We all have bad ideas sometimes. That’s okay if we don’t affect much. But when a big car company manages to dramatically misjudge what the public wants and releases a very bad idea upon them, then it’s a bigger problem.
The Citroen Ami is one of my favorite cars, and many of you other CCers love it as well. However, as much as we love it, it was a bad idea. Not only that, it was a failure. To understand why, you need to know the history of the Citroen brand.
The main roots of the Ami, and Citroen as a brand itself, can be traced back to 1934. Citroen was nearly bankrupt as they strained under the cost of developing the Traction Avant, so named for its front wheel drive configuration, which was very unusual for the the 1930s (in fact, it was the first mass produced front wheel drive car- 25 years before the original Mini), as was its unibody construction. Citroen had been founded in 1919, but in the 15 years before had made fairly simple cars- nothing like the Traction Avant. This meant an all new factory, developing new tooling, etc, as well as the extensive marketing costs associated with the all new model- Andre Citroen even used the Eiffel Tower as a marketing tool!
Because of all of these costs, Citroen filed for bankruptcy, but their largest creditor, Michelin, stepped in and took control of the company. The Traction Avant was a success, not just in sales, where is exceeded its goals, but also in achieving acclaim for Citroen and Michelin and winning awards, and creating the Citroen identity of advanced engineering. But this post isn’t about the Traction Avant.
The surplus of capital from the Traction Avant, achieved mainly by its lllooonnnggg production run (1934-1957) meant that Citroen had plenty of money to develop their next car. Since they had large and midsize cars (The Traction Avant, which was still in production), the obvious choice was to go small. This led to the 2CV, which had much of the same success as the Traction Avant; not only did it win awards and sell in large amounts (3.8 million for the original model), but, just as the Traction Avant had brought technological sophistication to the upper classes, the 2CV brought it to the lower classes. There hasn’t been another car that brought this kind of a technological update to the masses, excluding, though it’s hated around these parts, the Toyota Prius.
The 2CV was powered by a boxer two cylinder, the basis for the engine that would be found in the Ami. The original engine had only 375cc, but it was enough to power the super light 2CV. The 2CV’s main party trick was its suspension; basically, the suspension design featured two long coil springs inside of a cylinder mounted horizontally (below the doors of the car), linked to the independently suspended wheels via a system of moving cranks and rods.
click image to animate (courtesy entmontage.de)
On top of that, the cylinder which housed the springs ALSO had springs attached to it, allowing for it to move. Basically, the springs would move inside the cylinder, sending movement through the cranks and rods system, providing suspension movement. BUT the cylinder which housed these springs was also mobile, allowing for even greater suspension movement. In fact, the 2CV had the first active suspension of any car. There’s more to it than that, but that’s the gist.
But, despite all of these advancements, a problem was arising. In 1960, Renault introduced a new car, called the 4. It was a blatant rip off of the 2CV, but featured a stylish new body and a bigger engine. It not only appealed to the lower end of the market like the 2CV, but to the middle class. At the start of 1961, Citroen didn’t have a midrange car; their only models were the high end DS, the low end 2CV, the HY van, the 2CV AZ van, and the sales flop UK -only Bijou. Fortunately, Citroen had also realized their Achilles heel, at the same time as Renault. They got to work on a midrange car, and got there four months ahead of the 4.
You know the song “Lean on Me”, by Bill Withers? One of the main lyrics is “sometimes in our life, we all need a friend/we all need somebody to lean on.” Well, Citroen REALLY needed someone to lean on. If the niche wasn’t covered, they could lose a ton of sales to Renault, who had a larger range, a larger production capacity, a larger target audience, and more capital. If Citroen didn’t cover the niche, they were SCREWED. Thus, they made a friend: The Ami. Contrary to popular belief, the Ami wasn’t created to replace the 2CV; that was the Dyane. The 2CV was still selling well, and Citroen only wanted to create a midrange car. And the Ami wasn’t in response to the Renault 4, it was released four months ahead of it. But you have to wonder if Citroen could have created a more market appealing car if they had taken those four extra months.
There were two versions of the original Ami; the 6 sedan and the wagon, known as a break. Both had . . . unique styling. The front end had some interesting things going on, but that wasn’t originally planned. The Ami was the first car with rectangular headlights, but French safety authorities though they were too low on the prototype, so the front end was restyled to meet safety standards. Thanks, socialism!
On the Ami 6 break, the styling eccentricities ended at the front, relatively speaking; after all, it was still a Citroen. However, the sedan had one major unique design feature: the famous raked rear window, which was purely a misjudging of the market on Citroen’s part. The styling had become popular, namely being shown on the Mercury Turnpike Cruiser and the Ford Anglia, but Citroen didn’t anticipate how quickly it would become passe. You would think some good polling would’ve stopped that, but trends are hard to predict. It also served to maximize both interior room and trunk space on a small (midsize by Euro standards on the time) car, but the same could’ve been done with a hatchback, which Citroen ruled against with the Ami. D’oh.
