(first posted 4/21/2016) The number of cars we’ve never covered here is slowly but steadily diminishing. One of those was the Peugeot 204 Coupe (and Cabriolet), an exceptionally sweet little car in a number of ways. But now that Staxman posted some shots of one taken a few years back, that’s no longer the case, and we can happily cross it off the list.
Peugeot, a very traditional company, had long just built one lineage of vehicles: sedans, wagons and utility vehicles on a robust RWD platform, and one that went through successive generations, from the first postwar 203 right through to the final 505. But in the late 50s and early 60s, the market was expanding most rapidly with smaller, more affordable cars, and Renault and Citroen were gobbling it all to themselves, mostly. peugeot decided to take the very big step into the small-car arena with an all-new FWD car, the 204 (above), but one that would keep as many of the traditional Peugeot qualities intact. That meant a conservative trunked sedan tastefully designed by Pininfarina instead of the oddball designs that Citroen (Ami) and Renault were building (R4). And among other things, it meant that an even more tastefully coupe and cabrio needed to be part of the 204 family, as was the case with the big Peugeots.
The 204 sedan arrived in 1965. One year later, the Coupe and Cabriolet appeared, on a shortened wheelbase.
All of the 204s were powered by the same smooth 1103 cc transverse SOHC four, rated at 53 hp through 1968, and 55 hp for 1969-1970, before it was replaced by the 304 Coupe and Cabriolet, which was just an evolution of the 204. We have covered the 304 here.
As is quite apparent, these coupes and cabrios were not exactly very family-friendly; in fact they were obviously a way to distinguish oneself from that. The Coupe had a small back seat, and with its hatchback, was reasonably practical.
But the Cabrio was strictly a two-seater, as this 1970 version makes quite clear. Like all Peugeots up that time, the shifter for the four-speed manual was on the column. And unlike the typical balky American three-on-the-tree, these Peugeot shifters were light and accurate. I learned to shift the one in my 404 as quickly and effortlessly as if it had been on the floor.
Here’s the rear view of this 1970 204 Cabrio, which was originally purchased in canada, where the Coupe and Cabrio were imported.
The 1960 Corvair’s influence on the 204, especially the Coupe and Cabrio’s back end, is apparent, but then that’s the case with so many European cars in the mid sixties, as documented here.
Strictly speaking, it looks a bit more like the ’59 Lark’s rear end treatment, but then the Lark was just previewing some of the Corvair’s design a year early, thanks to some good intelligence.
The 204’s front end’s origins are less debatable than the rear’s. Pininfarina’s 1961 Cadillac Jacqueline was the firms last (and futile) effort at attracting further coachbuilding business from Cadillac, after the 1959-1960 Fleetwood Brougham was cancelled, until the Allante. It’s a very clean and handsome coupe, although one could argue that PF was never at its best in dealing with such large cars. American designers simply had more experience in this scale. But the Jacqueline’s front end went on to be replicated on some 1.4 million 204s.
Given the fact that the 204 was Peugeot’s first shot at a small FWD, they pulled it off superlatively (unlike a certain company that will remain unnamed). The 204 was lauded for its excellent ride, fine power train, good performance, economy and handling, high all-round quality, and of course the Pininfarina looks. What a sweet baby Peugeot.
Very un-FWD-like “dash to axle” ratio.
Probably because it had a transverse engine.
True, If I saw this on the street, I would have just assumed it was RWD.
Very true. I have never understood why it is ‘necessary’ to mount the motor in front of transaxle rather than other way round. I had misfortune of owning 1982 Buick Skylark and 1986 Chevrole Celebrity, both with 2,8-litre V6 motors. Understeering was astoundingly prodigious when driven hard on the curve, and they loved to scrap their ‘chins’ on the tarmac during the heavy braking.
To my knowledge, the first and second generation Mercedes-Benz A-Class (W168 and W169) were only front-wheel-drive vehicles with the motor mounted behind the transaxle.
Perhaps anyone here could explain why it is always set up this way?
Where do you find these cars?
I spent my childhood in Greece during the early/ mid 70s. I saw Peugeot 204s. And 304s. But NEVER a 2 door Peugeot.
I’m not sure if I’ve seen a Peugeot 504 in the US, other than in car magazine.
You find a 2-DOOR 204 in the US. Amazing!
