VOTE for Best French Car

[G.T]

Really? I would have thought they give more money than that. £100 at least. Guess I'd have to sell crummy parts of the car separately.

 

[Scaff]

I guess my arguement really comes with two points. The first being that the Veyron made such a huge splash in the automotive world it forced everyone to take notice. VW did what they said they would do and that was produce the fastest car in the world. I'm not sure that anyone believed they could do that when they said they were going to.

Sorry but I would not agree with that at all.

The Veyron made supercar manufacturers sit up an take notice, that I would not disagree with at all, but the whole automotive industry? Nope don't see that at all.

The Veyron has little or no importance to the vast majority of manufacturers and customers, most people in the street would struggle to tell you what one was if they saw it.

I would argue that for the majority of manufacturers the Veyron is little more that an "EB110 Spinal Tap Special Edition" (look it goes all the way up to 11).

In my opinion it's cars like the Mini, DS, Fiat 500, Model T and Renault Scenic that made them sit up and take notice. None of these cars are performance giants, yet every single one of them forced the Automotive world to pause and think about how they were doing things. The Scenic alone put every competitor on the back foot for almost two years, while redefining the very idea of family cars (damn why did I forget to nominate it).

The second thing is, that I am tired of all these old cars winning these poles. Yes they are great cars but I think people are getting way too nostalgic here. It seems to me there is a little anti new theme going on here. Just because it's older doesn't mean it's better. Ok, that's a really childish point of view from me.

Quite right just because something is older doesn't make it better, but the reverse is also true, just because its newer does not make it better.

You are right that care needs to be taken to avoid a 'rose-tinted' view of the past, but could you honestly say that the cars that have won so far are not true greats, and representative of the 'best' from those countries?

As for the guy who said numbers were for kids and fanboys well that's not true. Numbers give us something to compare and since none of us have ever driven a Veyron numbers are all we have. If numbers are for kids and fanboys then how come all major magazines have numbers? How come the car companies are obsessed with horsepower and 0-60 times? Numbers do matter as they give us something to compare! Granted numbers aren't the only thing that matters too, but you do have to look at the numbers.

I would not argue with you that stats can be very useful, as long as they are used in the correct context (and are independently confimed - Bugatti give more magazines a Veyron to play with properly).

However as you quite rightly say they are not the only thing to take into account when looking for a truely great car (remember this is not best sports or supercar). The cars I listed above (Mini, DS, Fiat 500, Model T and Renault Scenic) and many more would fall at the first hurdle if stats were a major focus, yet they are all cars that totally redefined the automotive world.

I just think that the Veyron is too focused to be the best French car, best French supercar now that I could agree on, but not the best French car ever.

Besides the DS (particularly in convertable form) is better looking in my opinion, besides how many cars can claim to have had a part in saving a Presidents life and don't need a jack to change a flat.


Regards

Scaff

 

[GilesGuthrie]

I think actually that the Veyron should be in the German poll, but there you go. It's as French as bratwurst.

The Veyron is potentially the most incredible display of what can be done with current technology. Its engine, gearbox, brakes etc are all out of the very toppermost of drawers. But there isn't anything new about it. When you distill it into its pieces, it's still massive turbos (cf Porsche 959, Ferrari F40), internal combustion (dawn of time), carbon brakes (cf Porsche 911, Mercedes SLR, Ferrari Enzo), DSG (cf Audi TT, Audi A3 2.0TDi!!!!!), active aero (cf Mercedes Le Mans cars of no later than 1955, Mitsubishi 3000GT).

So it stacks its numbers (which are mightily impressive, few can disagree) against its enormous price (Doug's point about inflation is valid: no-one said the Macca was cheap when it came out), plus the fact that there isn't really anything revolutionary about it. It all begins to look a bit expected really. Frankly, if I'm spending that kind of money on it, I expect to be in the next town before my foot hits the floor. The Veyron does that, but it's a pony, and that's its trick. It doesn't move anything forward, or present any new ideas.