On the 6, there were originally two different trim levels: the base trim Ami, and the upscale Club model. The Club’s main differences were an upgraded interior, different grille, and the round lights you see above. Yep, that’s actually a French domestic market version, which doubled as an US spec car. Ah, the good old days of work -arounds and cost cutting. Round headlights had been the mainstay in automotive design for close to 60 years when the Ami was introduced, and Citroen wanted a fallback plan in case their new rectangle lights were perceived as ugly. They shouldn’t have worried; as the booth babes in the picture above convey, the round lights left a little to be desired on the aesthetic front when compared to the standard rectangle lights.
The Ami was originally powered by a larger version of the 2CV boxer twin, with a grand 602cc! This made acceleration . . . leisurely, as the little 2 cylinder air cooled motor had to push 1,389 pounds unloaded. Top speed was an optimistic 76 mph, with a zero to FIFTY time of 27.1 seconds! Despite its leisurely acceleration, the 602cc was one of the major strides forward for Citroen that the Ami made; when placed in the 1,200 pounds unloaded 2CV, it was able to push the lighter car up to freeway speeds (75 mph claimed top speed, which may have been Citroen just carrying over the stat from the Ami), though both the 2CV and the Ami were more comfortable cruising at 50. However, this larger engine was able to buy the 2CV twenty extra years of production, which helped secure its place as an icon with the special edition Charleston and Dolly models, which helped turn the 2CV’s image as a farmer’s car, but that’s a story for another day.
The famous 2CV suspension was featured in the Ami, which wasn’t surprising considering that the Ami was essentially a 2CV in a suit. Citroen determined the main problem with the 2CV was its styling and lack of options, so they determined that putting a new, slightly larger (three inches to be precise) body with an upgraded interior would fill the midrange gap. The Ami even had the same wheelbase as the 2CV! And it worked! Well, sort of.
The Citroen Ami was produced from 1961-1979. Citroen sold 1.5 million Amis, which is a successful car by most standards. But it wasn’t. Remember how much I emphasized that the Ami was supposed to be Citroen’s midrange car? That was truly important, and the Ami failed at it. Dramatically. The Ami did nothing to sap away the sales of the Renault 4, and later the Renault 16. The Ami mostly sold to people who would’ve bought 2CV’s, but wanted more power. Or comfort. Or space. So, Citroen was right a 2CV in a suit being marketable, but not to the right people.
Citroen tried several more times to build a midrange car. Panhard, who had been building 2CV vans under contract for several years out of desperation, was bought by Citroen in 1963 for a) their capacity to build even more vans and b) their expertise in building midsize cars. But the Panhard route was fruitless; the PL24, Panhard’s only modern car, wasn’t offered as a sedan for fear of stealing sales from the DS. And the PL17 was too outdated to be competitive.
photo courtesy of citroenet.co.uk
Citroen did produce a Panhard based prototype called the P60 to slot between the Ami and ID, but it was another dead end. Meanwhile, the Renault 4 was selling like hotcakes, and spreading its hatchback design around the midrange segment. Soon, the BMC 1100 cars were introduced, with hatchback. And guess which car company pioneered the hatchback way back in 1938, and introduced to the small car segment in 1958? Citroen, with the Traction Commerciale and 2CV, respectively, though the 2CV didn’t have a full hatchback like the 4.
In 1968, Citroen introduced an update to the Ami 6, known as the Ami 8. The 6 sedan’s unique roof, was replaced with a fastback . . . . with a hatchback trunk, a concession to the Renault 16, which had won the European Car of the Year award two years earlier. The R16 displays many similar characteristics to the Ami 8, and that may not be a coincidence. In 1963, when the R16 (debuting in 1965) was in development, Citroen was still working on its midrange car.
photo courtesy of citroenet.co.uk
After the dead end of the Citroen – Panhard P60, Citroen apparently went to work on a fastback – hatchback, called the Project F. Then, Citroen saw the Renault 16 at its debut, and the similarities were . . . noticeable. Citroen cancelled the Project F, presumably for fear of being accused of cribbing the R16. However, they must have run out of ideas, as the Ami 8 hatchback was fairly similar to the R16 in styling.
The front end was revised on the Ami 8, creating it presumably as Citroen had intended it. The wagon remained, pretty much the same as ever, as it would until 1979.
In 1973, Citroen introduced the final upgrade to the Ami, a four cylinder engine. The new motor was a flat four based off of the old 2CV twin, a testament to Citroen’s financial troubles. With the new engine came a new trim level, called the Super, which was the top of the line Ami model. Thanks to the four, the Ami was finally distinctly above the 2CV and the Dyane (which had been introduced in 1967.)
However, it had been beaten to the punch. The Ami’s new motor had been around for two years- in a new midrange car called the GS. It won the European Car of the Year award in 1971.
The Ami was made until 1979, but its true swan song happened 10 years earlier. Flashback to 1965- the hatchback Renault 16 is sweeping Europe, the Project F had just derailed, and a Panhard based solution had failed for Citroen. At the same time as all of this, Citroen had partnered with NSU to develop a rotary engine, creating a rotary engine design company called Comotor. Citroen actually made a rotary engine car, producing the M35, an Ami based coupe with unique Heuliez bodywork, hydraulics from the big Citroens, and a 995cc single rotor rotary engine. Citroen originally planned to produce 500 M35s, but, in a classic Citroen manner, only produced either 267 or 274- no one really knows. Production was slowly and inefficient, so, rather than making 500 cars, Citroen just skipped serial numbers to make it look like they made 500 cars!
