backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 167 comment(s) - last by Imaginer.. on Oct 17 at 6:27 PM


Citroen C-Cactus Concept
Citroen combines diesel engine with electric motor for ultimate hybrid economy

When talk turns to hybrids, the argument for a diesel engine rather than hybrid power is often raised. Modern diesel engines are capable of fuel economy near or better than some gasoline hybrid cars on the market.

It would seem that the ultimate hybrid system would be a combination of a diesel engine and an electric motor. This is exactly what Citroen has plans on making. Citroen introduced the C-Cactus concept car in 2007 featuring an odd design and a diesel/electric hybrid powertrain.

Citroen announced this month that it intends to produce a version of the C-Cactus concept car. The hybrid powertrain isn’t the only thing green about the vehicle. Citroen has greatly reduced the number of components needed to make the vehicle, slashing construction costs and environmental impact from the manufacturing process.

The production version of the C-Cactus will use the HYmotion2 hybrid system featuring a 1-liter diesel engine paired with an electric motor. The French automaker says that the hybrid system could provide up to 100 miles per gallon.

Another option for the production car is an all-electric version that would have a goal of achieving 100 miles of driving range at a 70 MPH top speed. Images of the C-Cactus are from the concept car, and as such, you can bet that the design and interior will be toned down significantly.

One thing you can count on for sure is that the car will never see roads in the United States. The Citroen brand is not sold in America.

If Citroen can hit that 100 MPG  number, it will be impressive. The Honda Insight is one of the most fuel frugal cars American's will be able to purchase in the coming years.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Weird looking bug car
By psychobriggsy on 10/10/2008 11:57:54 AM , Rating: 2
I guess this is using Imperial gallons however, not your puny US gallons ;)

Might be a nice car for inner-city driving, especially if it is exempt from charges like the congestion charge in London.




RE: Weird looking bug car
By MrPickins on 10/10/2008 12:31:16 PM , Rating: 2
If this is using imperial gallons, then it's about 83 mi/US-gal. Since energy density of diesel is ~10% higher than that of gasoline then the efficiency of the car might be viewed as ~75 mi/US-gal of gasoline. Not shabby by any means, but not that much more than the Honda referenced in the article.


RE: Weird looking bug car
By Oregonian2 on 10/10/2008 1:16:38 PM , Rating: 2
Also, one was referenced as "about 70mpg" and the other "up to 100 mpg", slight phrase difference can be significant sometimes. :-)


RE: Weird looking bug car
By DeepBlue1975 on 10/10/2008 4:55:55 PM , Rating: 4
This all happens because of the silly measurement units used in both the USA and the UK, that are not only different from what the rest of the world uses, but also incompatible between themselves in a couple of cases like this (gallons).
And not to talk about the questionable practicality of making serious calculations using those units.

Why won't the USA and the UK go metric once and for all?
Even in the USA metric units are used many times in scientific calculations, as those other ones are a joke.

1 feet = 12 inches = 34.27 navigator noses... come on... :D

Liters and meters rule! :D


RE: Weird looking bug car
By Jack Ripoff on 10/10/2008 6:20:07 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Liters and meters rule! :D


Actually, the litre is not an SI unit. The official SI volume unit is the cubic metre (m³).


RE: Weird looking bug car
By dubldwn on 10/10/2008 6:30:24 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, but it's a part of the metric system.


RE: Weird looking bug car
By PlasmaBomb on 10/10/2008 6:47:26 PM , Rating: 4
Handily though the definition of a litre is -
a measure of volume equivalent to 1 cubic decimetre.


RE: Weird looking bug car
By ggordonliddy on 10/10/2008 6:42:01 PM , Rating: 5
> Why won't the USA and the UK go metric once and for all?

 
I agree; the US should use the metric system, and the rest of the world should drive on the right side of the road.

But do you really expect us in the US to learn the metric system? Most people "graduating" high school nowadays are virtually illiterate.


RE: Weird looking bug car
By Tsuwamono on 10/11/2008 12:02:18 AM , Rating: 2
Just the way we like them so we can Reelect presidents like bush. Wake up man. Illiterate is where its at obviously.


RE: Weird looking bug car
By DeepBlue1975 on 10/11/2008 12:17:59 AM , Rating: 2
Could be something gradual, like, for example, on gas stations telling the volume in both units, using speedometers with both scales, talking about heights in both ways and so on.
And once people start to realize how straightforward is to make calculations using metric, I think the imperial system would start to slowly but steadily fade away.