Not that the McLaren F1 did either. It too was designed to be the ultimate road car.

Others have argued more eloquently for the DS, so I'll just end with my rebuttal of the Veyron.

 

[Poverty]

Why one shouldnt vote for the DS:

It looked at the time very different, but a kinds of rubbish different, most people could never afford one, it was built right after the war when most people required uber reliable and cheap cars.

 

[GilesGuthrie]

Why one shouldnt vote for the DS:

It looked at the time very different, but a kinds of rubbish different, most people could never afford one, it was built right after the war when most people required uber reliable and cheap cars.

This from the guy arguing that we should vote for the Bugatti?

 

[Poverty]

I havent lobbied anyone into voting for the veyron.

 

[Luca]

2CV.

Besides, the Veyron isn't even really French.

 

[Famine]

Why one shouldnt vote for the DS:

It looked at the time very different, but a kinds of rubbish different, most people could never afford one, it was built right after the war when most people required uber reliable and cheap cars.

Ten years after...

 

[Poverty]

yeah but they took that time developing it, rebuilding factories etc

 

[Scaff]

Why one shouldnt vote for the DS:

It looked at the time very different, but a kinds of rubbish different, most people could never afford one, it was built right after the war when most people required uber reliable and cheap cars.

For those that could not afford the DS, Citroen had the 2CV which at the time retailed for £350 (1953), at launch the DS retailed for £1,568 (expensive but not daft for its day). I was not however under the impression that cost was a factor in this? Also for a car that no one could afford they certainly managed to make enough of them, 1.5 million in saloon form alone.

Looks wise, well thats a very subjective area. I happen to think you are devoid of taste (sorry but I just can't say it any other way) is you find the DS a bad looking car, either that or you have never been up close to the real thing.

It may be worth pointing out that Evo once ran a survey of top automotive designers to find what they considered to be the best looking cars ever made, the Muira was 1st, but the DS came in 25th, with Marcello Gandini, Ajay Panchall and Leonardo Fioravanti all putting in in their top 10.

To put the 25th place in context the Ferrari 250 GTO was 34th, Merc 300 SLR was 46th and the Ferrari 250GT California was 38th.


Regards

Scaff

 

[Dave A]

So, it was still selling well 10 years after it was put into production. It was still considered a technically great car then. Looks wise, the DS looked great, looks are subjective so that point is moot. Price wise it was a hell of a lot more affordable thant he Veyron, so that point is well pointless. It was built well after WWII, factories and such were running fine in France then it didn't take 10 years to rebuild the factories nor did Citoren spend 10 years developing the DS, so that point isn't valid either.

 

[Tornado]

There were five stipulations Bernd Unpronouncable set out for the 16.4/Veyron. I'm not aware of any more than three, which were:

1. Have 1000hp.
2. Exceed 250mph.
3. Be as reliable as a Volkswagen Golf.

Did it not have to look more or less exactly like the concept, as well? I know that caused some engineering headaches. But wasn't it Peich's last hurrah before he left the company, or am I confusing it with the Nardo?

 

[daan]

There were five stipulations Bernd Unpronouncable set out for the 16.4/Veyron.

I'll think you'll find his name is Dr Burnt Fishtrousers.

 

[niky]

Chiming in to agree with gg, the Veyron is as French as bratwurst, and is probably the bestest, most expensive and most wonderful Audi ever made. Expect a de-contented Audi version with a mere 600hp in a few years.

Look at it. Change the top of the grille an eensy bit and it is an Audi.

And I don't think we're ever going to need that second poll... it's a landslide.

 

[3-Wheel Drive]

I'm still amazed the historic and hilarious 2CV only has two votes.

 

[niky]

Give people two Citroens to choose from and they'll invariably go for the prettier one.

 

[YSSMAN]

Wow, I missed a lot while at work today... I'll get into it later tonight when I'm not so tired...

