Citroën ë-2CV concept - the future could be so likeable

Saab fans once dreamed of one 96 retro project. In fact, in Sweden in 2011 there were some ideas of what a compact Saab could look like. Now the Citroën friends in France are dreaming of an electric rebirth of the 2CV. The idea has been making the rounds in the national press, and independent designers have provided sketches. Realization would not be completely impossible. Because Citroën is working on electrification of the C3 and C3 Aircross. The expectations for this are high.

Urban and cute - electric 2CV concept
Urban and cute - electric 2CV concept

Despite extensive facelifts, the current models in the C3 family cannot be electrified. Because the platform used is too old, the successors will use the current CMP group platform. After the success of AMI, which is already available in France for the price of a smartphone from €19,99 per month, the upcoming ë-C3 is expected to have a similarly aggressive price structure.

The new ë-C3 could cost €99 a month Passionate Citroën, changing the market for the brand. With it, entry into the electric car class should be possible for a wide range of buyers for a purchase price of less than €20.000.

But what if Citroën also brought an electric retro 2CV?

Citroën ë-2CV concept for electric urban mobility

Retro is hip. Fiat has been showing it very successfully for many years with the 500. BMW has the MINI and the eternal Citroën rival Renault comes with the electric R5 and even electrifies the sports car icon Alpine. An electric ë-2CV could almost be the answer.

Which historic Citroën model would capture more sympathy?

The coloring takes up the Charleston models of the 2CV
The coloring takes up the Charleston models of the 2CV

The designer Jean Louis Bui has published his idea for the 2CV after sensational DS concepts. Compact, cute, based on the color scheme of the Charleston models, an electric duck could roll across European streets.

The idea provider relies on urban, reasonable dimensions. It shrinks the Retro Mobil by almost a meter in length. The electric duck, which now looks straight out of a comic, could be 3 meters long and 1,5 meters wide. The ideal, handy vehicle for an urban environment that mobilizes the masses at low cost. Just like the 2CV brought mobility to rural areas.

The Citroën ë-2CV is just wishful thinking at the moment. Because unfortunately Jean Louis Bui does not work for Citroën, he creates designs for prototype. The electric Retro 2CV is a purely private finger exercise. That's kind of a shame. Added retro charm would go well with the double chevron brand. Not only in France.

With pictures by Jean Louis Bui

19 thoughts on "Citroën ë-2CV concept - the future could be so likeable"

  • In the past, one obviously focused on the needs of the customers, at least tried to. Today, corporations tell you what you want, or try to.

  • Cute fits...

    At first glance, I'm thrilled by the retro charm and touched by the childish scheme. A car like a puppy...

    But then reason and critical thinking set in. A car like a toy, says one comment. Good point. Where is the benefit and is it (today) in a healthy relationship to the use of resources?
    The 2CV, R4 and R5 were serious cars and were just as little smiled at in France as a Trabant in the GDR or a Saab 93 in Sweden ...

    In all of these vehicles, there was more or less space for families of four. At the time, they were perceived and used as suitable for everyday use and even for travel. From the 4 mentioned French there were practical models with amazing loading capacity for craftsmen and suppliers and with the Saab 3 and the Trabant station wagon there were also "swallowing" small cars in S and the GDR.

    The small Saab 95 even had optional additional seats in the "loading compartment" - even if only suitable for small children. It was the automobilization of the rural population, as Tom writes. It seems decadent to me when we need cars today to “walk” around the corner to the bakery in the city and create our own cars for this purpose, in which you can just put a driver, his wallet and a bag of croissants on the way back and can squeeze two baguettes. All this with a "contemporary" claim to comfort and road safety. You have to have ABS and air conditioning to make it to the boulangerie and back unscathed. And don't forget, a large display, sat nav and internet are essential on board before you venture out just 100 m from the charging station in front of the front door, which is also absolutely necessary.

