Life begins at 40 - 200 series

[jetronic63]

I had a CX for a while John - fab car but I gave up on it too early which I regret (couldn't stop it leaking). I had the CX GTi Turbo 2 which was shockingly lively for such a big car. One of the greats that's for sure

[Paul240480]

I too like those big old Citroens, the DS model too. So ahead of their time. If only the frogs could have built them with Swedish quality and reliabity!

[jetronic63]

I agree Paul - the oily bits were quite strong on the CX (if you ignore the suspension arm bearings), but the body work was a bit of a mare. Boot lids rotted unseen behind the plastic mouldings until one day you slammed the thing and got a pile of rusty dust on your feet. The sunroof was the main problem on mine - no matter what I did, it just leaked like the Titanic all over the back seat. Sold it in the (dry) summer

[john h]

I had a late DS as a daily driver in the late 90s. It was great, very reliable and tough - not at all temperamental. Some things in common with Volvo - very thorough engineering and good quality components. And of course the smile factor!

Although the DS had many features, its electrics were simple... always a bonus in a French car! For example, everyone knows about the steered main beam lights, but the dip headlights were also clever - they stayed level even when the body moved on acceleration or braking (lots of movement due to the soft suspension). The lights were aimed by cables, levers and adjustable rods linking them to front and rear suspension (dip) and steering (main beam). Fiddly to set up right, but once done very little to go wrong.

One big difference is the Volvos (200 era) were designed to be easy to work on. I think the DS designers gave easy DIY less than a moment's thought!

John

[john h]

It feels as though we should have arranged a 200 series 40th Birthday gathering... a bit late now I suppose.

John

[stephend]

Originally Posted by john h

Never owned one, but's it's on my to-do list. So, Happy 40th to the CX as well!

I spotted a CX estate a few days ago in Cambridge, parked outside some shops. Couldn't be sure of its age, because it was on Netherlands plates, but I think it was one of the last of them. Looked immaculate.

I'd certainly go for a CX or a DS if I had the resources!

[Angie]

In a mad moment I bought, having pestered my then employer for a loan, a DS19. I'd fallen in love with the shape as soon as I saw one that some friends of my parents had. Mine was from around 1960 and was about nine years old when I bought it. The reason that it was cheap was soon apparent as the exhaust started to blow, the engine burnt more oil than petrol, or so it seemed, and the main hydraulic pipe had a habit of bursting. It would have been a fabulous car even so, had I the money to have it sorted out, the bodywork and interior were very good, and I really loved the finger-tip gear change and the adjustable suspension. They still look beautiful even today, that lovely sweeping fish-shape, a real work of art, years ahead of its time. So different from the Volvo, which I like for its timeless classic appearance, as well as the relatively simple mechanics. On balance I'd choose the Volvo, but the Citroen was quite something all the same.

[Jungle_Jim]

This is funny - the original topic of the thread was about the 40th anniversary of the 200 series, and it's morphed into a celebration of the big Citroens.

I also love the DS - and the fact that it was light years ahead of most cars in 1955 and an object of beauty. And it could be said that the first 'modern' car was the Traction Avant from 1934 - front wheel drive, monocoque body. To create a development of those underpinnings with another car that was also decades ahead of its time (the DS) is an amazing achievement for Flaminio Bertoni and André Lefebvre, the designer and engineer of both of those.

But on the subject of visionary and innovative designers, let's bring it back to Jan Wilsgaard, the designer of the 200 and every Volvo from the Amazon to the 850.

The 240 was years ahead of it's time when it came out, and this was following on from 20 years of world-leading innovation with the Amazon and 140.

I once read (but can't find a weblink to confirm) that of the 800,000-odd 200-series sold in the US, there had not been a recorded fatality in a 200 in the US during the production years 74-93, and the first fatality was sometime soon after production was ceased in 1993. Apparently even in 1993 the 240 was still in the top-5 safest cars sold in the US (again I wish I could find the source).

Also, I think the visual style of the 240 was quite influential. Casting my mind back to the mid 70s, and what else was on the road at the time, they were one of the first prime-examples of a modern European style which came to dominate in the 80s. Gone were the curves and hips - no-nonsense straight lines which gave the impression of strength and modernity were in. Also that style of square but angled-back headlight and wraparound indicators became the norm for most of the 80s. And the blacked-out window trim, and black rubber door trim and bumpers also were heavily copied. Examples are Granada MkII, Escort Mk3, original Opel Senator.

So when it first came out, the 240 didn't look like it'd just landed from space like the DS did (and still does), but it was 'futuristic' in its own way.

Anyway unless people still want to talk about Citroens (and why not), why don't we use this thread to look at the way the 200 series was important and how it takes its place in motoring history.

Just a suggestion,
John

[heckflosse]

Coffee or tea?
the two cars come from wildly different design philosophies.

[john h]

My view is that Volvo of this era were ahead of the curve in terms of safety (all aspects, from good seats and ventilation to brakes and crumple zones). Less celebrated, but Volvo also were ahead of most in emissions control.

In terms of style, the 200 looked what it was to me - a facelift of a 1966 car. Nowadays, this is a big bonus, in my opinion, for classic ownership - very old characterful looks and feel, but with the capabilities of a more recent car. But back in the 1980s I think Volvo were painfully aware that the 200 had the 1960s stance and proportions of the 140. I believe that the black tape and cladding that Volvo kept adding throughout production of the 200 were somewhat desperate attempts to make the car slightly less old-fashioned looking alongside ever lower/wider/sleeker modern competition.

In other areas of engineering, I think Volvo deliberately decided not to take a lead role, for valid reasons. A live axle was old-hat in this class of car even in 1974, and this was the first Volvo with McPherson struts, rack and pinion steering, OHC, all technologies that had been around for decades with other manufacturers. I think Volvo choose reliability and ease of maintenance over technical advance. I'm sure they were also aware of their relatively small size as a car manufacturer, meaning that the development budgets were nowhere near the likes of GM and Ford - and big warranty claims on new innovations carry the risk of bankruptcy for a smaller car manufacturer (ask Citroen and NSU).

Instead they honed fairly old technology to optimise it, similar to the approach Mercedes took at that time. This is why 240s last so long and are such great classics to own and work on! They have the looks and driving feel of a much older car, but with easy DIY maintenance, good reliability, handling, comfort and safety - and acceptable running costs. An ideal combination for a classic car.

John