Most of the world already know that English is the most similar thing to a universal language. Metric is the same for measurement units, except for just 2 countries :D

Oh, and BTW, driving on the right side? I think only Japan and the UK do it that way :D

That could be solved by 3 seat cars with the driver always in the middle of the front row, just by himself. Better viewing angles and less distractions because of some girl flashing her legs and potentially leading to driving accidents :D


RE: Weird looking bug car
By andrinoaa on 10/11/2008 2:55:56 AM , Rating: 2
Just add Australia, New Zealand. I don't know about any asian countries, might be a few there too! The infrustructure change wouldn't even be contemplated, lol.
We went metric in the sixties, and a good thing it was.
If this backward "penal " colony can do it, I think good ol USA should have no problems. ( if there is any money left in the system! )


RE: Weird looking bug car
By kontorotsui on 10/11/2008 1:10:15 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
That could be solved by 3 seat cars with the driver always in the middle of the front row, just by himself. Better viewing angles and less distractions because of some girl flashing her legs and potentially leading to driving accidents :D


Sure, so now TWO girls on BOTH sides backward, so the driver has two chances to peek at her legs AND from an even better point of view... and much less safely. Result: 10 times more accidents!


RE: Weird looking bug car
By DeepBlue1975 on 10/11/2008 10:39:26 PM , Rating: 2
LOL

But accidents would be twice as happy that way, or wouldn't they?


RE: Weird looking bug car
By Solandri on 10/11/2008 7:18:47 PM , Rating: 4
This was tried in the 1970s, when I was a kid in elementary school. We had extensive lessons introducing us to both metric and imperial units (e.g. cm is about the width of your finger). Unfortunately, like most of the math lessons taught in school, Americans chose to simply forget it all when they grew up. The program was terminated shortly after, I was never quite sure why.

The U.S. will switch over eventually, but it'll be at the whim of the people. Most carpenters and contractors are fluent in both systems (and indeed screws and drill bits come in both metric and imperial sizes). The Auto industry has switched to metric, as has the U.S. Army. Certain applications though I expect will never be metric. e.g. navigation being done in nautical miles, because one nautical mile is equivalent to minute of longitude (1/60th of a degree) at the equator, approximately one minute of latitude anywhere. When your charts are primarily labeled in degrees lat/lon, it's handy having a distance unit that's a simple fraction of a degree.


RE: Weird looking bug car
By afkrotch on 10/14/2008 8:46:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh, and BTW, driving on the right side? I think only Japan and the UK do it that way :D


You mean driving on the left side. Majority of the world drive on the right side.

Japan, UK, South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, and a few other countries drive on the left side. Pretty much the countries that England owned for a little while.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Countries_drivi...

Red for right side driving. Blue for left side driving.


RE: Weird looking bug car
By Oregonian2 on 10/13/2008 2:31:59 PM , Rating: 3
Almost every packaged product one buys in a U.S. store that has weight or volume on it will also have the metric version on it as well. And has for a very long time. Liquids often will also be even metric sized (1-liter, 0.8 liter, etc).


RE: Weird looking bug car
By shin0bi272 on 10/11/2008 1:03:52 PM , Rating: 1
My major problem with the metric system is theres no mid range between the tiny little centimeter and the meter for units of measure. I dont want to sit here and try to visualize how tall someone is in centimeters or try to figure out how tall they are in meters when they are 1.296m tall. Yes theres a decimeter but thats not much better than the centimeter. Why doesnt every one else change to the US system? The US (even now) is the worlds leading economy so we must be doing something right. Why dont you switch?


RE: Weird looking bug car
By Zirconium on 10/11/2008 1:26:54 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I dont want to sit here and try to ... figure out how tall they are in meters when they are 1.296m tall.
They are 1.296 meters tall.


RE: Weird looking bug car
By shin0bi272 on 10/11/2008 7:39:38 PM , Rating: 1
yeah obviously but if you were told someone is 5'2" tall you would have a hard time visualizing that in meters if you were used to meters and all the signs in your country were in meters. Not that you cant do it but its uncomfortable because of the differences between the two systems. If it was a meter is a yard (3 ft) it wouldnt be so hard but its 1m = ~3'3" so it gets complicated to think about if youre not accustomed to it.


RE: Weird looking bug car
By Zirconium on 10/11/2008 9:18:16 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
if you were told someone is 5'2" tall you would have a hard time visualizing that in meters if you were used to meters and all the signs in your country were in meters.
You're pulling that one out your ass. I wouldn't have a hard time at all. I have no trouble visualizing metric. Talk to your Canadian friends if you have any, and provided that they aren't as dumb as you, they should have no problem converting metric to imperial. I'm sorry you don't have a good grasp of mathematics, but don't foist your inability to estimate on the rest of us. Here is a tip:

1" = 2.54 cm

For quick estimation, assume that 1" is 2.5 cm and round up to two significant digits in the end.

