Is this whole 2CV lowering thing something to do with some owners coming to believe the myth that old Citroëns are bouncy (leftover from the days of worn out friction dampers), or wallowy? (from people used to wooden damping and 50mm suspension travel, and who would drive accordingly gently.) Or just a desire to look as if you’ve just come off the track? (pun not intended.)

With an easily reduced ride-height, people start unscrewing their rods and riding on their rubber stops. Yet another problem with building cars which most people could never understand, even when Citroën themselves tried to explain.


A recent quote from the Flea Market board:




I had suggested a Beetle (tongue in cheek) because they ended up being altered for visual appearances too, very much style over substance. It's hard to improve on a good deuche, other than replacing worn parts with high quality originals and various bits of fine tuning (equal loadings on each wheel?)

Having driven some truly nasty late cars, often rebuilt using the cheapest bits, I do see how people want to improve things, though. Just as you'd want to with a Beetle. As regards lowering your car, I thought the local Corsa brigade had a monopoly on this approach, perhaps exhaust tail pipes the size of a bucket will be the next thing? If what matters is a 'cool' look (to your eyes) – great.



Dropping ride height significantly with uprated springs means altering kingpin inclination, damper settings and bushings, even the suspension tube end buffers and bump stops (shape, material and positioning) ought to be changed if there are to be _real_ improvements - not just imagined. Many are fooled in believing their car is faster with a race type air filter - the noise alone convinces them of this, just as an unsettled and crashing ride convinces others that handling and cornering is improved.

A race car has thousands of alterations to make it go faster on a track – not least having negative camber to help generate maximum cornering force. On the other hand, a standard road car lowered with stiffer springs (and nothing else done to it) will have ineffective damping, have excess understeer and the front springing will effectively be done by the bump stops. So there will be less grip. It makes sense to increase tyre size and shape if restricted suspension movement is used to generate better cornering (though your straight line speed and acceleration will suffer unless the engine output is improved). But the understeer will remain, ready to cause real danger in the wet.

Many cars have been rebuilt around the cheapest possible chassis – one which passes the buck when it comes to torsional rigidity, some believing the snappy handling at low speeds on smooth surfaces (caused by the whole car twisting up prematurely) to be a good thing. Strengthening these sorts of chassis will do more than any stiffer spring to improve handling and so cornering speeds, but the continued twittering and creaking of the body doesn’t bode well for longevity of the shell, axle arm bearings and steering. Yet still people seem to fall over themselves to save a few quid when replacing the single most important component on the car, then go about trying to improve matters by spending money on performance enhancing bits.

Until relatively recently, few car manufacturers bothered to give their cars decent suspension (Citroën, Lotus and Jaguar were three) which maintained composure at speed on the road. When you start playing with suspension designed by the masters, it takes more than a set of uprated springs and lowered ride height.

The whole point of suspension is to maintain maximum tyre pressure on the road for stability and grip. Comfort is a by-product of this. Spring rates which differ much from the correct rate will reduce grip. Citroën designed its gas on fluid suspension system because it eliminates so many inherent compromises with steel springs, http://www.autospeed.com.au/cms/article.html?&A=108167 explains some of the basics in a straight forwards way.

If you want cart-like handling and a bouncing ride, a BMC Mini is ideal.

Maybe it's just too many roundabouts, coupled with too many out-of-kilter rear arms/flimsy chassis which is encouraging people to go low?

I agree with what oolong has said. Unlike any other car in the world, the 2CV was designed and that design was refined for about 6 years during the Second World War. When you look at the FEW changes (other than engine size) between the 1947 model and the 1990 model, you realise what I mean by proper design. Few other cars get that really good design, instead they just get layer upon layer of bandaids to fix up problems as they arise.

If you want a really good suspension for both roadholding and ride, start with a new chassis built to the original design (not the ones designed in the UK). Refurbish the suspension arms (regrease bearings and renew if needed; replace kingpins if required; replace steering lever arms), refurbish the steering rack; replace the shock absorbers with Lipmesas; oil the suspension cylinders; grease the knife edges. Then adjust the height front and rear to specifications. Finally put on new Michelin X 125/15. Typre pressure is stated as 20 psi front and 26 psi rear. My preference is for 22 psi on the rear to tame the understeer. Don't increase the front pressures by more than 2 psi as the front wheels can "chatter" through a corner with an uneven road surface, which can end up being somewhere between gross oversteer and a front end slide.

That will give you the best all round suspension. After that, learn to drive the car. If you ever feel that the suspension isn't to your liking, drive over some really rough road at a ridiculous speed. Then try the same thing in any other car. In Australia they have small (1 metre wide) speed humps, generally signposted at 25 kph. I was behind a BMW M3 which with its cart suspension was definately not exceeding 25 kph. I over took at 50 kph on the next hump then sped to 80 kph. At that speed, although there was a lot of clanging from the suspension, the body was level and you didn't even feel the bump. I am still not game enough to try my BX at that speed, it is not that compliant.

The 2CV is ugly. The 2CV is slow. The 2CV has high ground clearance (great for Raids). The 2CV looks ridiculous going around corners fast. Revel in a unique car. Enjoy it as is.

Daffy Duck

Cue Russ...............

