Can we just stop here, instead of spoiling the whole thing with...

That is kind of the trouble with this car. It is beyond careful preservation, which I'd like to have done with it. It needs a complete rebuild. At that point do you find it a period, but better chassis, buy the repro early chassis that is available from Cassis et al, or say sod it and fit an SLC chassis and a Dyane engine and create something that isn't period correct but will cruise happily. Frankly I don't know, at the moment I have a foot in both camps.

There are already umpty-several RHD/602/disc "oldies" kicking about.

What's _different_ about this? It's originally factory RHD, at a time when there were (effectively) none. For that, it has historical interest. Saying "Well, if I can't preserve, I might as well just modify" denies the value in any kind of historically-sympathetic restoration.

All those Slough 2cvs, John Sobey's RHD aks400 & RHD Ami 6. Bijous. The restored TPV prototypes. Might just as well disk & 602 the lot...

True enough, but that is a fundamental question about restoration. The simple fact is that the chassis isn't going to be repaired, it is far too rotten. At that point you can either replace it with something that is identical, so no one will ever know that it has been replaced. It won't be "original" though because it didn't leave the factory with that actual part.

Or the other school of thought is that you replace it with something of at least equal quality, but strikingly different so the history of the object can be read by those looking at it in the future.

The truth is that I can see merit in both approaches, and I've done both before, though I actually normally tend towards the rather more purist end of restoration.

Easily identifiable as replacement, yes - but not markedly changing the design and function.

That gets my vote.



I agree with those sentiments too. But what's the solution other than to sell it to someone that will painstakingly restore it? It rather comes down to how much money/time/patience is available to be expended on the restoration. In a way owning something rare is like owning a listed building I suppose, there are considerations over and above the obvious ones of simply putting it on the road. Maybe a nice compromise could be found?

Hi,
Peter invite me (by email) to jump into this topic. So I jump
In 1966, the following models were still made in Forest:

AZA (AZ) : chassis number like 11X xxxx
AZM3 : chassis number like 12x xxxx
AZS (AZL) : chassis number like 13x xxxx
AZAM6 (cent. cl.) : chassis number like 300 xxxx
AZAM6 (norm. cl.) : chassis number like 31x xxxx

AZU : chassis number like 12X xxx
AK350 : chassis number like 20x xxx
AKL : chassis number like 25x xxx

The car was probably made in 1966 and directly used in UK.

Does there need to be a different solution?

When it comes down to it, if you want a 2cv that drives like a modern one but looks '60s, it'd be a LOT quicker/easier/cheaper to cosmetically four-light/old-taillight-panel a RHD '70s/80s car than restore this.

... my 2 cents: not knowing any other 2CV like this one (Made in Belgium in '66 for the UK market), it could be good to restore it close to the original.
If you don't want, I could maybe

Only insofar as the owner might not wish to do that. Owning something rare is such a double edged sword isn't it?