1' = 12" ~ 12" * 2.5 cm/" ~ 30 cm
...
5' ~ 1.5 m
6' ~ 1.8 m

For people's heights (usually between 5' and 6'), you should be able to quickly estimate. If 4" is approximately 10 cm, just split up that range and round. For instance, I'm 5' 11, so according to the above system, that puts my height around 1.8 m. That is actually pretty spot on. If someone tells me that they are 165 cm, I know they are somewhere in the range of 5' 6".

Forget this. I just explained 2nd grade estimation techniques to someone on a tech news forum. I'm going back to slashdot.


RE: Weird looking bug car
By Sandok on 10/11/2008 1:27:51 PM , Rating: 2
... no wonder the US is being hit hardest by the financial crisis, with people like you doing the math.

Apart from that, let's say you are 6 feet tall. In meters it would give 1.8 meters tall and in centimeteres, 180cm tall and in decimeters, 18dm tall.

What about 6 feet, what does that give in other units? 72 inches tall and 2 yards tall. Nothing complicated there either.

The reason the US should switch is because it's easier to teach 300 million people a new (and easier) system than teach 6.5 billion a old (and tougher) system.

NASA has lost a satellite once to the metric to imperial conversion... Not even China has lost a satellite for that.


RE: Weird looking bug car
By Solandri on 10/11/2008 7:04:50 PM , Rating: 2
Lots of equipment has been lost to faulty units conversion. One of the basic things they teach you in engineering is that a number without a unit is meaningless (except for the dimensionless numbers, and you still have to label what those are, e.g. Mach 1.5). But every now and then, people fail to do this. I've seen goofs mixing Centigrade with Kelvin, or CGS (centimeter-gram-second) with MKS (meter-kilogram-second), or degrees and radians, or decibels re 1 watt re 1 meter with decibels with some other reference, or assuming a log is base 10 instead of a natural log. All of these can be prevented if you just write the unit after each number and carry it through your calculations.

It isn't rocket science, it's algebra-level math. The Mars spacecraft wasn't lost due to an imperial/metric problem, it was lost due to sloppy engineering math. If the spacecraft had been done all-metric, all that would've done is hide the sloppy math until it reared its head elsewhere, probably just as fatally for the mission. Someone could've plugged in numbers into the same equations in meters when it turned out they were actually in km. That's just as devastating as using miles instead of km.

The biggest (maybe only) flaw with Imperial units in technical applications is that it uses the same label (pound) for both mass and force. It's usually clarified as lb-m and lb-f, but mix the two up and you're off by a factor of 32. Other than that, it just shouldn't matter for engineers and scientists because the math is often so much more complicated than a simple unit conversion. For regular people and everyday applications, metric makes a lot more sense. But for technical applications, it just shouldn't matter.


RE: Weird looking bug car
By daniyarm on 10/13/2008 12:20:42 PM , Rating: 2
Except when you are programming or designing hardware it's a lot easier to divide or multiply everything by multiples of ten rather than 12 or 5280 or any other weird number you have to remember. The UK system is completely illogical and requires one to memorize conversion factors.


RE: Weird looking bug car
By Imaginer on 10/17/2008 6:27:56 PM , Rating: 2
For engineering purposes and machining using CNC machinery and whatnot, I would agree metric units would be better for it.

But for trades dealing with woodworking for example, carpentry, and construction, it is easier to deal with dividing quantities in halfs, forths, eights, etc rather than dealing with decimal measurements for such representations (other than the half). I can also vouch the same with cooking as well. Would you rather try and measure out 236.588237 ml instead of just using 1 cup?

Of course, the devil advocate in me says to adjust all recepies to use round metric numbers but I don't think you can do this with woodworking, construction, and building things without loosing that "even-ness" of being able to divide things as such.


RE: Weird looking bug car
By shin0bi272 on 10/11/2008 7:41:17 PM , Rating: 1
>.. no wonder the US is being hit hardest by the financial crisis, with people like you doing the math.

actually were just being hit first... youre about to get hit by it... the G20 nations are meeting in ...oh yeah the US... to discuss ways of preventing your economy's collapse. Your welcome.


RE: Weird looking bug car
By zpdixon on 10/11/2008 6:49:35 PM , Rating: 2
Why would 1.70 m be harder to visualize than 5 ft 7 in ?