Thanks for another interesting write-up
I didn’t find it; one of our CC Cohorts did, in the Seattle area, presumably. The coupe and cabrio 204/304 were never sold in the US, so this is a later personal import from Europe. The rear license plate holder confirms that.
Yes. Me thinks your 25 year rule will push up the prices of classics in the EU.
It isn’t always easy to style a small car, and taking a 4 door sedan and maintaining the same wonderful styling on a smaller AND sporty scale is even harder, yet here is proof it can be done.
It’s a shame that Peugeot left the U.S. market while it had so many wonderful cars to offer.
The Cadillac Jacqueline looks like it might have influenced Oldsmobile styling, especially the 61 and 62, but of course both would have already been either in showrooms or nearly there when it appeared. It may just be the picture but the hood looks about a foot too long for a sporty Cadillac, and it needs a Cadillac crest/wreath in the center of the grille.
Another frustrating reminder of the French abandonment of the US market. They took more trouble to understand Africans than Americans!
This amounts to Gearhead Torture, like the Greek myth of Tantalus (where the word “tantalize” comes from). Maybe it’s providential punishment for our repudiation of Revolutionary War debts to France (the argument was, it was owed to the kingdom of France, not the Republic. Fallacy of Special Pleading, I think).
Older Peugeots are in a class by themselves, with a nearly (vintage) Mercedes solidity. Having owned a 1982 240d and a 505 diesel wagon, the Peugeot is better in almost every way.
Tree shift done properly works fine, just avoid Murican and Oztrayan attempts at them, Ford Zephyrs 4 speed column shifts were ok as were 4 speed Hillman or mine was once I set it up correctly then the gearbox failed so I went to later all syncro floorshift model G/box, Peugeot would be the best though by a long shot.
I’ve driven a handful of American three-on-the-trees and all were uniformly pretty bad. I’ve put a few miles on Peugeot and Mercedes 4 speed column shifts; much better, but not as good as their floor shift counterparts. Now didn’t Alfa even have 5 speed column shifters in some Giulia Berlinas, or am I confabulating?
I remember driving a Nissan with a 5 speed column shift that was in dire need of an adjustment.
I remember driving a Renault 16, and being amazed how good the column shift was. It was fun to drive despite a column shift – who knew that was possible?
Would it be cynical to suggest the US and Australian ones were aimed at steering the buyer towards the optional-at-extra-cost automatic?
Nice car and nice find.
Interesting point about these cars is that they had the gearbox in the sump, BMC Mini/ADO16 style, rather than end on like the Autobianchi and Fiat 128.
The grille and headlamp layout is not dissimilar to what BMC had on various Farina designed saloons, both FWD and RWD. The Austin 3 Litre (https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-european/cc-follow-up-1969-austin-3-litre-deluxe-the-landcrab-trilogy-is-complete/) was at one time to have had a rectangular headlamp and would have had quite a Peugeot look to the front. The rest would still have been an aesthetic mess though.
The gearbox is not in the sump; it’s below the engine.
https://data.motor-talk.de/data/galleries/0/38/3573/39703421/304-motor-2721583200849390947.jpg
Paul, not sure if your above assertion is without a difference. Are you saying that spatially the sump and gear shafts were separated vertically instead of horizontally? There was one lubricant for both engine and gearbox. Unified lubrication seems to be a major difference between the “BMC Mini/ADO16 style,” and the Primula/Fiat/Simca. Another major difference is the use of gears to transfer power to the transmission. The 204 appears to have more uncommon with the Mini than the Primula in that respect.
This was a while back, and I’m not sure now why I said that. I assume I did after doing some kind of quick search, but the rendering of the engine-transmission unit you showed above certainly suggests I was wrong. It won’t be the first time.
Paul, a six year flashback is hard to pull off. You are gracious. I enjoy this era and these early front wheel drive cars. I believe the Autobianchi Primula precedes the 204 by one year.
“… many accused (Dante) Giacosa of copying Issigonis’ Mini, the engineer actually designed and patented a front-wheel drive drivetrain centered around a transversally-mounted engine in 1947.