Citroen actually lent M35s to loyal customers for real – life testing, on the condition that they a) reported all flaws back to Citroen b) drove the cars at least 30,000 kilometers per year and c) had all maintenance done by a specialist. But the cost of producing the engine was too much, especially combined with the high costs Citroen had put into developing it. So Citroen gave M35 owners two options: they could either trade in their cars to Citroen in exchange for a new car, and have the M35s crushed, or keep the cars, but Citroen wouldn’t supply them parts and the warranty would be void. Surprising, many people kept their rotary Citroen’s- it appears half of the approximately 270 cars produced survived.
Citroen had purchased Maserati in 1968, and was hampered with costs relating to the upcoming SM and GS. All of these costs were too much for Citroen, and they went under in 1974. Citroen were bought by Peugeot, a French company that produced mostly upscale cars which had never really crossed over into Citroen’s customer base.
However, that was changing; After the introduction of the 204 and 304, Peugeot had begun to move downmarket. They would dominate the French market in the ‘80’s with their solid, conservative, and successful lineup. The Citroen rotary engine lived on in the Citroen GS Birotor, introduced in 1974. The GS Birotor cost as much as a DS23, and had horrible fuel economy at the height of the gas crisis. Only 847 were made, and Citroen recalled most of them to be scrapped.
So, where does the Ami sit today? Is it regarded as a failure, a laughingstock for its bad styling and its large role in bankrupting an amazing company? On the contrary, the Ami has an enthusiastic following, particularly in Europe. The two pictures above were taken by a member of a forum which I frequent who lives in the Netherlands, and Paul found one while walking the streets of Paris. It makes sense; they’re cheap on fuel, cost little to buy, and are common; 1.5 million Amis were produced (as I said earlier), out of 8.8 million Citroen 2CV derivatives. However, it still fails in this statistic; 8 to 9 million Renaut 4s were produced, making it the third most produced vehicle of a single bodystyle, after the VW Beetle and Ford Model T.
Related reading:
Great article – learned quite a bit.
Thank you for this , very informative with photos I haven’t seen before.
I always liked the Ami far more than the R4.
Your description of the 2CV suspension was intriguing. I tried to look up more detailed descriptions of the ‘active’ aspect, but the online stuff is unclear and conflicting. Some say that hitting a bump with one front wheel pushes the same-side rear wheel down, preventing chassis twist. This makes sense from the diagram. Some say that it “increases the travel” for the rear wheel. Maybe you can go into more detail in a future article?
Yup, I’d love to! There’s actually a good GIF of it which I didn’t end up using, but all of Citroen’s suspension designs are really interesting. The front goes up/rear wheel goes down thing is true; when one spring in the suspension cylinder moved with the wheel, it hit the other spring, which in turn moved the other wheel. The cylinder itself was ALSO attached to a separate crank and rod system, which allowed for it to move independently.
I added the GIF. The issue is that the GIF has to be full size to automate, and this one is too big. But if one clicks on it, it comes to life!
Thanks! I’ll admit, I’m fairly incompetent with WordPress.
I could watch that for hours – waiting for an extra big bump in the road…..
As I have commented in other articles, my mum has 2CV to this day. We drove it occasionally such as Sunday drive or to give ‘die Ente’ the opportunity to flex its wings.
I can attest the brilliant solution to the vexing problem with very short wheelbase. If anyone has driven or ridden Smart cars, they will appreciate the Citroën’s ‘simple but magic suspension’. Smart cars have notorious tendency to ‘rock’ forward and backward during acceleration, deceleration, and braking as well as over the road irregularities. It can make the ride irritating.
The suspension for 2CV alleviates this ‘rocking’ phenomenon very well. We drove on a rough access road outside Aurachtal-Falkendorf (where my parents used to live for a few years), die Ente just floated over the road. And fast! My father could barely get to 30km/h in his Mercedes on the same strip of road.
Of course, the downside of this suspension design is its penchant for listing almost horizontially to the road during the hard or quick turns. My father warned me against attempting this stunt. Otherwise I would be banned from driving their Ente for life. Yes, really! Yet, that made 2CV so much fun to drive.
Nice article but the “thanks, socialism” remark is simplistic. Competent designers can work with parameters like safety, feasibility or market demands. Bad designers blame these for their own shortcomings. Case: the Aztek. Passenger and pedestrian safety aren’t political anyway.
Well if you know something about France after 45 you should know that it had a very strong socialist government, one whose brutal taxation of any car with an engine bigger than 2.7 L (i.e., cars for filthily rich Capitalists) was directly responsible for the death of such manufacturers as Delahaye, Delage, Hotchkiss and Bugatti. I don’t know about the headlight height rule though, but there was illegitimate interference for sure.
Luxury cars were heavily taxed in many European countries, including the UK and Italy. Yet Rolls-Royce, Jaguar, Alfa-Romeo, Maserati and others still exist. Why? Because they made good, stylish and/or modern cars at a competitive price for export.
The French automakers you mentioned made outdated and overpriced chassis with heavy and (usually) ugly bodies. They had no dealer network (even in France, some of them), were under-capitalized and poorly managed.