Nobody tries to visualize 5 ft and add 7 in to that.
Nobody tries to visualize 1 m and tries to add 70 cm to that.

We all have mental images of the approximate size of things. You obviously have never used a lot the metric system in real life so you can't comment on how hard it is to use. The truth is that it is easy to get used to any of the 2 systems. Then the metric system wins because: it is more universal and is based on decimal multiples.


RE: Weird looking bug car
By shin0bi272 on 10/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: Weird looking bug car
By DeepBlue1975 on 10/11/2008 10:38:00 PM , Rating: 3
Metric system annoying???

Come on... You've got to be kidding. It is that or that you really hate math and physics.

Don't tell me that for you is more comfortable in an equation to express gravitational acceleration as something like 32ft 3in / s^2 instead of just 9.8m/s^2.


RE: Weird looking bug car
By Screwballl on 10/13/2008 11:10:39 AM , Rating: 2
agreed.... it all depends on who was raised where and how they use it.
In the US, it is easier for me to visualize or estimate something or someone that is 5'6" just as someone elsewhere in the world would find it just as easy to estimate or visualize 1.8m tall.
As a natural born American that has also dealt with metric, I see the US standards easier to deal with because it is a bit more exacting in many cases. I think it is due to the whole cm to m to decimeter level of measurement. Otherwise for liquid and volume and such, I prefer the 0.5L over 16.9 fl oz.

For the record I am about 2m tall (1.96m = 6'5")...


RE: Weird looking bug car
By 9nails on 10/12/2008 12:20:07 AM , Rating: 2
Heck, if gay people can marry in the USA, then why not use the Metric System? Life's crazy enough when two parts of the same sex bump into each other and think to call it a family. It's impossible for that marriage to produce offspring from all of that friction, but at least in the madness we can count on a simple base-10 measurement system! Plus WTF is with kitchen measuring tools? Teaspoon, table spoon, cup, quart... Just give me 100 ml's of creme and sugar and some coffee!

But I agree, write a proposition to switch to the Metric System DeepBlue and I'll sign/vote for it!


RE: Weird looking bug car
By CubicleDilbert on 10/12/2008 1:24:08 PM , Rating: 3
What is wrong with you?

This cars is 15 feet and 4.75 inch long, weight is 3 rocks, 4 stones, 13 pebbles and 27 grains of sand.

It makes 75 miles per gallon which is about 8.76 hours mustang horse ride per 3.5 water stops along the road...

Haha... it is soo funny.
The reason that Europe has useful metric systems for everything is that Germany took over Europe in 1940 and introduced their own system everywhere, except the British railway width, which is still based on the old Stevenson rails from 1865 that Germans bought in Britain.
But at least all or Europe drives their cars on the right side, and not on the wrong one...


RE: Weird looking bug car
By DeepBlue1975 on 10/14/2008 9:42:59 AM , Rating: 2
All drive on the right side except for the UK :(


RE: Weird looking bug car
By Keeir on 10/10/2008 1:45:07 PM , Rating: 2
This seems to happen alot

Automaker releases numbers based on driving 40mph with no wind, or accessories running using imperial gallons and everyone gets excited.

EPA performs standard testing on model with varying loads and Air Conditioning etc running using US gallons and now your looking at 60-70% the claimed MPG or less...

See Honda Insight "70mpg --> 45 mpg", Jetta TDI "60mpg-->40mpg".

Based on that observation, I think a US version tested by the EPA would get closer to 60mpg. A fairly respectable (believable) jump from the 45mpg gasoline Prius.


RE: Weird looking bug car
By Cypherdude1 on 10/10/2008 2:23:32 PM , Rating: 2
You're right. The automakers constantly fix the MPG numbers to make them better than they really are. I wish they would stop doing that and be more realistic (honest).


RE: Weird looking bug car
By icrf on 10/10/2008 3:00:55 PM , Rating: 2
I've always exceeded EPA ratings on my vehicles. Methinks most people just need to learn to pay more attention while driving and take some time to think about efficiency.


RE: Weird looking bug car
By Keeir on 10/10/2008 3:11:55 PM , Rating: 2
Me too... typically by 10-15%. That's not the point... the issue is people take EPA numbers and compare them to pipe dream marketing claims... the only purpose of EPA numbers is to be able to directly compare different autos under the same conditions.


