]

I have removed the following list of links from the article. They simply do not follow the prescriptions at Wikipedia:External links. This is an encyclopaedia, not a directory listing. Please reinsert only those that align with the guidance. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] 

*[http://www.2cvclub.gr/ The Greek 2CV Club]
*[http://www.2cvforum.gr/ Pour Bavarder de notre 2CV...L' amour toujours]
*[http://www.my2cv.gr/ The ultimate 2CV and other historic Citroen corner]
*[http://www.2cvgb.org.uk Deux Chevaux Club of Great Britain (2CVGB)]
*[http://www.2cv.de 2CV Restoring Germany]
*[http://www.2cvracing.co.uk The Classic 2CV Racing Club]
*[http://www.2CVTV.com 2CVTV 2CV news and lifestyle website]
*[http://www.2cv-legende.com 2cv-legende], major French website
*[http://2cvdirectory.com 2CV directory], portal to everything 2CV: websites, articles, stories, contacts and more
*[http://www.cats-citroen.net/home.html Cats Citroen Net 2CV], history, Buyer's/Owners's Guides, Restoration, Modifying, Codes/Serial Numbers, Reference, Photos
*[http://www.greaternycitroenvelosolexclub.com Greater New York Citroen Velosolex Touring Club]
*[http://www.citroenet.org.uk/passenger-cars/michelin/2cv/2cv-index.html Citroën A Series Index Page] Citroënet 2CV enthusiasts site.
*[http://www.garage2cv.de garage2cv], Citroën A Series Webzine (Germany)
*[http://www.lottiethe2cv.co.uk Lottie the 2CV]
*[http://www.musee-2cv.com Musee-2CV], the only museum dedicated to the 2CV (France)
*[http://www.studioru.co.uk Studioru], 2CV travel, stories and video
*[http://www.en-2cv.host.seree.fr Fix your 2cv], fix your 2cv

Colours by year?[edit]

Anyone got any info, or can confirm/refute the idea that there was only one body colour - i.e with production of the 2CV6 - used each year?92.41.113.223 (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Main photo too dark[edit]

On my computer, the main photo looks dark and shadowy. This cannot be the best photo anyone in the whole wikiworld has of a 2CV. PLawrence99cx (talk) 07:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Citroën 2CV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Citroën 2CV. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a trim[edit]