Many smaller carmakers also went under (Licorne, Rosengart, Salmson) despite their offerings being below 2.7 litre. But they suffered from the issues detailed above.
Conversely, Facel-Vega was created in 1954 and used massive Chrysler engines. They were stylish, well-built and made a nice profit for a decade.
So this “taxes killed Delahaye” thing seems a bit simplistic, if not downright BS, to me.
Sorry tatra , luxury cars were never heavily taxed in the UK. Italy and France were the culprits.
Sure, the system in the UK was different, but why do you reckon over 50% of British cars were 10HP or less in the ’40s? Because of tax. The HP (or RAC) tax (pre-1947), and the massive purchase tax, while petrol was rationed and credit very hard to obtain.
But the British government promoted luxury cars for export and was pretty successful at it. British manufacturers had competitive models — those that did not (Jowett, Lea-Francis, Armstrong Siddeley, etc.) also disappeared.
Germany has so-called ‘displacement tax’ as part of annual vehicle registration fee, which is more ‘democratic’ and ‘fair’ than France and Italy. Just the same x-amount of tax per 100cc regardless of motor’s displacement. In the 1990s, the ‘displacement tax’ was split into two categories: one with catalysator and one without.
My father’s 1977 Mercedes-Benz 450SEL fell into the latter category, making it more and more expensive to operate each year. Before Papa decommissioned his 450SEL in 2002, he paid about DM 1,800 (roughly €900) just for the displacement tax on top of other annual vehicle fees.
Dear T. Turtle I think some of us here do know a thing or two about France after 45, and while you’re right to point that the country did have a few socialist governments after 45, these were anything but “strong” during the Fourth Republic (1946-1958), whose Constitution was clearly parliamentarian. Later governments under the Fifth Republic (1958-today), although much stronger at the expense of parliament, were anything but socialist until 1981. The government leading the country when the Ami 6 was made was strong and conservative, and quite comfortable with filthy rich capitalists. The level of taxation of “big” cars had less to do with socialist ideology than with gold old trade protectionism. I fully concur with Richard here.
But the Ami 6 is a totally cool car anyway and maybe it’s all that matters 🙂
That was actually a reference to the “Thanks, Obama” joke which started on the internet, and eventually became so popular that news anchors, politicians, and even President Obama referenced it. It’s a bit obscure, I know.
Great informative article. I learned a lot about cars I have little knowledge of. One thing for sure. 61 Plymouths don’t look as bad to me anymore.
So it must have been socialism in the USA forced the Morris Minor headlights out of the grille and onto the top of the front mudguards. the BMC 1100 was never a hatchback that was the Australian Morris Nomad that became the Maxi
Absolutely – not to forget the truck-like bumpers and the – ahem – objectionable quad headlights forced upon US-spec Peugeot 504s and Mercedes SLs by American socialism. And don’t get me started on what these pinkos in Washington did to the Citroën SM in the early 1970s.
That was actually a USA- centric reference to the “Thanks, Obama!” jokes over here which started on the internet and became so rampant that President Obama even referenced it in a speech. Ah, US politics . . . .
Amazing little car…still weird..still so ugly, it’s cute. On a recent tour of the Lane Motor Museum, actually saw some of the cars pictured! BTW: The singer in the picture of the song reference is Al Green, not Bill Withers!! 🙂
All I really wanted was a video with good sound quality, lol. Yup, some of the pictures came from my trip to the Lane, but I wasn’t on the CC tour. Did they have their Amis out, or just the M35?
I’m sorry but this article is full of inconsistencies, bad research and sloppy editing.
– the Renault 4 came out in the summer of 1961 (at the same time as the Ami 6, which was NOT in the same price range as the R4 — nor the R16, for that matter). The R4 was not a “mid-range” car. It replaced the 4CV as Renault’s entry-level small car.
– Citroen did not “introduce” the hatchback in 1938 with the Traction Commerciale. Lots of car-based estates/vans had a 5th door at the back since at least the 1920s. The 2CV cannot be considered a hatchback either (fixed rear window).
– the Citroen prototype is the C60 (not a “Citroen-Panhard P60”)
– Panhard was absorbed by Citroen in 1965, not 1963; it’s Panhard “24”, not “PL24”; and they would never have “stolen sales from the DS” given the huge differences in price and segment.
– the Ami Super’s flat-4 is totally different from the Ami 6/8 flat twin.
– “the Ami 8 hatchback was fairly similar to the R16” ??? The Ami 8 was given a hatchback look because when they introduced the Ami 6 Break (hatchback) in 1965, sedan sales sank like a stone. But the Ami 8 / Super berline only LOOKS like a hatchback: like the GS or the CX, it has a small trunk lid but the rear window is fixed. The Ami 6 / 8 break is a hatchback and came out the same year as the R16.
– “Peugeot never cut into Citroen’s customer base” ??? How does that make any sense?
– “Socialism”? In France under De Gaulle?
I could go on. Again, I’m sorry, but this is not a good article, factually-speaking. The style, grammar and coherence/flow are also pretty shoddy. Don’t quit your day job.
Your points are valid, but with regards to “Socialism”, please see my comment further above. This was before De Gaulle.
De Gaulle was president from 1958 to 1969. The Ami 6 came out in 1961.