Giacosa hoped that his drivetrain would be used in the 600 but Fiat ultimately went with a longitudinally-mounted engine located behind the passenger compartment. Looking back several decades later, Giacosa explained that part of the reason why the setup didn’t make it to production was because “the components of the engine and the gearbox are housed inside the same casing. This means they cannot be assembled and tested separately in different workshop.” Giacosa went on to explain that when the engine and the transmission are mounted side by side, “a series of gear-wheels – or else a chain – has to be used to transmit drives from the motor to the gearbox. This means additional complications, higher noise levels, increased loss of power due to friction, heavier weight and higher costs. The Mini, with the transmission gears in the crankcase, presents these defects.”
I first found the idea that one pair of idler gears would cause such problems odd, but what do I know. GM did it! The Hy-vo drive chain didn’t seem to make so much noise, though comparisons are difficult.
Now the choices in the Citroen Traction Avant, the DS19, the Renault 4, are clearer. Longer wheelbase, less understeer, little torque steer, separate lubrication systems for gear box and engine with front wheel drive.
Edits
Changes to the text are in parenthesis.
Paul, not sure if your above assertion is (a distinction) without a difference.
The 204 appears to have more (in common instead of uncommon) with the Mini than the Primula in that respect
I did a bit more looking into it, and yes, it is of course very much in the Issigonos/Mini mold. For some reason I must have thought it had its own enclosure and didn’t share its lubrication with the engine, but that was clearly not the case.
As to the Citroen TA, DS, R4, and others with that FWD layout, it was of course more or less the original FWD layout, for its obvious relative lack of complexity and the ability to reuse much of a traditional RWD layout. But it was of course not at all space efficient, among other things.
Paul,
The early transverse engine and common lubrication seemed to go together, except in early motorcycles. The British transverse twins and the American V twins started with separate gear boxes and separate lubrication systems. The unit twins kept the chain primary reduction and I believe the separate lubrication of the gear box. My understanding is that the Japanese bikes followed this model, except with a geared primary. Obviously, the two strokes all had separate lubrication of the gear box. At some point… with the advent of the multi cylinders? common lubrication became the rule. Does anyone know when this happened? I think this was when the primary drive moved from the end of the crank to the middle when the width of the multi’s became an issue.
The applicability of my ignorance is debatable, but I assume that a sump separate from the gear box with a geared power transfer is more expensive or takes more space. The Lamborghini Miura had common lubrication with the crank in the same space as the gears but it was separated in later model SV’s. The GM Tornado/El Dorado also had separate lubrication. (In our Allison? automatics in some fire engines we used 30 weight oil.)
Given the already noted problems with the Mini, and the limited lubrication qualities of oils, the “conservative” Peugeot 204 engineers must have been quite confident of it’s durability. It is an attractive layout with better weight distribution and no worries of torque steer. The gear whine is also not noted so maybe it was just peachy.
One of the major drawbacks of the fwd front mid engine layouts of the R4, Traction Avant, DS19, SM etc is the inaccessibility of the engine and accessories. In my opinion the fwd front engine layout of the SAAB V4, Subarus (OHV), Citroen 2 CV, Lancia narrow angle 4 is attractive, especially if four wheel drive is needed. The inline 4 of Audi has too much front overhang for good handling and front approach angles.
Thank you for your interest and coverage of these obscure (from an American perspective) but revolutionary automobiles. I really enjoy the discussion of these vehicles, and this is one of the few places I can.
Actually the 204 design came from Peugeot’s own study bureau called La Garenne, who were still upset that peugeot had chosen for Pininfarina for the design of the 404.
Of course Pininfarina did have a hand in the design but like the later launched small 205, it was mainly an in-house design (as is that ugly ugly 407)
The picture of the interior of the green 204 convertible is the dashboard from a 304 convertible, the 204 convertible was equipped with the normal 204 dashboard (as was this 304 convertible )
– Note- the ‘normal’ 304 convertible with this dash is much more a rarity then the 304 ‘S’ version, which is much more common-
The 204 & 304 Coupé were more stylish but also practical cars with their hatch, I always compared them to the famous MGB-Gt cars
These were always rather expensive an dexclusive cars.
The thing against them was that you could not buy alloy wheels or other cool stuff for such a car, foa an MGB you could buy loda of ‘stuff’
I had a normal 304 convertible (with that dash) always wanted an S back then and that 204 Coupé may well be the car I was offered 10 years ago, it had belonged to a retired General, had a very, very low mileage, was cheap ( €2200 ) and had a French license
plate from that departement with a low number like 6 VM 86
In France high ranking people always got a low number, like the French president always had the number 1 on his Parisian licence plate ! ( 1 PR 75)
I still do not know why I did not buy that car, it was 100% original cheap and these are good driving cars and easy to maintain Actually a 204 is a good car.