RE: Weird looking bug car
By Spuke on 10/10/2008 3:28:10 PM , Rating: 4
There numbers aren't "fixed" the automakers. They're European numbers. The Imperial gallon is different that the US gallon and their testing methodologies are different. Why should a Europe-only car be tested using a US standard? And if said vehicle is destined for US, simply WAIT for the US EPA numbers to come out. There's no conspiracy here. LOL!


RE: Weird looking bug car
By omnicronx on 10/10/2008 4:27:18 PM , Rating: 5
You mean the Universe does not revolve around the United States?


RE: Weird looking bug car
By ianweck on 10/13/2008 6:01:23 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You mean the Universe does not revolve around the United States?


This got rated a 5? Really?
How did this topic turn into America-bashing?


RE: Weird looking bug car
By Keeir on 10/10/2008 7:12:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There numbers aren't "fixed" the automakers. They're European numbers.


Actually in this case it is... its a claim made by an auto-company for a product not yet produced or tested by the European Testing.

The Tiny European Yaris gets 62 imperial miles to the gallon of diesal

http://www.toyota.co.uk/cgi-bin/toyota/bv/generic_...

It may be possible for the Cit. car to get 100 MPG under some situations, but I doubt in European testing it will acchieve a nearly 60% increase in fuel efficieny over the Yaris unless they are using a drastic different diesel engine.


RE: Weird looking bug car
By Screwballl on 10/10/2008 8:29:22 PM , Rating: 2
Based on the information at hand, this is more of a Chevrolet Volt type of car. Completely battery powered but uses the small diesel to recharge the battery... thats what I took from their website anyways.


RE: Weird looking bug car
By kamel5547 on 10/11/2008 11:54:10 AM , Rating: 2
Why would a "European" car use gallons? Outside of the British no one uses the Imperial gallon, as a French based company I wager that Cirroen does all their calculations using the metric system and simply used gallons to ge the most impressive number possible.

After all they could have released a MPL instead that would make sense ot the rest of the world.


RE: Weird looking bug car
By Zapp Brannigan on 10/12/2008 8:38:04 AM , Rating: 2
Most European car companies use 100 kilometres driven at certain speeds, like 40kph or 100kph and show you how much fuel is consumed in litres. for example 100km/8.9 litres for 100 kph or 100km/6.5 litres for 40 kph. These figures are calculated at constant speeds and so don't incorporate stop/start urban driving.

The UK is a very important market for all european car companies, it's generally the second most important market for them aside from their home market, and the only place were they sell right-hand drive cars so figures released in UK imperial are to be expected.


RE: Weird looking bug car
By BarkHumbug on 10/13/2008 4:47:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
These figures are calculated at constant speeds and so don't incorporate stop/start urban driving.


What have you been smoking? Please provide ONE link to an automaker that calculates their fuel consumption while driving at constant speed.


RE: Weird looking bug car
By Strunf on 10/13/2008 6:28:45 AM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure they incorporate stop/start on urban traffic... if they didn't then I would never match their urban estimate. On average when I go to work and back home I make like 16km/h, they say 9.9l/100km and that's about what I'm doing, at 40km/h without stops I would a lot better than that.

Also at 40km/h I would be on my 3th gear which is much less economic than the 5th gear, I haven't done any tests but I would guess I would burn more fuel doing 100km at 40km/h than at 100km/h.


RE: Weird looking bug car
By Fireshade on 10/13/2008 8:46:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Automaker releases numbers based on driving 40mph with no wind, or accessories running using imperial gallons and everyone gets excited.

That's because automakers do not know the actual efficiency yet in the concept stage of a car, so all they can do is a lab estimate. It wouldn't be fair to entirely fault the PR department of the automakers.

It will always be easier if you have the full production model at hand, as the EPA will have to perform their tests.
Also, the EPA performs their tests according to a specified protocol that in some way emulates real practice (based on questionnaires?). This can of course always be different from your personal situation, as some commenters have already noted.


RE: Weird looking bug car
By Keeir on 10/13/2008 3:16:54 PM , Rating: 2
I agree... but at the same time, EPA cycle is very well known to automakers. They know exactly what energy output levels will be required and how they change over the cycle. They should and are be able to give much more accuracte numbers, they just choose to create big splashes by stretching the truth. Overall, I think this is determental decision making and public perception.


RE: Weird looking bug car
By Screwballl on 10/10/2008 8:25:47 PM , Rating: 2
100 Imperial gallons = 120.095042 US gallons

100 miles per imperial gallon = 83.27 miles per US gal

Now this begs the question... does the story refer to Imperial or US gallons? I checked the original story and they refer to just MPG.