To be a proper article, this would need a trim. We need fewer fan-sourced factoids, fewer photos, and less fancruft in general. At the moment it violates several of our policies. Are any regular editors willing to take this on? --John (talk) 18:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • If nobody minds, I will take a hack at this over the next days. Fewer unsourced opinions, and fewer photos. --John (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've started on this. The Volkswagen Beetle article manages with 24 images. Something similar here would seem reasonable I think. --John (talk) 10:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see an anonymous editor undid my changes and accused me of vandalism. Anonymous editor, please bring your arguments here and read WP:NOTVAND while you're at it. --John (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What you are doing is massive vandalism. I will revert it. If you bothered to check you will see that not everything you did was reverted. Although I never bothered to register, I actually wrote most of this article over the years along with several other articles. The fan stuff like nicknames etc has accumulated and been removed several times over the years and placed here to see what others thought about it. I refer you to the dictionary definitions of 'encyclopaedic' on this talk page - 'trimming' is not what you are doing. If you can't make positive contributions I respectfully suggest that you bugger off. 91.125.58.115 (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are worried that I am a vandal, please feel free to report me at WP:AIV. Meantime, do you have anything to say to my arguments from 12 July? --John (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously a lot of the pictures can be removed, but your pruning seems excessive. Maybe move a bit more slowly, and consider using tags instead of simply deleting material wholesale. Why are you removing the model chronology, for instance?  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V, WP:NOT. As regards moving slowly, I see discussion in this talk going back years on this point. This current conversation has been running for six weeks. Anything that cannot be verified in that sort of timescale definitely has to be removed. We could stand a few more pictures, but compare the Volkswagen Beetle article. Round about that number of pictures is ok. --John (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You've deleted statements such as "The final two years of 2CV production took place in Mangualde, Portugal, before production formally ended in 1990" and a list of special models (with at least one citation). You also deleted some images of the Citroneta (why?). I agree that fewer images are needed, but much of your deletions are completely out of order. You seem to consider any sentence without a citation fair game - why? Things such as the quote about Mangalde production, why was that deleted? Why the model chronology?  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most of your deletions are not of disputed statements. The majority seems to be of things you may doubt (and I agree on much of it), but cn tags is really the way to go. Also, sometimes it can be hard to tell to what an old tag refers: just a sentence? An entire section? You seem to be of the opinion to delete anything within three paragraphs of a tag, whether justified or not. As for "Chronology of the development of models during production", why must it be deleted? There are some references in there (I added them myself a few years ago). Do you feel that it is the table format that is a problem? If so, say, don't just delete it. I am adding more references in an ongoing manner, please stop deleting them.
As for the Beetle - no, I don't agree that we must have a certain number. But I do agree that there were waaaaaayy too many images before and have pruned it by about half in the current version. But models such as the IES and the Citroneta are interesting, and it is useful to show the early watercooled engine and so on. There are also more styles of the 2CV to take into account, from the Fourgonnette to the two-engined Sahara to the Bijou and the Radar and all of the Chilean and Argentinian derivatives. Mr.choppers | ✎  02:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's consider that we've already been through the tagging stage and this is the bit where we take out the unreferenced fancruft and excessive pictures. There are loads of cheap and free web hosts if you want to have a collection of anecdotes and images. Here on Wikipedia everything needs to be referenced. Feel free to put back anything you can validate with a decent source. Not the pictures though please. --John (talk) 06:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, not everything needs a cite, see WP:OVERCITE. And most of the stuff you are attempting to remove never had any tags (you will notice that my version incorporates a lot of your opinions). You also deleted several sources, and what you consider cruft is seemingly your opinion. Please respond to the issues I have raised instead of just deleting things willy-nilly. And, for the fiftieth time, see WP:BRD. Someone else already tried to revert your hamfisted efforts at a cleanup, so clearly a discussion is in order. Again: Bold, Revert, Discuss. You already ignored one reversion (by the ip above) and then have entered into an edit war with me.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You urgently need to read WP:V, which is an important policy you are clearly unaware of. Let me know when you have done so. --John (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am only restoring content deleted in error by yourself (not the same as adding). You deleted a huge amount of material, but I am going through most of it precisely in the interest of verifiability. Almost none of the stuff you deleted was ever tagged as problematic. If something is verifiable and someone contests it, then it may be deleted if no source can be found. Please don't take that as an invitation to add cn tags to every single sentence. I have already added several sources, and deleted several portions that we both find problematic. I have added sources for things you deleted. But most importantly, you have now been reverted by three separate users - I suggest you engage and perhaps start collaborating instead. I welcome more eyes.  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm. I know you think you are editing well. Here's a question for you; what is the source for this statement, which you restored? Should be easy, right?

The most famous design brief requirement was that the envisaged smallholder-customer be able to drive eggs across a freshly ploughed field without breaking them.

--John (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I will give my opinion, if it's useful:
John, I share your concerns about the article. In my opinion, it has more than a fair share of unsourced/poorly sourced content. However, other editors said they were unware of the discussion, so I propose a 2-week extra period for letting the users find sources. Then, we can return to the discussion and decide if more trimming is needed or that's not the case.
Mr.choppers, My interest in the 2CV is nearly zero, and I understand you want to preserve information, but, as far as I know, some things need badly to be referenced. For example, this sentence you reinstated:
"This was in response to the direct competition by the Renault 4, that had used so many design ideas taken from the 2CV and Traction Avant that Citroën contemplated legal action at the time of its launch."
I know the Renault 4 was probably not the greatest car ever, but the text has a serious accusation, implying it is a mere copy of the 2CV, the Traction Avant, or both (in fact, various sentences highlight the ineptitude of Renault engineers, but this is especially serious). That needs a reference. To be honest, I don't think they are identical/too much similar cars at all (although the front-wheel-drive layout is clearly a response to the 2CV and other cars of the time, not only French ones), but if a reliable source to back that up is found (a good one), I have no problem in mentioning it.
In brief, my suggestion is returning the text to the previous status quo, but all the statements likely to be challenged (like those flattering Citroën engineers and mocking rivals) needs to have a reliable source as soon as posible. --Urbanoc (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree wholeheartedly with Urbanoc. I haven't had the time to go through all statements (and that one could be deleted right away, I reckon). As for the egg-breaking, it is a well known and oft quoted (and often misquoted) statement. I figured a BBC source should be enough to leave the statement for now, as it sums up the car's intended user/usage pretty well. I reinstated everything, so that we could then whittle it down and massage it into a good article. If it takes a couple of weeks, then no big deal.  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand then why you reverted if you knew you were restoring incorrect and unreferenced information. Weird. If you feel like you need a further two weeks to find sources, you may have them. The article has been full of this crap for years, and it will do no harm in most cases to restore it for a short while if this is important to you, though again I do not understand why it should be important to add poor material to a Wikipedia article. I would prefer that we do not misquote any of the few proper sources we do have, as I corrected here, that we not perpetuate copyvios, as I corrected here, and that we try, within the limits of our competence, not to introduce any libellous or slanderous statements into the article (this is not hypothetical; some of the garbage I removed was pushing towards that, as noted by Urbanoc above). See you on the 6 September. --John (talk) 21:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, I was concerned with the amount of unsourced shit that I saw in this article before John got his hands on it. I think he's done a good job in cutting the crap out and fully support his reversions. CassiantoTalk 08:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look through this revert and I've got the following comments:

  • The article in its current state (before John's work) is 55K of prose. That's pretty much on the upper limit of what a typical casual reader can take in during one sitting (see WP:LENGTH). Unless the article has a wide range of viewpoints or audience that mean the article cannot be any shorter than that, a trim is going to be, all else things being equal, a good idea.
  • In terms of sources, you just can't beat a good book. A book written by a subject expert that has received a positive critical reception will have already done the hard job of distilling down the relevant facts for the article; although the author might have a POV (which is sometimes required to sell the book in the first place!) you can usually identify facts from opinion if you're careful enough. With 2 good books, you can turn a start class article into a GA in a matter of days if you understand the subject material. The easiest way to find a good book source is to go onto Amazon and find something that is dedicated to the topic and has a number of good reviews. In this case, I can see Citroen 2CV: The Complete Story by Matt White. Why can't we use that?
  • It's best to think about who is going to read the article? Diehard 2CV fans are probably be going to found wanting if they read a good article (not to be confused with a good article) here; those who recall the 2CV being satirised by Jasper Carrott are going to be annoyed by the neutrality. I would say the article needs to be pitched at a typical adult who knows what a 2CV is but nothing else. Start with the simple, factual stuff, then go into detail the further you go down the article. If highly technical information is worth putting it in, keep it near the bottom.
  • "The 2CV belongs to a short list of vehicles introduced in the middle of the 20th century that remained relevant and competitive for many decades, such as the Jeep, Land Rover Series, Fiat 500, Mini and Volkswagen Beetle." just seems to be opinion. "relevant and competitive" compared to what? I think it's better to stick to the facts in this instance.
  • Some of the language is a bit hyperbolic eg : "The 2CV actually outlasted the Visa", "Paradoxically according to Citroën", "These design features made the 2CV engine highly reliable" It's always a good idea to neutralize language like that if you can
  • The "Special edition saloon models" section is probably salvageable, at least partially. In general, if you come across a large corpus of unsourced or poorly sourced content and you can't find any obvious sources for it, it can be a better idea to move the text in question to the talk page with a note that you've parked it there while you can work out what to do with it. It's possible you may need to rewrite the text from scratch, using proper sources, but at least if you can cross-reference what was there, you get a chance. It has the nice side effect of not winding people up as much.
  • The "Features of the 1948 2CV" looks like a marketing brochure. This is why it can be better to represent list as prose. As well as being an easier flow for the reader, it forces you to think about the content in the list, and wonder if you need to actually represent all of it in the first place.
  • The "Models" section looks too much like the back of a book about the 2CV. Again, this is a case where reducing a list to prose might work
  • The galleries should be trimmed down, and images restricted to the best we can find that are highly appropriate to the prose they appear next to. We have a good place for 2CV galleries - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Citro%C3%ABn_2CV - please take your pictures there.
  • I am once again disappointed that highly experienced editors who can improve an article to FA status in less time than it takes me to have breakfast have started name calling and referring to the content as "crap" (and I realise people will read this and call me a hypocrite but I thought the observation was worth making anyway). The minute you make it personal, everyone forgets about what content they were debating, which flies out of the window, and starts arguing about civil everyone isn't. So why do it? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ritchie for your diligent review. You have identified a lot of the same problems that I have. The frustrating thing is that there could be a decent article made out of what we have, once all the unsourced and partisan material is removed, and the galleries trimmed down. Once the protection expires I intend to continue tagging material which is unsourced and needs references. There is a lot. After 6 September we can look at what we have and start pruning again. --John (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, like a lot of things on Wikipedia, it has become personal. Perhaps if everyone left it alone for a week (including the talk page) and came back with a fresh attitude, then it could get fixed. It needs something, but it won't get anything constructive when it's a warzone. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not personal. I have not engaged in any name calling, only requested that John listen to other editors and slow down a bit. I requested a stable version that we could work from and instead I was met with rudeness and a refusal to communicate. I absolutely agree that this page was a long standing mess - all I am saying is that the way to clean it up is slowly and steadily, instead of just deleting wildly. Baby, bathwater, and all that. This process works well. You will all notice that my reversions have always been followed by further pruning. As for the 2CV outlasting the Visa - it is pretty remarkable, as it had already outlasted its other projected successor the Dyane (as well as the parenthetical LN). As for the "short list of relevant and competitive", I think some version of it is a worthwhile statement, perhaps for the introductory paragraph. Like the other few cars mentioned, the 2CV sold in mass market numbers for over forty years. I don't know what shape this statement should take, but I am sure it won't be hard to find sources.