Even the one a friend once bought for 50 Guilders, the brakes worked on one rear wheel only but he managed to drive it for over six months !
My 304 convertible had been a very good and reliable car and parts were cheap, all similar to their saloon brothers !
Actually the 204 design came from Peugeot’s own study bureau called La Garenne, who were still upset that peugeot had chosen for Pininfarina for the design of the 404.
You’re going to have to show me some proof of that, as the 204, especially the coupe and cabrio, simply scream ‘Pininfarina’. The front end is straight from the Jacqueline, while the rear end is straight off PF’s MG ADO 34 prototype from 1964 (image below). And everything in between is pure PF too.
My understanding is that Peugeot didn’t have any in-house design department until the 1980s or so, after they got mad that the Alfa 164 looked so much like their own sedans by PF.
So where did you get that from?
the 404 peugeot book La Peugeot 404 de mon pere, very interesting material and there it says Peugeot had a bureau des etudes in la Garenne that had a supporting role in car development.
Peugeot and Pininfarina had a tight relationship but certainly the 204 sedan design wise screams much more Corvair then Pininfarina.
Here a French site where they confirm the ‘wood’grain dash ios 304, not 204 :
http://www.boletus-satanas.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t=7196
And here a picture of the authentic 204 dashboard :
but certainly the 204 sedan design wise screams much more Corvair then Pininfarina.
No, it doesn’t. And I’ve already shown you ample visual proof of that.
The 1960 Corvair influenced PF’s designs, but by the time he did the 204, he also had his own and very clearly defined elements. The 204 is clearly and obviously a pure pF design, and Peugeot did not have a proper design department until the 80s. PF had a an exclusive contract to do all of Peugeot’s design work from the 1950s into the 1980s.
Peugeot had its own design bureau which was competing with Pininfarina for designing cars.
Sometimes Peugeot combined some design elements from its own bureau and Pininfarina’s.
Can’t remember who designed the 204 sedan though. Might have been both Peugeot and Pininfarina.
So here is the complete story.
The sedan and the convertible were Pininfarina’s design but Paul Bouvot, head of Peugeot’s Centre of Style, designed the Coupé.
Constantini: I don’t believe there’s a simple answer or a “complete story”. Paul Bouvot’s job was to coordinate between PF and Peugeot’s own small design department. he worked very closely with PF, and undoubtedly there was an on-going exchange.
But when it comes to attribution of design, in a situation like this, it’s almost impossible to do correctly, since people naturally have a habit of claiming the credit for any given design.
I did some Googling, and there are articles out there that give him credit for the 204 sedan/whole line. That’s just not true, but undoubtedly he contributed something to that car. just how much will probably never be accurately known.
I give Bouvot credit for being there, and having input on the 204. But to say “he didn’t design the sedan but did design the coupe” is just too simplistic of an answer.
For what it’s worth, the coupe’s roof line, the only part different from the cabrio, is very similar to other PF coupe roofs. But it may well be true that Bouvot had some key role in that coupe roof. I’m in no position to answer definitively, nor is probably anyone else, anymore.
Bouvot was both a designer and head of Peugeot inhouse design department.
It was more than a coordinating job.
From what I read in all my books about Peugeot, there was a competition between inhouse design department and Pininfarina since 1956.
Each team proposed its own design and management chose between them. Here is a photo of Peugeot’s design department (down) and Pininfarina proposals (up) for the 504. We can see that management chose Pininfarina’s proposal but retained its own department proposal for the face (and the “Sophia Loren’s eyes” headlight type).
But two things are true. Most often than not, management seemed to chose proposals from Pininfarina over than its own department proposals. And sometimes, credits were a bit blurred.
According to the Gazoline Hors Série on the 204/304, Pininfarina’s initial design of the 204 was too close to the Morris 1100 (both Peugeot and BMC weren’t pleased) so both Pininfarina and inhouse design department had to re-work the body style.
About the convertible and the coupé, I found some who credited both of them to Pininfarina and some others to Bouvot.