As for the style, I normally don't care for these types of vehicles but something about that style, I actually like and would probably own... now only if 1) they could import to the US and 2) they would change the name.


RE: Weird looking bug car
By ZoZo on 10/11/2008 8:17:27 AM , Rating: 2
Peugeot-Citroen is a French car-maker. If they release any information it's in the metric system. So the mpg rating in this article must be a US translation of the original metric figures. That means it's most probably US gallons.


RE: Weird looking bug car
By A28 on 10/13/2008 1:07:25 AM , Rating: 2
Citroen's website states a fuel consumption of 2.9 l/100 km.

http://www.citroen.com/CWW/en-US/CONCEPTCARS/CCACT...

Google gives the following conversions:

81 MPG (US)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=2.9+...

and

97 MPG (using imperial gallons)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=2.9+...


By phazers on 10/10/2008 11:46:27 AM , Rating: 3
A "thorny" issue :)




By lainofthewired on 10/10/2008 11:50:41 AM , Rating: 1
You had me at "thorny" <3


By TechGuyCalifornia on 10/10/2008 1:03:28 PM , Rating: 2
I think this car is great! I remember my Mom had a boyfriend back in the late 70's, he had a Citroen, I remember vaguely that she said instead of a blinker it had these little hands with a finger pointing right or left. I could be wrong, but I recall that.


By TechGuyCalifornia on 10/10/2008 1:09:25 PM , Rating: 1
Try facing up to a Hybrid full size Navigator, the front tires alone would run over this little thing...Drive defensively that's for sure...


By Mitch101 on 10/10/2008 1:13:18 PM , Rating: 5
With the current economy and the inability to borrow money on your homes equity to purchase such a vehicle I don't feel this will be an issue for very long. Melt down the navigators and make a dozen smaller cars.


By austinag on 10/10/2008 1:51:52 PM , Rating: 5
You can have my giant SUV when you pry it from my cold dead hands...

Or you can buy it at auction for half price after the repo man takes it, either way, what ever works for you. I'm not trying to be confrontational or anything.


By ebakke on 10/10/2008 2:20:44 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe people will take this opportunity to pay off their current debt. ...probably not though.


By WTFiSJuiCE on 10/10/2008 6:05:48 PM , Rating: 3
And they all laughed when I poured all of my hard earned savings into that Mongolian cactus farm.

Well who's laughing now! Pay up Frenchie!


By rudolphna on 10/10/2008 7:01:09 PM , Rating: 2
love the title :)


Citroen
By Grumpy1 on 10/10/2008 2:19:45 PM , Rating: 3
In the movie "The longest yard" , the original, The car that Burt wrecked at the start of the movie was a Citroen.




RE: Citroen
By ebakke on 10/10/08, Rating: -1
RE: Citroen
By foolsgambit11 on 10/10/2008 3:23:22 PM , Rating: 3
Obviously he's saying that despite the looks, Citroens are really macho cars. That, or they were really good cars for drunks.


RE: Citroen
By geddarkstorm on 10/10/2008 3:24:52 PM , Rating: 5
Isn't that why we're all here?


Insight Specs
By ebakke on 10/10/2008 1:10:57 PM , Rating: 3
Per the most recent Insight article on DT (http://www.dailytech.com/Honda+Reveals+More+Insigh... ):

quote:
Other new information revealed at the Paris Auto Show is that the new Insight will have fuel economy ratings identical to the Honda Civic Hybrid – 40 MPG city, 45 MPG highway (for comparison, a Prius gets 45/48).


Vastly different from the 70 MPG that this (and the other referenced) article claims.




RE: Insight Specs
By vleek on 10/10/2008 4:56:33 PM , Rating: 2
There are some confusion in model names. Original Honda Insight was 2-sits 3-doors small car with aluminium body, low rolling resistance tires and etc. It really could get 70-75 mpg on freeway. New Honda Insight 2 is much bigger 4/5-sits car, comparable to Prius. I guess C-Catus is more comparable to original Insight (though it's not in production any more).


RE: Insight Specs
By vleek on 10/10/2008 4:59:04 PM , Rating: 2
There are some confusion in model names. Original Honda Insight was 2-sits 3-doors small car with aluminium body, low rolling resistance tires and etc. It really could get 70-75 US EPA mpg on freeway. New Honda Insight 2 is much bigger 4/5-sits car, comparable to Prius. I guess C-Cactus is more comparable to original Insight (though it's not in production any more).


Hond Insight
By Jimspar on 10/10/2008 2:57:48 PM , Rating: 2
The latest Auto Magazine info puts the new Insight at only 40mpg, less than the all mighty Prius. As stated earlier, and proven earlier, one does not have to be American to be ignorant.