Besides, since when are regulations about headlamps, seat belts or whatever “socialist” in nature? The sealed beams regulation in the US, which was implemented from 1940 to 1976 — was that rampant socialism too?
Um, Tatra87, the draconian sealed-beam headlamp requirement in the US was in effect until 1983, not 1976. NHTSA approved the Ford’s petition to use removable bulbs and non-standard, form-fitting headlamps (a.k.a European headlamps) for the 1984 model year.
Lincoln Mark VII (1984-1992) was the first vehicle in the United States to implement the new changes in DOT FMVSS 108 regulations.
Perhaps, Tatra87, you were thinking of 200mm rectangle headlamps that found their place in 1977 model year?
No it wasn’t.
A few points-
-If Citroen had introduced the 4, it would have been their midrange car. It was bigger, had a larger engine, a new body, a more luxurious interior (relatively speaking), etc than the 2CV. The 4 aimed for a higher market than the 2CV even though it was their base model; the Ami aimed to tap into this market.
-The Traction Commerciale is a vehicle with a passenger car body and a lift back trunk. If I parked that on the street where I live and asked people what kind of car it was, they’d say a hatchback. The 2CV’s trunk does lift up like a hatchback, but you’re right about the fixed rear window; that’s why I said “though the 2CV didn’t have a full hatchback like the 4” in the write up. Regardless, Citroen had hatchbacks before Renault, even if they weren’t full hatchbacks.
-The C60/P60 thing is sort of a discrepancy. Citroen either used a single letter or a combination of numbers for their prototypes; in my research, I found C60 (for Citroen 60) and P60 (for Project 60.) I chose to go with P60 because it seemed more consistent with Project F, but you have a point there.
-Citroen fully absorbed Panhard in 1965, but they had taken majority control of the company by 1963, and that’s when work on the Panhard based middle level car began.
-PL stands for “Panhard Levassor”, and the 24 car is commonly known by either name, but you’re right in that the official market name was 24. It’s a well known fact that Citroen was worried the 24 could steal the ID/DS range’s sales; that’s why it only was sold as Coupe. A high end Panhard and a low end ID appealed to the same kind of wacky customer, so a four door was axed to save sales.
-The Citroen Flat 4 based off of the Flat Twin, and saying that they’re different is like saying the Triumph I6 and 4 are different; sure there’s technical differences between the two that marque specialists would know, but for all intents and purposes, they essentially just added two extra cylinders on there and modernized it.
-“The R16 displays many similar characteristics to the Ami 8” was my exact words, and stylistically they’re very similar. Both have a similar body style, both have rectangular headlights , both are fairly similar in size (yes, I know they aren’t the exact same), etc. Basically, the 8 hatch took styling cues from Project F, which Renault . . . . . also seemed to take styling cues from. They introduced it because the 6 had failed, like you said, but they took many similar styling cues from the 16 as a testament to it’s success and popularity; it’s no coincidence that Citroen, who was trying to build a popular car, followed the lead of a popular car.
-Read below the picture: “However, that was changing; After the introduction of the 204 and 304, Peugeot had begun to move downmarket. They would dominate the French market in the ‘80’s with their solid, conservative, and successful lineup.” In the early to mid ’60’s, Peugeot had a line of large, upscale, conservative, well built luxury sedans in the 404 to 403. Citroen’s upper end of the market car was the ID/DS range. Do you think the kind of person who values reliability and simple mechanics would buy a DS?
-The Socialism thing was sort of a niche joke; it references the “Thanks, Obama!” joke here in the US.
This wasn’t meant to be an encyclopedia Britannica entry. It was meant to give an overview of an interesting and significant car that isn’t well known in the US. If it didn’t fit all of the nits you had to pick, then I’m sorry. The flow and formatting were presumably broken up by WordPress; I typed this on another format then moved it in, as WordPress can be hard to work with sometimes.
All of that is fine and all, but the biggest glaring fault in your article is referring to the Ami 8 as a hatchback, which it was not. Your repeat the mistake above, and that’s a pretty large error to make if you ask me. Fastback does not always equal hatchback.
Also, a minor detail, but nonetheless the Ford Taunus 17m had rectangular headlamps before the Citroen did.
Dear Spridget, let’s take these one after the other:
– The R3/R4 is more or less a copy of the 2CV and was priced to compete with it. Of course it had a bigger engine. Nothing except bubble cars could compete with the 2CV on that front. The R3 had 603cc 4-cyl. and 3 speeds. The 2CV had 425cc and 4 speeds. Same same, virtually identical price. There were “plush” versions of the R4 with a larger engine, the Parisienne, but even those were cheaper (6610 Francs) than the base Ami 6 (6887 Francs) in 1964. The Ami’s competition was the R8 and the Simca 1000.
– The Traction commerciale is indeed a hatchback, never said the contrary. But it’s not a Citroen exclusive. Lots of other examples pre-war, such as this 1935 Peugeot 401.
– The C60 did not involve Panhard in any way, contrary to the Projet F.
– Citroen and Panhard signed a contract in 1955. Citroen brought capital and a large dealer network, Panhard brought its underused factory space and skilled labour, as well as the Dyna Z to complete Citroen’s range. This 1963 reference is news to me — the Panhard family definitely lost the car-making branch at a Panhard board meeting in April 1965.