    I don't believe for a second that such concepts save resources or make a meaningful contribution to environmental or climate protection. Just went shopping on my bike earlier. In front of me a young athletic man who was almost as fast as me without pedaling. I couldn't get to him. I had him at the next traffic light. Him and his e-bike. Tomorrow he will buy an ë-2CV, drive away from me casually and with a clear ecological conscience and from now on he will no longer take the e-bike to the spinning course in the air-conditioned gym, but will drive instead.
    For me, at second glance, the draft is more the perfect embodiment of our problems and a long-taken wrong path than a contribution to the solution - puppy protection and child scheme or not ...

    Farmers and bakers used to drive to the market with the 2CV or the R4, R5 (Express). There they sold to one to two hundred people, who all came on foot. Tomorrow one to two hundred people will all drive their ë-2CV to the bakery first and then get fresh herbs, fruit and vegetables from somewhere else and then drive back to one to two hundred charging stations. Find the mistake.

    • Many points are correct, but there are also many routes in the city or in the rural radius of 50 km that cannot be covered by bicycle or public transport. E.g. because there are bad connections or no connections at all, because you can't show up totally sweaty, raining wet or dirty at an important professional appointment, to which you may also have to take a lot of important documents with you, because you're not fit enough for longer bike tours, because you have to take your disabled mother to the doctor, etc. etc. – I can think of numerous other cases. Not all of them are young, fit, mobile and good on foot and on a bike. One would wish for a small, charming, easy-to-handle car with which one can easily find a parking space. And let's be honest: Many households consist of one or two people, in almost all passing cars there is only one person and you don't have to constantly fill station wagon-sized trunks. I would rather compare this very charming study with a Smart for two, in which, by the way, a single driver can easily store a week's shopping. And the city is just teeming with them, which I think is basically a good thing. With this goal in mind, I find the study very charming and consider it a heartwarming alternative to the Smart or (four-seater) retro Fiat 500, which is also successful (here there are 20 Fiat 10s and 500 retro minis in addition to what feels like 5 Smarts on each street). And if a two-seater is enough for you, that can also save resources. And electric drive? Yes, I don't think much of that, but it will soon be mandatory, and then it's better to have such a charming duck - which at least puts a smile on your face - than the 100th ugly, resource-wasting giant 3-ton electric SUV, that devours everything (space, batteries, energy and every taste)! And I would prefer not to set foot in a retrospectively electrified old duck.

      • PS And as a woman you want to go out alone in the evening/night and get home safely (and with a safe feeling), which is not always the case with public transport or by bike. So many possible uses for the little speedster. Of course, I also admit that the “kid scheme” got me completely… 🙂

        • Yes, of course, the child scheme works. Since Smart will soon be building larger cars, there is a gap here. In addition, an ë-2CV would be completely free of aggression.

    • Very well worded. Brings the fun without renunciation society to the point. You could also gossip about the superfluous e-scooters... But let's not do that. I'm glad that I'm not the only one who still gets his bread from the bakery by bike.

      • I'm sticking to it: such a small speedster is not the alternative to routes that you can do on foot or by bike. Anyone who can do it will do it anyway. It is the alternative to oversized giant boxes, which are maneuvered 95% almost empty by one person through overcrowded inner cities. And for vacation or Ikea shopping you rent something bigger (or use - much much better - the Saab :-)).

        • That's what gives me a stomach ache...

          "Such a small speedster is not the alternative for (...)".

          Such a small speedster is neither an alternative to a bike, to footpaths, to public transport, nor to a delivery service, a rental car or another and further car. You yourself have already comprehensively described the practical value and the usage scenario. And I observe exactly such a scenario and exactly this form of use everywhere with the Smart ForTwo that you mention ...

          I only know of one Smart ForTwo that serves as a household's first vehicle and only vehicle. It is the inner-city single household of an 85-year-old widower who is still able to walk, is not afraid of public transport and only drives the Smart, with an annual mileage of 1.500 km, on special occasions. The 3-year-old vehicle would not have had to be produced in the first place and could easily be replaced by taxi rides at no cost.