Why not sell in in the US?
By RabidDog on 10/10/08, Rating: -1
RE: Why not sell in in the US?
By chris2618 on 10/10/2008 12:14:27 PM , Rating: 5
Citroen has been running since 1920s and they have done perfectly well with out selling cars in the US. They are going to sell it but just not in the US


RE: Why not sell in in the US?
By B3an on 10/10/2008 12:22:15 PM , Rating: 1
Thanks for that Chris i was going to say the same. The ignorance of some yanks is amazing.


RE: Why not sell in in the US?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/10/2008 12:29:37 PM , Rating: 1
The ignorance of some people from other countries is just as amazing.

He still has a valid point about them not selling it in the USA, just his point about failure due to not selling in the USA is uninformed at best. I am curious as to why they do not market this car in the USA, it is afterall a fairly large and developed market and demand is there for higher fuel efficient cars.


RE: Why not sell in in the US?
By Dribble on 10/10/2008 12:48:27 PM , Rating: 4
It's a French company - that's enough to stop lots of American's buying.
It's probably got seats designed to fit your average French person. I would expect many Americans will just be too big to fit in it.
It's a small car with a small engine - while some American's might be giving up their monster trucks, I think it's a while before you'll see them in something as small as that citroen.


RE: Why not sell in in the US?
By pmonti80 on 10/10/2008 1:01:47 PM , Rating: 2
Americans complain about european cars being too small. Ok, I could understand that you have bigger roads and cheaper gas.
But now they complain that Citroën doesn't sell their small european cars in USA, just amazing.
What's next?


RE: Why not sell in in the US?
By an0dize on 10/10/2008 1:08:29 PM , Rating: 1
So much for intelligent discussion...


RE: Why not sell in in the US?
By augiem on 10/10/2008 1:13:25 PM , Rating: 4
Because not ALL Americans only watch cheesy blockbusters and eat hamburgers...
Seriously, why must everyone stereotype as if there is only 1 mind per country/group/race? Unfortunately, that's how many companies that sell in America think -- ONLY target the LARGEST market and ignore the rest.
I'm sure there would be a very nice market for small euro cars in America, even though not nearly as large a market as lumbering brick wall pickups.


RE: Why not sell in in the US?
By heffeque on 10/10/2008 2:05:03 PM , Rating: 2
Well... I guess that Citroën (guys from DailyTech forgot to put the two little dots on top of the "e") doesn't want to spend a huge amount of cash on entering the US market just to try to catch a small niche. There's where the Mercedes Smart comes in, or the BMW Mini Cooper, or the VW Fox... although now that I think of it, VW doesn't sell the Fox or the Polo in the States.
Citroën doesn't sell in the States, neither does Renault and neither does Peugeot; but if you think of it, they're not the only big European brands that don't sell in the States. Neither does Alfa Romeo, neither does Fiat, neither does Seat... and I don't even know if the now-dead company called Rover has ever sold anything in the States that wasn't a LandRover.
I do know that Volvo and Saab are sold in the States, but their are a minority market in Europe and they're also a minority market in the States.


RE: Why not sell in in the US?
By achintya on 10/10/2008 3:08:42 PM , Rating: 2
FYI the two little "dots" on top of the e is called an umlaut....


RE: Why not sell in in the US?
By heffeque on 10/10/2008 3:55:10 PM , Rating: 2
It's also called diéresis or tréma... depending on the language :-)


RE: Why not sell in in the US?
By Spuke on 10/10/2008 1:15:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But now they complain that Citroën doesn't sell their small european cars in USA, just amazing.
Americans like pretty cars and, quite frankly, that concept is a pretty car.


RE: Why not sell in in the US?
By ceefka on 10/10/2008 5:14:42 PM , Rating: 3
RE: Why not sell in in the US?
By bruce24 on 10/10/2008 5:42:14 PM , Rating: 2
>>> Would you Americans have liked these amazing cars in the 60s?

Citroen's were sold in the US into the 1970's. I liked the unique look of many Citreon cars through the 70's and some of the models since, but unfortunately for Americans, Citreon did sell enough cars in America to make money so they stopped trying. Just like Renault, Peugeot, Fiat, Lancia, Alfa Romeo and others I can't think of...although Alfa Romeo is going to start to sell cars in the U.S. again next year (I think).