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely fine with me. If this process needs to take two months to resolve, then so be it. Anything that has been reliably referenced by 6 September and conforms to WP:NPOV and our other policies will be welcome to remain. At that time I think we should also think about which pictures are essential to retain to illustrate the article. Such images should be those which help illuminate the subject for general readers, and avoid trying to be a comprehensive record of every single variant of the vehicle. --John (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this sort of gratuitous attempt to impose an arbitrary deadline is really helpful in a collaborative project, which I think is what wikipedia is meant to be. The bad news is that the 2CV entry will never be finished, and - all credit to the remarkable car - plenty of well intentioned and well informed contributors will, at a detailed level, have opinions that are (1) strong and (2) sometimes mutually exculsive on how to make it better. In the more immediate term, the good news is that there appear to be several experienced and knowledgable contributors as keen as you are (1) to get the thing much more properly sourced and (2) to remove the more screamingly "unencyclopedic" stuff. But it's more satisfying - and you get a bettter outcome - if you do it collaboratively. We are meant to be producing this thing for readers - quite a wide range of them, as it happens - and not, at least in the first nor even the second instance, for ourselves as contributors. Success Charles01 (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Charles01, I think you're attacking my posture when criticising the proposed "deadline". You're free to dissent and consider it a bad idea, but I'll have to respond to that. I proposed that as a sort of a compromising solution as two clearly different visions of how tackle the issues with this article conflicted. And maybe you agree with me, even if 2CV is a "remarkable car" the more bold/vanity stuff can't be kept without a source forever (even if true), and many of it has been unsourced for years. The "two weeks" sort of limit was to let other users show that there's willingness to try addressing the article issues now, not at a distant future, but obviously we can discuss if anything unsourced should be deleted after that timeframe. WP:V is a valid guideline and, at least in the English Wikipedia, is superior to how well informed any of us could be, and I don't say the article can't evolve, but adding new information with good sources (especially when overly positive or negative) should be made a priority from now on. --Urbanoc (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Urbanoc
  • I don't really have any opinions to offer on the subject of posture.
  • On deadlines, the issue is what people do with them. I can see what you were doing with this one and I hope it is working. "Time to stop and think" is good, but I guess .... well, I hope the thinking in question will be positive and constructive, but now I'm writing in cliches which might or might not be helpful. But as cliches go, I guess "positive and constructive" is not such a bad thing. On "let's do it now rather than waiting another five years", no one argues with you. It is precisely the frustration over how the thing has drifted to its present condition that stirs the people who care. And that includes almost everyone who has jumped in on the dicussion, I think.
  • I do not think deadlines are at the heart of what has gone wrong here, but nor do I think that, taken in isolation, they'll do too much of the "heavy lifting".
  • It is not easy to take 100 little steps, discuss each one, and produce a consensual outcome. But it is the only approach that is going to achieve something that will stick, and precisely because several people - you appear to be one of them - have the knowledge and patience to get the thing right, that the outcome can be something a whole lot better than what we have - taking care to preserve what is valuable while discarding the crud. And in 90% of the little detailed items, I think you should have little difficulty in achieving consensus over which are which. But as Joschka Fischer pointed out in another context, "You have to make your case".
  • Do I agree with you that the 2CV is a remarkable car? Well ... yes. That's precisely why we care. I agree with almost all of what you write (and don't strongly disagree with any of it). Of course WP:V is a valid guideline, and Mr Choppers spelled out very clearly the way in which the application of it is necessarily open to interpretation. a source note for every adjective? for every clause? for every sentence? for everything that is not a statement of the blindingly obvious? for every fat paragraph? They're all valid and they're all open to interpretation. A reasonable blend of intelligence and goodwill should do the job. Or? And then there are all the other wiki guidelines. Taken together they could stop you ever getting out of bed in the morning. That's where the intelligence and goodwill come in, because I'm ready for breakfast. Sorry ... with me it usually comes back to food, but that's a personal thing.
Success Charles01 (talk) 05:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that Charles01 has a point when saying it's better move on and start to improve the article right away.