I used to have a huge book about the 204/304 with many sketches and clays which might have enlightened us, but I sold it a few years back…
The picture of the interior of the green 204 convertible is the dashboard from a 304 convertible, the 204 convertible was equipped with the normal 204 dashboard (as was this 304 convertible )
Then why does it say ‘204’ clearly on the dash?
This is from a 1970 204 cabrio; maybe they changed it like some other things were for the ’69-’70 model years.
And here a later 304 Dash, these were introduced when the S model was introduced, the S had slightly different rims with holes and the famous Kangourou headlights, a headlight with a double reflector for main beam
And of course it was faster.
I’m sorry, but you’re wrong. The picture I show of the interior is from a 1970 cabrio. Here’s the full article on it. http://bringatrailer.com/2014/08/05/rare-in-the-usa-1970-peugeot-204-cabriolet-project/
And the picture below clearly shows that same dash in this 204 cabrio.
The picture you posted of a 204 dash is the early version. As I previously said, the later version of the 204 had this revised dash.
Today’s (few) manual trans FWD cars shift pretty smoothly, in my opinion.
My 2006 Cobalt SS shifter felt more accurate than my 86 VW GTI.
The Cobalt, and I’m pretty sure all FWD M/T cars sold in the US, use cables for the linkage, vs rods. (can anyone guess which car pioneered the cable shifter?)
So, regarding column shifts, I would think that the more complicated linkage of a column shifter, whether from and old Peugeot (better) or an old American three-on-the-tree (worse), could be replaced with cables now. This would result in considerably more “accurate”-feeling shifts.
Any comments or opinions about the cable-actuated column shifters?
I have never driven a column shift manual, though I’d like to find an old car to try.
And the first cable-actuated man trans–I’m pretty sure it was the…X-car! Go GM!
If so, they’ve come quite a ways. In 1980, a Ford Fairmont had a pretty good gearshift, even compared to a RWD Toyota; the Citation was not bad, but not as good as the Ford, and the K-car in 1981….well, few people bought manuals, but it was kinda vague…
Any
I’m probably wrong, but I think I remember that the Cavalier was the 1st American-built car with cable control in the manual transmission.
I learned to drive with a “three on the tree”, so it was nothing but downhill from there. I would say you are not missing much. The shifts were definitely not short and smooth, and most American cars did not have a synchronized first gear for some reason. I would often need to get out of the car, lift the hood, and unbind the linkage. Usually in the middle of a busy intersection. How is it that the Europeans did four speeds on the column without difficulty, but America couldn’t even do three?
Because nearly all American cars, including bottom feeder sedans, had enough torque to not require frequent shifting. Once one shifted into third the transmission could be left alone unless you came to a complete stop. In contrast most European cars had the same torque output as a Singer sewing machine and required frequent shifting. Once American manufacturers started offering automatic transmissions the take rate climbed rapidly; the only people who wanted manuals were performance enthusiasts who were willing to pay extra for a decent floor shift. So no incentive to improve the column shift linkage for manual transmissions.
Joe, I agree with your point on torque. The only time downshifts were required was during a left or right hand turn, then it was a 3-2 shift. Easy enough. Third to first, or even second to first was impossible due to the unsynchronized first gear. (Need to ask, are all of the gears on the Peugeot synchronized?) You either had to come to a full stop or grind into first which got everyone’s attention inside and outside of the car Also, to add to your consumers who wanted either an automatic or floor mounted shift, don’t forget the diminishing segment of cheapskate chiselers (like my Dad) who would not pay for anything other than “standard” equipment.
About today’s manual FWD cars shifting smoothly: yes, and yet actual shifter feel can vary a lot. My ’05 Mazda 3 had quite a heavy shift action after the ’87 Ford Laser (323-clone) I used to have. Accurate, but heavy. Made me wish more than once that I’d taken a longer test drive before I bought it. I preferred the feel of the older model. And my daughter’s ’05 Honda Jazz had such a light shifter action it almost seemed toylike; it was hard to credit that it was actually connected to anything, but it made a rather low-performing car seem a bundle of fun.
And the early model Austin Maxi came out with a cable-linked five speed in ’69. The press damned it so thoroughly that it BL actually replaced it with a rod linkage after a while.
Rootes used cable and linkage in the 50s(finger tip control) and it works fine if adjusted correctly, not the easiest thing to adjust though.