RE: Why not sell in in the US?
By Cypherdude1 on 10/10/2008 2:30:51 PM , Rating: 2
I am an American (S. Calif.) and I have never understood what some Americans have had against the French. Exactly what is it? Is it a media thing? Is it because the French refused to join Pres. Bush43 in the Iraq War blunder? What? Or is it just some kind of running joke here? Frankly, I think the French should sell their car here. The only winner would be the American consumer.
quote:
It's a French company - that's enough to stop lots of American's buying.


RE: Why not sell in in the US?
By mdogs444 on 10/10/08, Rating: -1
RE: Why not sell in in the US?
By dubldwn on 10/10/2008 4:12:55 PM , Rating: 4
But Americans have no problem buying German cars, the people that actually invaded France? Because brutal aggression commands so much more respect? By the way, the French Resistance was a big help for the Allies. Also, the Japanese actually bombed us. This won America’s respect? Forget about that. That was a long time ago. All these people are our friends. Like the op, I find anti-French rhetoric puzzling.

I would buy a French car.


RE: Why not sell in in the US?
By Cypherdude1 on 10/10/2008 4:36:35 PM , Rating: 5
mdogs444,
your WW2 timing is a bit off. I am a WW2 buff; I know quite a lot about WW2. The French and the English lost their war on the Continent with the Germans in 1940, long before Americans step foot on Normandy in June 1944.

The British were essentially fighting a holding action in the Battle of Britain in late 1940, waiting for America to join the war in Dec 1941. Even then, America did not join the fight in earnest with Germany until 1942 in the deserts of Africa.

The French lost against the Germans, not because they were weak, but because they had outdated tactics and had even more outdated generals. They had a governmental system which allowed their top (old WW1) general to remain even when their President tried to fire him. The French were constantly squabbling and British command was below them.

The French surrendered because all their military units had been outmaneuvered or destroyed and there was nothing between the German Panzer units and Paris. The remaining British and French units had been pushed into Dunkirk port and were lucky to escape because of German mistakes. Over 338,226 soldiers, 198,229 British and 139,997 French, escaped. Even so, the English and French units were forced to leave all their heavy equipment on the Dunkirk beach. Had they not been able to escape, the British government would have also been forced to seek an armistice and the Germans would have won WW2 before the USA had even entered the war.
quote:
Its becuase the French rolled over and caved like a dog to wave their white flag during WWII, all while about a half million American's were dying trying to fight and help the French.


RE: Why not sell in in the US?
By Starcub on 10/11/2008 5:59:46 AM , Rating: 2
I can't believe this post got down modded. I thought it was common knowledge that the Frech got steamrolled by the Germans in WW2 because they were never good fighters. BTW, I don't understand the animosity either.


RE: Why not sell in in the US?
By Nitrof on 10/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: Why not sell in in the US?
By Ringold on 10/10/2008 10:40:25 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Is it because the French refused to join Pres. Bush43 in the Iraq War blunder?


If you're 20-something, I know it's easy to think history itself started in the mid 90s or so, but many in America have had a strong, and very mutual, distaste for the French since after WW2. If you don't know all the little things that happened during the Cold War that fed this, it's not my job to make up for your lack of education in that department. That might not be entirely your fault though; public school education gives the candy-ass version of history, and tells the same story basically grade after grade. At any rate, their lack of involvement in Iraq was just one slight among many going back half a century. The fact France isn't a NATO member should tell you something must've gone wrong prior to Bush, if you bothered to think about it at all instead of automatic Bush bashing.

However, I would say there are some French companies that are successful in America. As long as they don't wave the French flag, the vast majority of people would ignore the location of their corporate headquarters if the product was competitive, especially if they gave their US operations an English-sounding name.


RE: Why not sell in in the US?
By andrinoaa on 10/11/2008 3:05:28 AM , Rating: 4
I think its more like they wouldn't follow Americans into suicidal oblivion in Iraq. Iraq was your mess anyway, why get involved, I would have stayed away too, given a choice!
The French may be stuck-up, but definitly not dumb asses.


RE: Why not sell in in the US?
By Reclaimer77 on 10/13/2008 1:02:46 AM , Rating: 2
Dude even the freaking Aussies got involved. And they are certainly not in the midst of " suicidal oblivion ". Whats that say about the French ?


By Penguinhunterd on 10/11/2008 5:25:25 AM , Rating: 2
I am aware of the slights you're referencing that occurred during the cold war such as France leaving NATO and evicting the U.S. Fleet. But I just wanted to point out that France rejoined NATO in the 90's and is in the process of being fully reintegrated. French troops serve in Afghanistan alongside other NATO forces.


RE: Why not sell in in the US?