I haven't a lot of knowledge on Citroen history as CharlesO1 and Mr.choppers, and to be honest I don't like that much oldies (except heavy vehicles), so I think my position is different to them, and things I can find dubious would probably do the same on the average reader.

I added citation needed tags at the article, and I'll explain why. Also, I made some changes which I consider uncontroversial. I let outside technical aspects that the editors more competent on oldies should be able to source in miliseconds, so I don't think they are priority:

"Citroën introduced the 2CV Fourgonnette van. The "Weekend" version of the van had collapsible, removable rear seating and rear side windows, enabling a tradesman to use it as a family vehicle at the weekend as well as for business in the week. It pioneered the use of a large box rear section, as later used by the Morris Minor, Renault 4 F6 panel van, and numerous others. In the 1990s General Motors Vauxhall/Opel and Ford launched similar vans while the later Citroën Berlingo and Renault Kangoo people carriers further developed the dual use vehicle".: Here are a lot of bold statements in a few sentences. They are a) Citroën invented the panel van and the modern estate design in general b) Citroen invented the "dual use vehicle" c) Morris, Ford, Renault and General Motors created models based on the 2CV. While a little overblown, I think at least part of these statements can actually be sourced, it could take at most 20/30 minutes to any editor to find a sutitable source if they know where look.
"The 2CV suspension and vehicle dynamics was assessed by Alec Issigonis and Alex Moulton in the mid-1950s (according to an interview by Moulton with CAR magazine in the late 1990s); this inspired them to design the Hydrolastic suspension system for the Mini and Austin 1100, to try to keep the benefits of the 2CV system but with added roll stiffness in a simplified design".: I think things like this, where third parties are mentioned, need good sources from day one. Having said that, it's probably true and editors with expertise on the matter will find a source in seconds, maybe the actual Car article... NOTE: I was maybe too optimistic with this, because, after research, I found that the most probable source for the current text it's a version of the fansite citroenet.org.uk that was later taken by other blogs and fansites (like http://www.motor-car.co.uk/bmc/item/11565-mg-1000-1300) and also by Wikipedia. More contemporary articles (for example http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/features/car-culture/never-say-die-car-magazine-april-1978/) say nothing about that, which neither proves nor disproves the plausibility of the statement. So, a valid source for this is (perhaps) out there, but it may be tricky finding it.
"In 1985, Citroën drew up plans with the Escorts Group to manufacture the 2CV in India for the rural market, as well as spare parts for export. However, the Indian government rejected this scheme as it would have resulted in competition for Maruti in which they held a stake": It especulates on things that could have been. We really need an unsourced statement like that? I think unsourced and serious accusations implying third parties are a no-no. This should be a priority.
"Front-wheel drive made the car easy and safe to drive": Says who? That's a dangerous generalisation. It depends, and are advantages and disadvantages on both designs, but I'd say the best rear-wheel drive cars have a better handling that front-drive ones. Reading the following sentences, I suppose it wants to imply that it was better to drive that contemporary rivals with rear-wheel drive layout thanks to the previous experience with the Traction Avant, but I still think it's dubious and needs a source (and some rewritte, perhaps?).
"The design of the 1989 Nissan S-Cargo (a play on the word "Escargot") was directly inspired by the appearance of the French Citroën 2CV Fourgonnette or small truck/delivery van, even including the single-spoke steering wheel. The 2CV was relatively popular in Japan at this time".: All the "continued popularity" section is a trainwreck. It had only one source until I added another (and it was really a fake source, as it is nothing more than a link to the Spanish cite Autofácil, it could be simply linkspam) to various statements that are little more than a rosy panegyric for the 2CV design, making a lot of assumptions of what people had in mind when designing cars. I'm not saying it's entirely untrue, but it really needs good sources, no fansites. I already added a source for the CCV, and I also rewrote it a little to make it more impartial and less editorialised.