“…vehicles on a robust RWD platform, and one that went through successive generations, from the first postwar 204 (above) right through to the final 505.”
I’m confused – did you mean to refer to a 203?
Yes; a typo. Will fix.
204 was indeed very looking car, the two over sized headlights gave it the baby lion king look. Interestingly, the best looker of all 204s were the 4 door, the most balanced.
Peugeot 504 column shift was nice; Citroen ID 19 column shift was nice; Renault R16 column shift was very nice.
So I can certainly believe a 204 would be quite nice in this regard.
Ford and GM column shift of the late 60’s and early 70’s appeared to be punishment for not opting for an automatic. I experienced the jammed linkage in an Olds F85 (’68). In much earlier years, when they prevailed, they seemed okay, if not “nice.”
It’s been something like 35 years since driving an early 50’s ford custom, but I don’t remember that 3 on the tree being bad at all. Then again, I might have been distracted by adjusting to the steering and drum brakes. Come to think of it, those cars were pretty good exercise. But the column shift seemed okay.
Very handsome Peugeots those 204’s are BTW. 🙂
A jammed column shift is no fun. Get out, open the hood, reach down to the base of the column, wiggle the shift linkage for half a minute or so until something goes clunk and gives way, close the hood, wipe the grease off your hands, resume your journey….
Yep HQ Holden being the worst.
Bad, but for me it was the HK-G’s that were worst. Partly fixed by use of large hoseclips between linkages under the bonnet, in some way I’ve long forgotten.
Literally only the French ever mastered the column shift (Mercedes ones were turdly, in RHD anyway), with caveat I’ve not driven a SAAB 96, which is not reputed to be too wonderful. Even Japanese ones all felt like a vague and flexy wand controlled their movements, and by the time there was five, on an angle in a forward-control van, it was all getting a bit squished up and hopelessly unergonomic.
Any US (or US-derived) ones I’ve ever tried were slow any dismal, though my old man swears his ’38 Oldsmobile had a lovely (cable) column change. He did last drive it in 1962 traffic, mind…
Big cousin: Pininfarina also tried the same front end arrangement with the prominent oval lights and a chamfered grille on BMC with even less success. Also, the related BMC 1800 shared the broken-backed look with the down angled tail.
I am SO glad we didn’t get this model in Australia – that front end looks thoroughly unpleasant. Wasn’t the 1800 an Issigonis rather than PF design? I’d always blamed BL stylists for the 3 litre’s front; never thought it might have been Pininfarina’s fault. If he was involved, he must’ve had something bad for lunch. Now if they’d tooled up for new flush sill panels rather than having them stick out like mini-running boards, it mightn’t have looked too bad, and less like an 1800. What’s that old saying about spoiling the ship for a halfpenny’s worth of tar?
Never thought of the 1800 and 504 having the same rear end theme.
I won’t claim to be a student of 60s euro cars, but I know many of them, though mostly the ones we got here in the US. But I’d never heard of the 204. A few 403s, lots of 404s and 504s, a few 604s, a rare 304(?) but no 204s.
Only in the coupe version, but I see a whole lot of Simca 1100/1204, the latter of which I drove the veritable wheels off of in the late 70s, early 80s. The back especially, with it’s Peugeot 504 trunkline in both, but even in the side profile, albeit not much from the front.
Column shifts can be done well, just as on the floor can be done poorly. I drove my Dads Renault 16 TS pretty hard for a summer in England with a 4 on the tree and it was just fine. My beloved Simca 1204, a great car in many ways, had an odd rod and cable mechanism IIRC, that was less than ideal.
Sweet little cars. Barely any here, and I had chance to buy a perfect original one cheap perhaps 15 years ago. Nowhere to put it at the time. Ce la vie.
How is it that BMC/BL never got a wholly decent gearchange out of their in-sump-common-oil transmission, yet Peugeot did with all these suitcase jobs? And via a column, no less. Another mystery lost to the fogs of the English channel.
’88 – ’91 Honda Civic 5-speed has rod linkage; mine is still indistinguishable in feel from a proper Italian RWD shifter after 34 years use. The 6-speed AWD version of my car had cable linkage. I’ve never driven one of those, new or old . . .
Stumbled across this thread out of curiosity because I’m in France at a garage (flat tyre) admiring a 204. The photos don’t quite do it justice. It’s a lovely-looking thing!