– The Panhard 24 was not in a position to compete with the Citroen ID either in terms of price (the ID was worth about 1500 Francs / 10% more) or engine (848cc vs 1995cc) or segment/class. The 4-door 24 was never green-lit becaue it would have competed with the Projet F, which was due to be launched in 65 or 66.
– The GS flat-four is “based off of the 2CV twin” in the sense that it’s a flat air-cooled motor. Other than that, all parts are different, the four is made of aluminium, etc.
– The R16 killed the Projet F because Renault issued patents (to do with the manufacturing of the body) that made the cost of the F uneconomical. The Ami 8 berline had a fastback tail because the Ami 6 break was outselling the Ami 6 berline five to one. Nobody liked that canted rear window. It’s got nothing to do with the R16, AFAIK.
– The Peugeot 404 and the Citroen ID were definitely competing in the same market segment. Some folks went Peugeot, others Citroen or Simca, etc., according to their taste, but in terms of price, status, power and reliability, the 404 and the ID are very comparable. Styling, suspension and image are another issue, but they were direct competitors.
– I take your point on the “socialism” joke — it’s not easy to convey tone and irony in writing. Some folks seem to have taken you at your word!
I realize this is not meant as an authoritative piece. And I apologize for going postal on you in this way. But since this is a relatively unknown car outside of Western Europe and many CCers are discovering these and their context, I think it’s worthwhile trying to write something with a bit more depth and accuracy.
There are several other points I could take issue with in your text, but it’s getting late here and some of them really are nits. Owl (CCer below) is an Ami owner and seems to agree.
Peace out, dormez bien, schlafen sie gut, and don’t let the nits bite.
I don’t have the time today to get into these points of contention, but as you’ve admitted, Tatra, many of them are in the realm of splitting fine hairs.
One or two issues I’ll chime in on:
I disagree with your contention that the R4 was intended to be a direct competitor to the 2CV. Renault clearly saw that incomes were rising, and created the 4 to be “more car” than the 2CV. Yes there was a 3CV, but it never sold well and was killed off quite soon. And the R4 is why Citroen did the Dyane. The 2CV, until it became a cult car in the late 60s, was being left behind, and most folks in the early-mid 60s would rather not be seen in it, as it was something of a “poverty mobile”. 1968 changed all of that.
The 1938 Citroen TA Commerciale has commonly been given the nod as the first true hatchback, and I gave it that recognition in my R4 CC: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-european/le-curbside-classic-renault-r4/
I don’t doubt that there may well have been some other coach-builder jobs that had a top-hinged rear door earlier. But how many were built? Anyway, like so many firsts, it’s often hard to nail down the very first of many firsts.
I appreciate your input and deep knowledge. Must of us just don’t have it, so we do the best we can. Maybe you should be writing these French car histories? Let me know….
Hi Paul
Well, it’s splitting hairs perhaps, but others have pointed out the issues in this piece. And one man’s hair is another man’s bone of contention…
The R4 was certainly seen by Citroen as a blatant attempt by Renault to copy the 2CV. They openly complained to De Gaulle himself about this when the R4 came out. It did, as you pointed out, also urge Citroen to do something (the Dyane), as 2CV sales slipped in the ’60s.
The pre-war TA commerciale (11C) was produced from 1938 to 1940/41, selling about 3500 in 3 years. It was only reintroduced in the TA range in 1954, and sold better until the end of the Traction in 1957 (c. 14 000 units).
Only the 1954-57 model had a real hatchback, however. The pre-war model had two doors (see: http://www.citroenet.org.uk/passenger-cars/michelin/traction/80/80years-6.html for pics&info). There were hatchbacks made in sizable or even greater numbers before the mid-’50s in France and elsewhere.
I would be honoured to contribute if you’ll have me, Paul! I’m only hampered by where I currently live, far away from my books and the cars I know something about. But that’s what the web is for, right?
-As you said above, the R4 was plusher than the 2CV, and the Ami was essentially a plush 2CV. The Renault was more upmarket than the basic 2CV, and so was the Ami; they were competing against each other, even if the Ami was Citroen’s midrange car and the 4 Renault’s base. As Paul said below, Citroen tried to introduce a plush base model with the Dyane, but that didn’t really work out.
-I also never said that the Traction was the first hatchback ever made, but I used it to illustrate how Citroen was an innovator while Renault was much more conservative and late to the game.
-My understanding was the 60 was a collaboration between Citroen and Panhard; if you look, you can see strong Panhard styling elements and features, as well as Citroen ones.
-Citroen and Panhard signed a contract in 1955 for the reasons you described. Panhard eventually went to building Citroen 2CV AZ Vans for capital. In 1963, Citroen took majority control of Panhard, which is why the 24 (which debuted that year) was only a coupe. Citroen fully absorbed Panhard in 1965. But you’re right, Citroen and Panhard had a partnership going back to the 1950s.
-Once again, common knowledge. Here’s a quote from a CC article about Panhard: “Citroen refused to let Panhard build a four door version because it didn’t want it to compete with its own sedans, and a similar-sized car it had in the works” The similar size car was in fact Project F, so you’re partially right. Here’s a link to that article: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/panhard-back-to-the-future/
-The four and the twin share many characteristics; while the four may have some different parts and be modernized, it’s clearly the same design with updates, as proven by the pictures below, one of the four and one of the twin.
