First pictures - this is what the new Citroën 2CV Van looks like!

In Lombardy, the incubator stands for the new box duck. The Carosserie Caselani, which will bring the new 2CV Van to the world under Citroën license, provides fans on social media with pictures. Sparse – but finely dosed. And other information is also discreetly reserved. The engine remains unclear. Does the legitimate successor to the 2CV Fourgonnette come purely electrically, or also with combustion engines? Both would be possible on the Stellantis platform.

First pictures of the 2CV Van on social media
First pictures of the 2CV Van on social media

The price question also remains open, the fans have to be patient. That should be difficult, if you look at the first photos. The design is the reinterpretation of the 2CV, and it's a success. The new Citroën 2CV Van could provide the basis for smaller campers, family vans and transporters.

Corrugated iron design - pretty cool
Corrugated Iron Design - Pretty cool

Lots of corrugated iron design makes the new release cool and different from what else is seen on the streets. If Caselani relies on the Advanced Comfort chassis of the Berlingo, then there will not be an original 2CV feeling, but something that is typical and close to Citroën.

Authentic design - typical 2CV
Authentic design - typical 2CV

The Caselani 2CV Van has already passed the first, spontaneous test in the family circle, among corrugated iron fans. Where and when to buy, and at what price? Retro can be beautiful if it's done well and authentically. Citroën fans are now waiting for official pictures and the price list. And we are curious to see whether the retro van will also be available in Germany.

Pictures of Body Caselani

9 thoughts on "First pictures - this is what the new Citroën 2CV Van looks like!"

  • blank

    Optics, Optics, Optics...

    Join me in articles and comments. But I also have two or three critical thoughts on how the automotive industry deals with the topic of retro ...

    Technology, technology, technology...
    Hardly any retro design stands on a meaningful platform, is also equal to its historical model in terms of utility versus the use of resources. The New Beetles, for example, were realized on a Golf basis and buyers and fans should pay more money for a smaller car and a smaller trunk. This may be very stylish, but limits the advantages of retro design to the fashionable component of a longing for "the good old days".

    I would prefer it the other way around. That means that more of the old virtues in automotive engineering are being revived. Inexpensive cars with a high utility value that bring people and loads from A to B without much fuss. Such cars would probably look different today than they did between 1945 and 1970, would be constructed differently, manufactured differently. They probably wouldn't have any retro charm at all...

    And yet, in a way, they would be retro designs – a throwback to being as simple and functional as possible at a reasonable price. I don't get this feeling from a car that offers me a less car for more money on the same platform as another with the same engine, transmission and chassis (example Golf versus New Beetle). It's like buying a new Saab 9-5 NG SC today, but also a New 10.000 or New 93 for €96 more, almost no trunk on the same platform, but almost twice as big as the historical model and after all, a new car with a “retro design”.

    I just can't get that baked, it's not rational enough for me personally. I would always choose the technically identical vehicle that offers me the greater benefit for less money. Although (or maybe because) I like old boxes, I just couldn't bring myself to buy a retro design that offers me less car for more money on a well-known platform. It's not possible and contradicts the specifications that the designers of the original had at the time, diametrically. It never said that a Fiat 500, a 2CV, a VW Beetle or a Mini should be more expensive to produce than more useful models from the competition, from your own group or even from your own brand.

    Well, long story short, we should also be aware that a retro design does not automatically embody old virtues. It must also be technically well done. The optics are ecologically and economically completely worthless - apart from the manufacturer, who gets more money from some customers for less car. Of course it's not ecological either, but it might still make sense economically from a one-sided point of view (manufacturer). Everyone has to know for themselves, but for me personally when buying a car it is an exclusion criterion if I have to pay more for a model even though there is a technically identical one with more utility value that is cheaper.
    I can't. But that's exactly what the current retro is. Is not enough for me personally. I want the content, not the packaging, not the waste and as little packaging waste as possible...

    Answer
    • blank

      "Old virtues" ... I think it's good. 😉

      …. I think this also includes a return to "old dimensions" ... and not always bigger / wider / longer / higher or heavier cars!
      The trend is (in my opinion) completely in the wrong direction!

      Dazu:
      And it is not the (old) parking lots that are too small, only the (today's) cars that are too big! 😉 😉
      (unfortunately my thick ship included)

      Here at Quarks, the topic is also dealt with quite well (in my opinion):
      https://www.ardmediathek.de/video/quarks/suv-und-co-warum-werden-unsere-autos-immer-groesser/wdr-fernsehen/Y3JpZDovL3dkci5kZS9CZWl0cmFnLTg1Yjg5NjIxLTlkZjItNGI2MC1iYWYwLWI1Mjg5M2Y4YjUyNw

      And from approx. 40:35 min the topic "return to old standards" is shown very clearly using a street!

      Answer
      • blank

        I'll sign that immediately.
        The old dimensions are surprisingly generous. In absolute terms, cars had up to twice the payload than today. Measured in terms of its own weight, it can also be four times as much.

        Drivers and passengers find twice as much space in cars today, but by no means twice as much space. If the head and leg and shoulder room has increased by a few percent, then that's good. Compare the utility of a Sino-Swedish V90 with one of its predecessors. The old Duett still has the best of all quotients of weight and external dimensions on the one hand, and interior, trunk and payload on the other. It came shortly after WW II and has been unmatched in this discipline for around 70 years, although Volvo has built quite nice and large station wagons since then. But the quotient kept getting worse. That’s where new cars and new designs have to start…
        We need more utility per resource again. It doesn't matter whether it's out of economic need or in the name of the environment. If we're honest for a moment, then we know very well that we need different cars than the ones we currently drive, produce or buy new - regardless of whether we're talking about an electric car or a combustion engine ...

        Answer
        • blank

          Today's cars have to be a bit heavier than their "ancestors" for safety reasons alone (side impact protection, etc.), but that's about it. If one were to focus on innovations consistently for resource conservation and efficiency instead of showing off power and status symbol posturing in the form of ever heavier SUVs - which are only safer for the occupants even in collisions with smaller Atos, but pose an increased safety risk for all other road users, including lower cars - use, the cars would look completely different. And it would always work lighter and still or precisely because of it with an ingenious design - think of the ingenious A2 (which Audi killed for precisely these reasons: not chic, expensive and showy enough, too economical. Sad, sad!)

          Answer
          • blank

            I sign. The A2 was the first and so far the last car from Audi that was deliberately designed to use as few resources as possible in terms of utility.
            For me personally, the A2 has now achieved cult status. It was a great car and there was no successor. Even though it was only in production for a few years, I see a lot in common with older favorites. It's not the A2's fault that the (Audi) boss hated it

            Answer
    • blank

      Yes, way too big to be called a revival
      to go through box duck. More reminiscent of a (really big) barrow/transporter/van. Looks quite nice from this point of view, but not exactly what the box duck stood for and therefore not an alternative, but another giant cart - which (hopefully only) could be interesting for tradespeople who like to have it stylish. I liked the sketch of the two-seater duck much better, which (would have) become smaller than the original.

      Answer
  • blank

    That is very successful, the design! The best of all the retro designs yet. They have also taken on the former HY and reinterpreted it beautifully. Today's demands and requirements are of course different than back then, but the Italians were very cautious. Very beautiful!

    Answer
  • blank

    Great style! That's how it is done!

    Answer

Leave a Comment

Your e-mail address will not be published.