Well, I have more suggestions that I will post tomorrow, but for now I think this a good start. Now other editors can add sources to those claims, or explain why they think such claims don't need any source. Happy editing! --Urbanoc (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Today, I'll concentrate on suggestions of the most polemic aspect on this article: what to remove. Feel free to comment about this.
I'll say that I see a lot of redundancy in this article, the same thing is often said two or three times. Besides, there's a lot of potentially superflous detail. The James Bond movie appearance is cited three times within a few paragraphs. The car is relevant by itself, James Bond movie or not, so I'd say the three mentions should be combined into a single one. I also suggest combining the sections "Nicknames" (its major purpose seems to be giving space for that pink 2CV), "Continued popularity" and "Media appearances" into a single section, with a title like "Reception and legacy" or something like that.
The "Suspension" section includes a tsunami of technical detail which I personally think is not that relevant. If other editors think it is in fact relevant, it should be spun off into a separate article (something like Citroën 2CV suspension) while keeping in the main article a basic description of the suspension type. The same goes for "Engines". The section actually gives maintenance tips and diagrams, it seems those French technical reviews of the 1960s. I'm not actually sure we need that level of detail in Wikpedia for three reasons. First, this is probably the largest (and also the most unreadable) powertrain description in a car article, even more considering details of it are also mentioned in other sections (History, Export markets, Construction, and so). Second, the references used are highly inadequate. The only somewhat useful cite is the Channel 4 documentary, the rest is sourced by fansites and fan-published material (in a paragraph there's something that can be considered linkspam). Third, the front-wheel drive layout, which was probably the most unusual feature for an economy car when it was launched, is only analised briefly and almost certainly inaccurately, so the textbook-style description of the powertrain seems WP:UNDUE for a sole technical aspect. In brief, I'd say the same that for the suspension, trimming it down or moving it to a new article are the only logical things to do.
T'd reduce this:
" The last official 2CV, a Charleston with chassis number 08KA 4813 PT which was reserved for the Mangualde plant manager Claude Hebert, rolled off the Portuguese production line on 27 July 1990. But during the following week, five additional 2CV Special vehicles left the plant; three of their number (one blue, one white with chassis number KA 372168 fitted for a 1991 series that also never materialized,[77] one red) for exhibition at the French "Mondial de l'Automobile" in Paris, October 1990 but this project was later cancelled.
"The chassis numerical incrementation was not always sequential. The series number identification badge stock were ordered in bulk and fixed at random on the vehicles when leaving the production line. It often left gaps in the numbering sequence. For instance, on 29 February 1988 a gap of more than 17,500 numbers existed between cars carried on the last truck leaving the Levallois plant. Furthermore, the official end of this last French line had been observed on 19 February. This confusion began in 1948: the first six 2CVs received in succession the chassis numbers 000 007, 000 002, 000 005, 000 003, 000 348 and 000 006. Thus it is not possible to locate precisely the assembly date of the ultimate chassis numbers displayed: KA 366 694 (Great Britain), KA 359666 (Belgium), KA 375 563 (Germany), KA 376 002 (France) and 08KA 4813 PT (Portugal)".
To this:
"Officially, the last 2CV, a Charleston, which was reserved for Mangualde's plant manager, rolled off the Portuguese production line on 27 July 1990, although five additional 2CV Spécial were produced afterwards".
Why? Pretty simple. Most of those details fall outside of the Wikipedia scope. This is a general purpose encyclopedia and, while individual chassis numbers are probably a relevant data for 2CV enthusiasts and collectors, they're equally irrelevant for the rest of the readers. That convoluted explanation of chassis IDs (at the end, it's a mess) I'm sure is written in all the (good) books covering the car. Wikipedia aims to present all major aspects on a subject, the intention is never saying all the little details. For that, we'll need to write a book... --Urbanoc (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks User:Urbanoc and User:Ritchie333 for the highly clueful reviews, which essentially matched up with my own comments from two months ago; there is too much trivia, too many pictures, and too few quality sources on this article. So, two months after I started the discussion, and two weeks after the spat of edit-warring to try to drag the quality back down again for various no doubt good-faith reasons, we are essentially back where we started. Very few of the sources which were alleged to be so easy to find have been found; none of the people who just came for the drama have stuck around; the article hasn't been much improved and is essentially back where it was in early July. If I start again to copy-edit out all the trivia, fancruft, and obsessive-compulsive stuff like lists of serial numbers, and reduce the pictures down to a reasonable level, will we have another lot of blow-ins forum-shopping to try to get me into trouble, or will it be ok this time now that the agreed timescale has passed? I really don't want to waste my time again. --John (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{anchor}} in headings?[edit]

Re https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Citro%C3%ABn_2CV&curid=85081&diff=736484854&oldid=736433056 (and others)