 

[1X83Z]

Well, my bottom line is that I understand everyone's point about the Veyron, but I strongly, strongly stand by my statement that it deserves more credit than it's getting. Nearly everyone has a reason to hate the vehicle - few people have actually given it a chance, in my view.

By the way, apart from its technological advancements (and swivel headlights are NOT an advancement but a gimmick and a stupid one at that) the DS is ugly as sin - and yes I've seen several including one just a couple months back in Aspen. I'd still vote for an ugly car (hell, I did) but this is in direct response to Scaff's comment (I think it was Scaff) regarding its looks.

 

[Tornado]

I beleive the Torpedo had swivel headlights first, depending on when the DS came out. Now the Torpedo, that was a technical advancement (of course, so was the DS, but still. What the hell do I know? I voted for the EB110.).

 

[1X83Z]

The Torpedo came out in 1947, but only one of its three headlights swiveled. Regardless, I swear - that's NOT technological advancement.

 

[YSSMAN]

Who isn't giving the Veyron enough credit again?

I think it is a wonderful car, something that has changed the way automakers will have to think about their supercars. But that said, I still belive that we are years away from seeing the true potential of the car. Remember how long it took most people to appreciate the McLaren F1? The Jaguar XJ220? The Ferrari F40? The Lamborghini Countach? The DeTomasso Pantera?

Supercars gain recognition over time, and unfortunately for the Bugatti, not much time has gone by yet. I like to define the success of a supercar by the popularity of the car among children. Show them a model of an F40 or Countach and they know its a Ferrari or Lamborghini, but chances are, they might not know what the Bugatti is.

Why? Part of the problem is that it just seems too popular with older folks. The looks are very restrained by comparison to supercars of the past, and the car isn't showing up on toy shelves and in movies as the ultimate road car like the Lambo or Ferrari. The Countach was everywhere when I was a kid (a product of the late 1980s), and the F40 wasn't far behind in popularity. I had posters, toys, models, and even movies that had both cars in them... But the Bugatti doesn't have that yet...

Give it time and I think the world may think better of the car. It hasn't even been on the streets for a year and people complain that it gets either too much credit, or too little. Thats just silly, as six months isn't enough for anything.

---

The DS on the other hand has proven itself to have an effect on the market. Although it is argueable as to what pieces did what for the industry, I think most of us can agree that the car did push forward the idea of a hydraulic suspension and the need for a comfortable ride. It pushed styling boundaries forward (especially in the context in the middle 1950s), and really has not had it's style matched at all since then.

Also, I think it is very tough as Americans to criticize and praise the car as well. Given how few were sold in the US, many of us have never seen one in person, much less ridden or driven one. I trust the European assessment of the car, as it has been a part of their culture for more than 50 years. I give the French a lot of credit (trust me, it doesn't happen often) for building this car, as I doubt the American automakers could have done the same in the 1950s.

---

Either way, they are two icons of French automobile construction, and will remain so for quite some time.

 

[1X83Z]

Who isn't giving the Veyron enough credit again?

I'm fairly sure only two or three people in this thread have discussed its virtues. As I said - everyone else looks for a reason to hate it, while the reasons to like it are staring them in the face. People can't seem to describe why the McLaren F1 is a seminal, awesome supercar while the Veyron is crap. I keep hear people saying "it's just a pointless exercise." Well duh? Aren't all supercars? We're never going to own one; we might never see one. Of course it was engineered to go a certain speed and have a certain horsepower. Anyone want to tell me what's wrong with that?

People are dead-set on hating the Veyron, yet dead-set on loving everything the Veyron stands for (speed, agility, rarity, awesomeness). I really think it goes back to what IMADreamer said. People here have little historical perspective - they can't for the life of them imagine anything being produced today is as good as stuff built in the past. Well folks here it is - too bad you guys voted for a 75 horsepower car whose claims to fame are crap no-one needs like self-leveling suspension and swiveling headlights.