          We produce (and scrap) too much stuff at the expense of the environment that we never really used. I only know other Smart ForTwos as second and even third or fourth cars. They are all only produced additionally ...

          And they all don't drive enough kilometers a year to pay off for the environment. Incidentally, the Smart ForTwo as an EV weighs over a tonne.

          Such a small monster has consumed a lot of energy and resources in the production and has to drive a lot and far before it saves anything. In fact, it is more environmentally friendly to drive a few kilometers a year late in the evening privately or during the day to a business appointment in a large first or second car than to produce, purchase and ultimately scrap cars that are tailor-made for almost every occasion.

          For comparison. A 2CV (a four-door) weighed only 560 kg. A BMW Isetta, which is practically a forerunner of the Smart ForTwo, only 370 kg. And today we're seriously talking about how much energy and resources it might save if we also buy a ton of car for special occasions and we're looking for "good" reasons to have new desires awakened in us in addition to all other and old desires as well yet to be fulfilled.

          Today, every bicycle needs an e-bike and every large car needs a small car. The fleet is growing, the tonnage is growing and we have never been so frugal, frugal and environmentally conscious as we are today...

          Over a ton for a two-seater...
          You have to calculate that first. But it works. Countless third and fourth cars bear witness. It's amazing how much energy and resources we're saving now. Now that "reasonable" people are finally getting such cars as well. The third car could have weighed 3 tons. But no, it's only one and with a total of "only" 7 tons, the family of 3 also feels comfortable.

          That's almost 14 2CV with a total of 56 wheels, 56 doors and 56 seats and up to 4,2 million km mileage without major repairs. This is the fleet that we believe we need today and that we prefer to renew every three years...

          14 ducks is the new normal. Or 5 Saab 9K in a 3-person household with only 2 driver's licenses and one child.

          Something is going terribly wrong there. The tonnage of fleets is growing and growing and growing and small cars have long been part of the problem - even if they are lighter than large SUVs. It cannot and must not be the case that a modern two-seater weighs three times as much despite its lightweight construction (Isetta vs. Smart ForTwo).

          Funny by the way (or infinitely sad):
          The Club of Rome postulated the factor four. And we listened carefully, because today there is a factor of 2 between a 4CV and a Smart ForTwo. Until 1990 it took less than 150 kg of car per seat and a few decades later it is almost 600 kg.
          If a Club of Rome 2.0 wrote a similar book today, it would be talking about a factor of 16.

          • We don't get along there. I see it essentially differently and it is often different. The being or the place of residence probably determines the consciousness and the perception. Here on our street there are about 50 Smarts, Fiat 500 and Co., which, as far as I can see, are constantly being moved. For parking reasons alone, of course, nobody has such a speedster as a second car, it's the only car that everyone I know here has. And of course we are all on foot or by bike anyway in the immediate vicinity. Anything that can be done without a car (shopping, bakery, etc. etc.) can also be done here. You can't do that with a car, because you have to walk longer than without a car because of the search for a parking space. Since Smart and Co. have been around, they have been absolutely predominant, at least here, in the small, narrow one-way streets of the inner-city old building district. And that's a good thing - they're bought instead of the big boxes.

            • We really don't get along there. Even if small cars are bought instead of big boxes, a two-seater of over a ton is still completely beside the point for my taste and just as "contemporary" as a 3 ton SUV...

              Where are the slimmed-down cars that take us from A to B, protected from the rain and using a minimum of resources? There are no slimmed-down small cars anymore. The Fiat 500 from 2020 weighs more than a Saab 9K depending on the equipment. The 500 counts as a small car and the 9K as an upper middle class with feelers that stretch far into the upper class ...

              The old 500 was available from 470 kg. The current only from 1,255 and up to a good 1,4 tons. If a small car with virtually zero trunk or payload is allowed to weigh so much and devour so many resources and gets applause for it, then the fat SUVs with “only” twice the curb weight seem comparatively efficient and reasonable to me.