Why shouldn't {{anchor}} or even {{visible anchor}} be used in headings? Links yes, but why not anchors? Anchors (of the whole heading title) are implicit in them anyway. There are plenty of cases where other terms, or sub-phrases of the heading, could be worthwhile. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The style guide (MOS:HEAD) doesn't explicity forbids the use of the anchor, and it even seems to endorse said usage in certain circumstances: "If there are many links to the old section title, create an anchor with that title to ensure that the links still work". Maybe the editors adding/removing it can post here a rationale of why they are adding/removing it. --Urbanoc (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It breaks edit summary section links. See Template:Anchor#Limitations. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the answer JJMC89, it seems a valid concern, and, in fact, WP:ANCHOR clearly gives both options as valid, so I wouldn't worry too much about that. --Urbanoc (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't break edit summary section links (which are beneath trivial anyway), it breaks the default value given for edit summary section links. A concerned editor may still change these before saving. As edit summaries are immutable anyway, once saved, the deed is done. There is thus zero benefit to re-editing to change the page and do this with verbose out-of-band embedded HTML. This is a pointless change to make. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are 3 ways to insert an {{anchor}}. Each has the obvious advantage of allowing alternate names to be used for linking to here. Each also has some disadvanatges:

  1. Putting the anchor just below the section heading. Links here position the top of the browser to the anchor, with the section heading just out of view. Disastrous for the most readers.
  2. Putting the anchor just above the section heading. Links here position nicely for the reader but are technically outside of the section. When editors move sections around (eg changing the order of sections), the anchor sometimes gets separated from its intended section heading. Disastrous for when editors rarely shuffle sections.
  3. Putting the anchor in the header itself. Solves both of the above disadvantages but inserts itself into the edit summary. Mildly bad for most edits.

Using <span>...</span> instead of anchor makes it neither better nor worse in the above terms but does make the syntax harder to follow. In fact, anchor eventually just becomes a span tag anyway by the time it is read in a browser.  Stepho  talk  07:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

What do we think of citroenet as a source? Also the Haynes manual refs need page numbers. Anyone able to help? --John (talk) 06:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't like citroenet because is a fansite and fansites aren't the best sources out there, especially for potentially controversial statements. As for John Reynolds books, sadly I can't help on that, I don't have any and I'm not planning to buy them either, as they are aimed at Citroën enthusiasts. In any case, they certainly are a far better source than a fansite. Maybe the editors that introduced the manual as reference can help with the pages, if they're still active on Wikipedia. --Urbanoc (talk) 23:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, fan sites are unreliable - often presenting hearsay and guesses rather than facts. These fan sites are also usually quite small, showing a lack of knowledge. But some fan sites show a passionate author who researches the subject in great depth. I think citroenet is of this good type. WP:FANSITES point 11 allows for fan sites if they are done by a recognised authority. We can also use his site when it is just presenting raw facts (scans of brochures) because there is no interpretation in that.  Stepho  talk  23:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As per Stepho. Also, I am in grad school so I don't really have time to do a whole bunch here, but it seems that there are consensus attempts happening nowadays. As for the S-Cargo being an homage to the 2CV Fourgonnette, I don't see the problem.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am working my way through the Reynolds references. As I suspected, most check out fine but there are a few which bear no resemblance to what they are supposed to. It would be great if somebody could help wth the work. --John (talk) 06:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm continuing to work on the sources. I have done my best with the book sources; I went through Reynolds using Amazon's "Look inside" feature and assigned page numbers as best I could. Book references without page numbers are terrible and should never have been added. Never mind. There is still some more work needing done there. I think there are too many things sourced to TV shows now. We should use high-quality verifiable sources where possible. Does anybody reading this page actually have access to any of the book sources? I am thinking of going to a library and ordering one if not. --John (talk) 01:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Too long[edit]

Two sections of this are flagged as being too long and detailed, the engine and the suspension. While we are at it, which of the data tables should we keep? Not all of them I think. --John (talk) 06:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The engine and suspension sections could be shortened by two-thirds or so, very obscure and fanboyish info for the most part. The tables are all, imho, useful and a concise way to present information that would be useless and confusing in prose format. Maybe the Sahara and Commercial tables could be folded in to the big table of models; it could then be made collapsible so that everyone doesn't have to look at it. The production table could also be collapsed. That way the info is available to those who want it, without filling the screen.  Mr.choppers | ✎  22:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on improving the verifiability and readability of the article. Thinking about it, I am tending to agree with you that this information (at least that which is sourced) shold not be removed. Collapsed sounds good; or would there be scope for an article like Production data of the Citroën 2CV to put this stuff into. --John (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did a bit more pruning and looking at the refs and I'm thinking about what we have: there's a big data table in Engines which is unsourced, there's a lengthy one at Chronology of the development of models during production which is largely unsourced, and there's the one at Production history which breaks out into three smaller ones. These last are sourced to Reynolds, and I am sure the others can be sourced too. But this is far too much primary data to include in the article, even if collapsed I think. What is needed is a summary of these tables in running text, with the main data moved over into a sub-article (I even have doubt about that), and just keep the highlights in the article. What do you think? --John (talk) 01:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I now think on reflection we could take the engines, production history and the three small ones out into a daughter article (after summarising them here of course) and integrate the chronology one into the existing Production which it currently duplicates. --John (talk) 01:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've done that. What do you think? --John (talk) 11:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pricing[edit]