 

[daan]

Well folks here it is - too bad you guys voted for a 75 horsepower car whose claims to fame are crap no-one needs like self-leveling suspension and swiveling headlights.

Self-levelling suspension is useful when towing. You also don't need a jack to change a wheel. The roads in those days wouldn't have been up to much either and the DS rode over bumps as if they weren't there. And I'm sure swivelling headlights have their uses.

But if you insist on bringing out crap no one needs. Who needs a car that can do 250mph? Who needs a quad turbo V16? The DS may have crap, according to you, but at least its useful crap. The Veyron just seems to have crap for the sake of having crap.

For the record, I don't hate the Veyron. I just think it's pointless.

 

[1X83Z]

Self-levelling suspension is useful when towing. You also don't need a jack to change a wheel. The roads in those days wouldn't have been up to much either and the DS rode over bumps as if they weren't there. And I'm sure swivelling headlights have their uses.

The vehicle gets seventeen votes for towing and "I'm sure swiveling headlights have their uses"? I've never owned nor have I ever known anyone who has owned a vehicle with either feature. We do fine.

For the record, I don't hate the Veyron. I just think it's pointless.

Its point is to go fast. But by your definition... what supercar isn't pointless?

 

[Scaff]

Well folks here it is - too bad you guys voted for a 75 horsepower car whose claims to fame are crap no-one needs like self-leveling suspension and swiveling headlights.

Sorry but driving on narrow, twisty roads (that certainly were the norm before Autoroute and Motorway networks in Europe and still feature heavily in driving in Europe) having headlamps that actually illuminate the apex and corner instead of just a hedge in front of you is both useful and an aid to safe driving.

As far as self-leveling suspension goes, well the vast majority of high-end Estate cars (station wagons) are fitted with a system of some sort at the rear (often as a cost extra) to ensure that the cars ride remains stable and level when laden. It massively improves vehicle stability when laden and running at speed.

In addition the system fitted to the DS (and later Citroens) runs on all corners, but also powers the brakes (with sufficent force to supply full braking force with the engine switched off), powered the hydraulic clutch on the DS and has been used to power various systems within the cars such as power steering, windows and the corner following lights.

In addition the system offers the car three selectable ride heights (from a lever next to the driver), a low setting for motorway running, the standard setting and a raised setting for crossing rough or broken ground (or crossing Pave)which was very common of French roads of the period.

As the system was self leveling it does allow the wheel to be changed without the use of a jack (you just set the highest height and remove the wheel) but also allows the car to run on three wheels in the event of a blow out or puncture. Both of these benefits I have experiences when I owned a BX which was fitted with a later version on the system.

As far as power goes, for a saloon car of the period in France it perfectly acceptable, but was updated and refined in its 20 year life.

You question people giving the Veyron enough credit, but I would question the credit you are giving the DS. To dismiss the suspension system as crap or a gimmick is simply daft, after all how many companies produce a system that gives the benefits I have listed above and provides such ride comfort that Rolls Royce licenced and used it.

Regards

Scaff

 

[barryl85]

The vehicle gets seventeen votes for towing and "I'm sure swiveling headlights have their uses"? I've never owned nor have I ever known anyone who has owned a vehicle with either feature. We do fine.

Maybe nowadays you dont need swivel headlights but that is because the reflectors in headlamps make light travel sideways, in the DS's day and age, i doubt any cars had a sideway reflection, so in effect Citroen developed something simple but clever that was an answer to a problem, but then even more simpler and alot cheaper is the better reflection of todays cars headlights.

Its point is to go fast. But by your definition... what supercar isn't pointless?

Exactly what i was thinking.

 

[1X83Z]

Sorry but driving on narrow, twisty roads (that certainly were the norm before Autoroute and Motorway networks in Europe and still feature heavily in driving in Europe) having headlamps that actually illuminate the apex and corner instead of just a hedge in front of you is both useful and an aid to safe driving.