              But I don't want to drive out one devil with another. My point is just that the zeitgeist has long since spread across the entire range of vehicles. If you are looking for an ecologically clear conscience, you will not buy a two-seater or another small car with an empty weight of 1 to 1,5 tons. Neither does a cyber truck, of course. We've gotten to a point where, no matter what class of vehicle, some denial of consumption suits us best...

              That's not funny and consumption can be a lot of fun, it's joy and a piece of quality of life. Everyone has to know for themselves, but for me personally the fun is over.
              I can no longer convince myself that even the hottest of all hottest microcars is a sensible purchase decision if it weighs as much or even more than my 52-year-old luxury class with thick sheet metal and leather seats, 600 liters of trunk and a 6-cylinder cast-iron engine block and a camshaft located below. From today's perspective, the box is a cracked steam locomotive and the engine performance could easily be achieved with an engine half the size and a quarter of the weight.

              And yet today we sell microcars that only have half the engine power, half the trunk volume, less interior space and, despite lightweight construction, the same weight.

              I just can't get my head around that. At least one switch must have gone wrong somewhere and at some point...

              Even the Citroën DS, which was already a topic here, weighed a maximum of only 5 kg with a length of up to a good 1.350 m.

              I respect your notion that a 1,5 ton mini car is better than a 3 ton SUV. But he's too frugal for me.

              We have had passenger cars over 5 m in length and luxury class vehicles under 1,5 tons. Can't and shouldn't be true if today we celebrate microcars weighing 1,5 tons with a range of 190 km as environmental protection with a healthy sense of proportion. Then all sense of proportion is really lost as to how many resources we use without hesitation for which purpose.

              With 1,4 tons, you used to be comfortable and well motorized on long journeys. You cannot and must not make that the new benchmark for an environmentally conscious urban driver. That's not your style and you don't even think that way...

  • …..for 10 to 12 mille there are French. duck parts suppliers already
    an electrical conversion kit for the original duck.
    the more sustainable principle.

    somehow have the feeling that the durability of new small electric cars
    on smartphone level......

    • That's right. I'm watching the discussion in France. To be fair, it is also mentioned there that you would rather not have an accident with an electrically converted 2CV. Unfortunately, the level of safety is only rudimentary, the 2CV was created just before the dawn of time.

      • …yes, the security….
        the homicide argument for all oldtimers….

        • Almost all 😉 There is a certain small Swedish brand...

          Jokes aside: I drive old cars. But appreciate it when ABS is on board. A 2CV is already very rudimentary. For fun and in your free time. In everyday life I would have worries.

          • I don't want to convert a 2CV. What do you get? A classic shell, batteries, but where is the famous sound of the boxer engine? This is how you steal the character of the car.

            I couldn't get used to that.

            • I thought the 2CV had a 2-cylinder V-engine...

              Also a classic, but not a boxer. Depending on the angle of the cylinders and offset of the crankshaft and ignition timing, such a V2 is even more incisive in the sound. Think of a Harley...

              After all, a boxer is just an in-line engine that has been turned halfway through 180 degrees. The sound only comes from the fact that the construction also needs two exhaust manifolds on two opposite sides and the exhaust gases have also been routed separately to the rear.

              Even a Beetle therefore had a double exhaust. Conversely, British luxury cars sometimes only had one muffler, although they had four times the engine volume and three times as many cylinders ...

              The subject is complex. But it's true, different audiences, their financial strength or preferences, and different constructions have produced significantly different sounds. The 2CV is also striking there - be it Boxer or V2. I do not give a shit …

              • for sure, the ent normally had a 2 cyl. boxer……

                some a 4 cyl. boxer from gs or ami wildent.....

                don't worry, i wrote off the electronics topic 15 years ago.
                will never change when ducking! profit.

                • Thank you!
                  Learned something again. A boxer indeed...

                  Read on Wikipedia that younger engines of the 2CV (from 1972) often had a mileage of more than 300.000 km. Fascinating.

  • And I just spontaneously thought of a toy car... It's not the worst association.

Comments are closed.