-The part about the 16 and the patents is true; Citroen didn’t want to patent the design for fear of cluing Renault in, and Renault beat them to it. However, the 8 Berline’s tail, as I’ve already stated, takes cues from the R16 and Project F; Citroen did this because, as you said, the slant back window was unpopular, and Citroen wanted a design which was popular. The R16 was popular. There are quite a few noticeable design similarities between the two.
-While the DS and 404 were in the same segment, they appealed to completely different customers, as you said: “Some folks went Peugeot, others Citroen or Simca, etc., according to their taste” A good comparison is Cadillac and Mercedes in the ’80’s. Sure, they were in the same segment, but is a Mercedes buyer really going to consider a Cadillac?
-Yep, some people did do that, and it’s a very American joke- it took some explaining.
I think people will understand the context regardless of the facts you pointed out. People will walk away from this understanding that Citroen tried to make a midrange car and didn’t succeed- they aren’t going to remember exact Panhard model names, which models the Ami competed with, who invented the first hatchback, etc. They’re going to remember that Citroen, an advanced company, misjudged the market, lost the segment, then made a number of poor financial decisions as a result, causing them to fall apart. The only people who would remember the exact name of the prototypes are people like you, who already know about them 🙂
Here’s the other engine pic:
Tatra87,
‘Citroen did not “introduce” the hatchback in 1938 with the Traction Commerciale. Lots of car-based estates/vans had a 5th door at the back since at least the 1920s.’
Of course, many vehicles have fifth doors that precedes Traction Avant. I believe many of delivery vans and estates in the 1920s and 1930s were truck-based rather than car-based. Chevrolet Suburban came to the mind when it was introduced in 1935 and continued as truck-based estate to this day.
I believe the author is trying to make the distinction between the hatchback, fastback, and estate body styles. From the photo, I can see that Traction Avant’s body is not so significantly altered to provide the larger rear cargo access other than fitment of two-piece (eventually one-piece) tailgate. Commericale is based on extended wheelbase Familiale so both appear to be identical.
Tatra87, if you are so meticulous with detail and seemingly knowledgeable, how about writing the article that profiles the earlier consumer vehicles (neither commerical nor truck-based) with upper part anchoring to the roof and lower part to the floor that predates 1938 Traction Avant Commericale.
There is possibly a fact in this article which is correct but you have to look hard to find it. Its probably one of the most misleading things I have ever read on this (otherwise quite wonderful) site.
I’m sorry Spridget but you really need to learn about something before you spout off. I wont repeat or add to tatra87’s helpful corrections. Just take it from the owner (of 32 years) of one of 3 remaining rhd Ami Super saloons that whilst the Super never captured the public’s imagination (even less as a non-hatchback saloon than it did in Break form), the 6 and 8 were amongst the best selling cars in France for most of the 1960s, a period in which Citroen was probably at its financial peak.
Read my replies to tatra87 above.
While the Ami was successful in France, it didn’t fulfill it’s goal in saving Citroen. That’s why I said this:
“The Citroen Ami was produced from 1961-1979. Citroen sold 1.5 million Amis, which is a successful car by most standards. But it wasn’t. Remember how much I emphasized that the Ami was supposed to be Citroen’s midrange car? That was truly important, and the Ami failed at it.”
The Ami is sort of like the Mini. If you look at the pure sales numbers they were successful, but if look at the effects on the companies, they weren’t. The Mini didn’t help British Leyland/BMC; while they sold lots of them, they weren’t making as much money, and they eventually lost the segment to competition except for in the home market. While they made a lot of them, the company still went under; you have to look at the big picture.
This wasn’t meant to be an in -depth journal article; it was meant to be a history of the car for those who haven’t heard of it. I’m sure you don’t fit into that category; that Break looks fantastic!
Did anyone try to estimate Ami unit-costs, as Ford UK supposedly did with the Mini? Carmakers pay careful attention to their competition, like tearing down competing models & estimating costs.
This is the problem with marketing relatively advanced small cars: you win prizes but not profits. I think Ford & GM Europe understood this well.
I don’t think anyone did, despite the Ami selling well in France. The Renault 4 and 16 (cars which the Ami competed with) and the smaller Peugeot’s were also very successful, and much more so internationally than the Ami; I don’t anyone saw the Ami as a major threat.
The Ami also didn’t really win any prizes, and wasn’t a major profit success when you look at the forest, not the trees. Citroen still went under, partially because of all of the money they invested in trying to build an Ami replacement.
Neat cars, I would give a left appendage for a 4cyl break. I too like the styling.
Very good article, but my eyes are still smarting from the styling of this poor little car. I’m wondering what elements you could incorporate to make it even worse; perhaps a bustle-back trunk to go with the slant window? Lots of plastic side cladding? But then what to do with the front end?
Maybe a continental kit on the rear and some five mph bumpers at the front?
Clearly it needs a padded vinyl roof.
Maybe two or five opera windows?