I noticed an apparent contradiction between "The purchase price of the 2CV was always very low", "The 2CV sold poorly in Great Britain in part due to its excessive cost because of import duties on components" and "Only a few thousand 2CVs were sold in North America when they were new; as in Britain their pricing was excessive relative to competitors". Any thoughts? --John (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the unsourced and contradictory claims re pricing. --John (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Merger proposal[edit]

I propose that Baby-Brousse be merged into Citroën FAF, because these vehicles overlap and are conceptually similar. The text itself overlaps. PLawrence99cx (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Factual mistake, production in Argentina[edit]

(I am not sure where new items would go, but the talk appears to sort of be in descending order, so I'm putting this here, move wherever you think is necessary)

I was just reading the article and noticed that in the Argentina section there is a reference that the 2CV stopped being produced "when the revolution came".

This is demonstrably false. In 1979 the military government was in full swing and there was no revolution in Argentina (there WAS unrest, as the dirty war was at its highest, though).

The closest to "the revolution" would either be the coup in 1976 or the return to democracy in 1983.

The reference associated with that paragraph says that Citroen Argentina SA ceased operations on december 31 1979 because of "the economic situation of the country, having shifted from a manufacturing economy to a speculative one". It also states that the opening of imports and the necessity to make large investments to operating costs were a factor. Lack of economic support is also mentioned, the supporting party is not mentioned in the source, but since the article mentions state subsidies, I would assume that it was state support.

The source states that given that shift in the economy (removing some "equilibrium subsidies"), the firm needed to make large reinvestments that could not be done and went on with a plan to cease operations that had been started in 1978.

190.17.35.61 (talk) 00:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the reference used in the article and it makes no mention of a revolution. So I removed the mention of a revolution from the article.
I also moved this discussion to the bottom of the page. Convention is that we place new topics at the bottom.  Stepho  talk  09:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chevaux-Vapeur?[edit]

The suggestion that "CV" refers to "chevaux-vapeur" was introduced by this IP edit in 2008, but the edit is unsourced. French wikipedia is at pains to distinguish between the cheval-vapeur (ch) and the cheval fiscal (CV) but doesn't explain why the abbreviation CV is used to designate the latter. The first sentence of this article, as it stands [ The Citroën 2CV (French: deux chevaux(-vapeur), pronounced [dø ʃ(ə)vo (vapœʁ)], lit. "two steam horse(power)s", meaning "two taxable horsepower") ... ] is confusing for several reasons. "2CV" is pronounced "deux chevaux" in French, not "deux chevaux-(vapeur)", and CV refers not to chevaux-vapeur but to chevaux fiscaux. Bracketing "(-vapeur)" in the French, then "(power)" in its English translation suggests that one is translated by the other, when clearly this isn't the case.

How can we fix this mess? I suggest removing the references to "vapeur" and "steam". The French name "deux chevaux" is best translated literally as "two horses", without reference to steam or power. The link to "Tax_horsepower#France" can take care of the rest. Any thoughts? Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 11:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've boldly gone and done it. Happy to discuss. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden concept version[edit]

@Dreamcarfan had added a section called "Hidden concept version" but it has a number of problems.

Firstly, the reference is vey, very weak. It consists of a single image with no explanatory text. The image has the number plate "2 CV 2000" and has lines on the bonnet generally reminiscent of the 2CV but is otherwise quite different to the CV. It is unknown if it was developed by Citroen as a prototype or concept car, by a tuner company (eg, like Zagato often did for other companies) or just a enthusiast doing custom work to his own car in homage to the 2 CV. Also, allcarsindex.com just scrapes its images and text (if any) from other sites, including both my own website and Wikipedia. It does no independent fact checking.

Secondly, how can it be "hidden" if it is on display. If it really is a concept car by Citroen then it is normal for a concept car to be developed quietly and then shown with great fanfare.

This needs far better references and background checking. If anything is unclear then it cannot be put on Wikipedia as a fact.  Stepho  talk  10:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Citroën_2CV&oldid=1211400756"