Yet despite the DS's "incredible innovation" (which was indeed pioneered by the Tucker Torpedo) this feature saw its way on to how many products for the next four decades? None perhaps? Hmm. Wouldn't you think innovation would mean that it paves the way for future similar technology?

You question people giving the Veyron enough credit, but I would question the credit you are giving the DS. To dismiss the suspension system as crap or a gimmick is simply daft, after all how many companies produce a system that gives the benefits I have listed above and provides such ride comfort that Rolls Royce licenced and used it.

Few - again proving the "innovative" DS was nothing more than gimmicky. So either it's something that we can easily live without, or we're truly missing out. I happen to think it's the former.

I think just about everyone here is confusing "innovative" with technologically advanced. The DS was certainly the latter but as far as being innovative, I can't see how an ugly car whose sole selling points were two rarely-seen features is considered innovative, particularly the way it's being described in these ranks.

 

[Famine]

Yet despite the DS's "incredible innovation" (which was indeed pioneered by the Tucker Torpedo) this feature saw its way on to how many products for the next four decades? None perhaps? Hmm. Wouldn't you think innovation would mean that it paves the way for future similar technology?

The technology tree goes:

S-Class -> BMW/Audi -> Everything else

It generally takes 10 years for features first introduced in an S-Class to appear in a Hyundai.

In this case, the DS was the head of the tree, and it has taken a little longer. But hey, birds were walking on their hind legs 40 million years before mankind was (and reptiles 40 million years before that) - it doesn't mean that it wasn't innovative the first time round just because it took a long time to copy.

 

[DQuaN]

I sould have voted for the XM seeing as I drive one!

Although it is a pretty mundane car, it was the first to have active suspension. A feature that I think is pretty cool.

 

[Scaff]

Yet despite the DS's "incredible innovation" (which was indeed pioneered by the Tucker Torpedo) this feature saw its way on to how many products for the next four decades? None perhaps? Hmm. Wouldn't you think innovation would mean that it paves the way for future similar technology?

The Tucker's design was a very different approach to the same idea in that it featured a directional third headlight, dubbed the "Cyclops Eye", for use in turns. It lit up whenever the car was steered by more than 10 degrees. While the DS uses the standard headlamps of the car, which track with the steering.

The issue other manufacturers had with developing similar systems (and I have already covered this) is powering them, the DS was able to you the hydropnuematic system to do this, without it you have to use electrics and a system of this nature is going to be both complex and power draining.

Few - again proving the "innovative" DS was nothing more than gimmicky. So either it's something that we can easily live without, or we're truly missing out. I happen to think it's the former.

I think just about everyone here is confusing "innovative" with technologically advanced. The DS was certainly the latter but as far as being innovative, I can't see how an ugly car whose sole selling points were two rarely-seen features is considered innovative, particularly the way it's being described in these ranks.

If you think that hydrophnumatic suspension is nothing more than gimmicky then you are sadly mistaken, as I have already said the vast majority of high-end Estate cars, 4X4's and a good number of military vehicle in Europe use either a simpler version (air based) or licenced copy of the Citreon system. It is invaluable on vehicles that will have to tow or run heavely laden.

Why is it not fitted to a wider range of vehicles? Simple, its not cheap to manufacture and maintain. That does nothing to reduce its inovation, simple making it less profitable for the manufacturers.

I am most certainly not confusing innovation with gimmick here at all, to dismiss the DS as such is quite frankly daft; and also puts you at odds with a huge number of automotive designers and engineers who place the DS as one of the single most important European cars ever.

As said here

I sould have voted for the XM seeing as I drive one!

Although it is a pretty mundane car, it was the first to have active suspension. A feature that I think is pretty cool.

A development of that 'un-inovative' hydrophnuematic suspension.


Your own innovation vs gimmick argument could quite easily be used against the Veyron, very little of its technology is innovative or new (it may be of motorsport origin but its certainly not new and most is bought in), and it would be just as easy to accuse it of being a car with one single gimmick, speed.


Regards

Scaff