It is mostly about the look. It's not really to my taste, either, as I generally prefer the (happy) look of a 2cv at the correct height, with the nose-down attitude that so few seem to have nowadays (mainly as their springs have sagged and not been re-adjusted). However, although I think that some 2cvs look crap and miserable low, IMO some do rock the look well - Harry's being one of them. That said, I once had my 2cv low for about a week, and I can safely say I'll never do it again! Its go-kartness was kind of cool, but it was horrible over bumpy Derbyshire roads, and besides, I enjoy the leaning over in corners - it's one of the things that makes a 2cv a 2cv to me.

Totally agree with you on the chassis - give me a slightly patched original-type (which I have) over a brand new one from certain UK companies any day.

Patching original chassis ok if i) you/your welder understands the construction and does a diligent job and ii) rust is localised. Not many chassis left from late 80s - rotted faster than I've ever known steel rust. A plate over the undertray needs to be attached to the internal C sections, too.

UK aftermarket chassis - the SLC is almost everlasting and very tough in everyday use. Also built well.
Some others are very poor indeed, those from a certain UK company, as you say Jono. Best avoided - they cause trouble, from iffy handling with a load to accelerated corrosion in the bodies. No doubt there'll be a 'new improved' version sometime, to keep the punters moving through.

2CVs are slow? - on a deserted M-way, otherwise not in my experience. Never found any car faster than a good Cit, point to point. The performance differential increases as conditions deteriorate, too.

Heel shouldn't be excessive - the 2CV chassis without the strengthening plates behind the front axle mounts twists a little more than a Dyane-type, helping a car round tighter corners. Most are of course the Dyane variety now. A little extra weight in the boot helps a car on a twisty road. Some late 2CVs are truly awful through corners. Perhaps some have never driven a good 70s/early 80s car on its original chassis?

Daffy, I don't really enjoy the handling with reduced rear tyre pressures. The cars can do odd things even unladen, above 60mph. I've tried allsorts of pressures and find 20/26 is the optimum.

i've had lots of low A-series over the years, none of them were actually done the correct way i.e. uprated shocks, springs, turned arms etc etc. I've also owned lots & still own a 2cv at the correct ride height. It's all about the look for me, it's certainly not to everyones taste, but i do like the how you can completely change the look of a vehicle by reducing the ride height.

I have to say there's times i wish my lowered 2cv/Dyane was standard height, like the time i ripped the spring can mount clean off the chassis on a slightly protruding stand-pipe cover in the road, also when i was crusing the site behind my Dad at the Worcester Interntional - it was banging & crashing all over the show, some real ring tightening moments.

The way i've always lowered it, i totally agree that you loose the ride & handling characteristics that the 2cv is famous for. Driving around town requires some forethought, what with all the 'traffic calming measures' or speedbumps that seem to be springing up in suburbia. You find you have to plan your route, and constantly look for slight changes in surfacing that could cause problems, it can be a right PITA! Having ridden in Russ' from Cornwall to North Wales & part of the way home, the amount of differences just having the uprated springs made was immense, we barely scraped on anything under normal use, although it went a bit tits up during the convoy/dusbineering route!

The 2cv i have now is stock height & will remain that way, the Acadiane on the other hand will be lowered & this time it will be done correctly!

The other thing that i have to say is that the amount of interest that's generated by driving a lowered A-series; there's a lot of people that up until then have considered them a bit naff, but a drop in height and a few tasteful mods (i'm not talking chavvy bolt ons) make them sit up & take notice. It brings the 2cv to a complete new audience & that must be a good thing, the 'snail' 2cv forum has an ever growing band of members that are buying run down/scrap cars & turning them into nice looking & practical rides. I remember back in 1997/1998 there were only a few regularly seen low 2cv's around - mine, Pete sparrow's alfa Ami & Geoff Archers 250 weekend, there are certainly a lot more around these days & that goes for the international crew as well - there were a lot of lowered cars from all manner of countries present in CZ. If it keeps interest levels up & cars on the road & people happy, then crack on!

my 2cv in 1998:

Perhaps Oolong and Daffy could have a look & listen to this video from the first year of the 24 hour 2CV racing at Spa.

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwRoJR72ZHM >

The cars were on original suspension and ride height, afaik.
The exhaust note struggles to be heard above the screeching and squealing of Michelins self-destructing.

ken

A few afterthoughts...

Isn't oversteer much more difficult for an inexperienced driver to handle, which is why manufacturers build their front wheel drive vehicles with that handling characteristic?

Unlike more conventional vehicles, the camber of an A series vehicle's wheels is inextricably linked to its angle of roll when cornering, so limiting the roll will improve cornering capability.

Before you ask, I was involved in 2CV racing back in the days when you'd need a stack of spare 125 section tyres to last the 24 hour race.
With the suspension setup used nowadays and 145 tyres, that's no longer the case.

Oh, the position and height of suspension bump stops is easy to modify, unfortunately it's often overlooked by folk who lower (or raise) their car's ride height...

See, I think the Cote looks better in the first pic. However, your Beachcomber looked great how you had it.

I really really love this: -

i thought it really suited the cote... beauty is very much in the eye of the beholder.

are you in love with the way it looks on full drop, or the fact you can raise & lower the suspension at will? is it the complete package for you, or just the novelty factor?