Landau irons! though they’d need to be backwards to match the rear window…
It is easy to second guess all these years later. But to spend rare resources on money pits like Panhard and Maserati.was a total waste. Imagine a front drive Golf size vehicle with a modern OHC clean sheet 4 and Citroen hydrallics in say 1965. Maybe a world beater or maybe a French Landcrab. At least it would have had a chance.
That Ami is an ugly piece of junk! No wonder it was a failure – it’s ugly even by European standards!
You know, it gets hot in the summers over there, and only getting sliding window glass must have made it almost intolerable.
Sure makes the Gremlin look beautiful – which it was!
I actually like the Ami’s styling, but I do have an old AMC Pacer ad which I proudly display, so I think I’m the exception to the rule.
Heyyyyy, what’s a Citroen doing here during Peugeot week? 🙂
I have always found these fascinating, the styling was just so of the era they were conceived.
One niggle, I would argue that the Cord L-29 was the first mass produced FWD car – although admittedly, at about 5K units over 3 years or so it would be down at the very low end of “mass produced.” I will agree that it was nowhere near as influential as the Traction Avant was in Europe.
FWD same year as or before Citroen :
Aero 30 (1934)
Chenard-Walcker Super-Aigle 4 (1934)
Audi Front (1933)
Rosengart Supertraction LR400 (1933, French license-built Adler)
Adler Trumpf (1932)
DKW F1 (1931)
Stoewer V5 (1931)
Derby L2 (1931)
Cord L29 (1929)
Ruxton (1929)
BSA three-wheeler (1929)
Bucciali TAV-6 (1928)
Tracta (1927)
Alvis 12/50 (1923)
I’m sure there are more.
The thing with the Citroen is that it was the first to combine FWD with unit body, hydraulic brakes and a modern, OHV engine. It was supposed to have an automatic transmission (which nobody had in 1934), but those never worked, so a conventional 3-speed was used instead.
All of those were also made in very small numbers, whereas the Citroen was made around 750,000 of all Traction Avant variants- Citroen wasn’t the first, but the first to make it large numbers, and the first to make FWD popular, as well as the unibody, modern engine, brakes, etc.
There were 750 000 Tractions because they were built for 20 years. The DKW F1, for instance, was built for a single year, but then evolved into the F2, F4 and a long lineage of 2-stoke FWD cars until 1966. The Adler was license-built in France and Belgium.
Any way you slice it, these were mass-produced, albeit for a shorter time, because most car-makers (unlike Citroen) want to introduce new models every now and then. I’m not knocking Citroen, but it was a very odd company when owned by Michelin. Its models are nearly all in the same league as the Model T, VW Beetle, the Mini or the Trabant: produced in the same basic form for 20+ years.
If Michelin hadn’t bought Citroen out when the Traction came out, ironed out the technical and manufacturing kinks, reintroduced the RWD range to help it along, and then doggedly refuse to introduce a new body shell until the DS, the Traction would have been in the same place as the Cord L29, i.e. a low-volume, valiant but ultimately failed effort.
And Riley!
Retract that. I was thinking of the Alvis, and the 8 cyl GP cars, mentioned above.
Um, Alvis did not introduce its first front-wheel-drive car until 1928 with its 12/75.
The Cord was ahead of the Citroen, and one of its main inspirations- however they made around 750,000 Traction Avants, which is more than the 5,000 Cords. The Cord was arguably the first mass produced front wheel drive car, but it’s really a matter of opinion, as are several other things (see above.)
There’s one Peugeot up there; that counts, right? 🙂
Cord did not build its own bodies for L-29 chassis: they were bodied by the coachbuilders. Perhaps that’s important distinction?
Cord L-29 is plagued by the poor weight distribution due to the front axle in front of gearbox and motor. They barely have traction going up the steep slope.
I hold the Ami to be the quintessential idiosyncratic French automotive shape. That Citroen considered it marketable seems like a great leap of faith from this historical distance, but each culture has their own little eddies splintering off the source and one of them spun into this.
I would agree that it was stretching things to describe a car with top-hinged rear-lower-panel-only flap as a hatchback, but that it why CC is perhaps the closest thing to the ‘objective’ history of the broadest range of automobiles online – where the contributors may err, the commentariat can correct us and both texts stand as a combined work.
I really appreciate this article; great pics and accompanying text, and hope to read a lot more from you Spridget.
Talk about a controversial article. Thank you, spridget, for giving us an article on this peculiar car. I remember reading about them in a World Cars type book from the library, and they kind of took my fancy in an offbeat kinda way.
For some reason, the front end of the Club version reminded me of this. Even has the same reverse sloped rear window.
Same as the Anglia and Mercury, Ford tried it three times.
Top speed was rather irrelevant in France at this point. In the early ’60s the first autoroute (payed “freeway”) was introduced in France. It was a short drive from the west of Paris.
None of the autoroutes went east of of Paris until the eighties. (Two lane roads only. Wonder why?)
Speed limits did not exist until the late 70’s.
More than 75 kph was useless at that time.
Surprisingly the Ami 8 super- the one with the GS flat 4 engine- was something of a Q car back in the day, possessing quite a turn of speed for the time. It cut the 0-60 time of the smaller engine in half and would go on to 90mph. It doesn’t sound that impressive until you remember that it was still only around 1000cc. The flat four was rev happy, just like the 2cv.