One Of The ’70s Coolest Luxury Cars Never Stood A Chance In The US






Citroën is one of the oldest automakers on the planet, having been founded by André-Gustave Citroën in 1919. Today, Citroën is owned by Stellantis, and while it’s still going strong in most global markets, it hasn’t sold a single car in the U.S. since 1974 — the very same year the Citroën CX hit the market. 

Known internally as Project L, the CX’s name was based on the European symbol used to designate an object’s aerody­namic coefficient. It referred to how the company hoped to solve the era’s fuel-economy problem through aerodynamics, all while improving safety and ride quality. The CX’s sleek lines and covered rear wheel arches created an elongated, elegant silhouette that swept back to a concave piece of glass used for the rear window, which essentially kept itself clean. Aside from its radically experimental looks, the CX had some incredibly advanced features.

Thanks to Citroën’s centralized hydropneumatic suspension, known as Hydractive, the car could — quite literally — level itself. The system used hydraulic fluid and nitrogen-filled spheres instead of the usual steel suspension springs, which provided consistent ground clearance and a supremely luxurious ride. Disk brakes were also a standard feature, pioneered by the automaker on the DS, the first car to come with factory disk brakes. All of these features made the CX very alluring. Unfortunately, even the coolest car can be stymied by bad timing and factors beyond the manufacturer’s control — as the  CX’s American tale shows.

The CX came with fancy tech and clever design touchers

The CX featured a peculiar steering system that automatically centered itself. The DIRAVI — “DIrection à Rappel AsserVI” in French — first appeared on Citroën’s SM model and, like the company’s ahead-of-its-time suspension system, was fully hydraulic. Instead of directly and mechanically attaching the steering wheel to the wheels, DIRAVI sent a signal to a controller that manipulated the steering rack, so drivers didn’t have to deal with potholes or torque steer (when a front-wheel-drive car pulls to the right or left under hard acceleration).

Citroën planned to power the front-wheel-drive CX with a line of reliable front-mounted Wankel rotary engines, but scrapped that idea late in the development phase. It instead opted for a series of four-cylinder gas and diesel engines developed with NSU (called Comotor). However, by rotating those engines 90 degrees and mounting them transversely, Citroën managed to retain the same interior space as the DS, despite the CX being eight inches shorter than its predecessor.

When the CX hit the road a year after its 1973 unveiling at the Paris Motor Show, it looked every bit like a worthy successor to said DS. While it would never earn the same accolades as the DS —  which placed third in the 1999 “Car of the Century” vote, and was named the most beautiful car of all time by Classic & Sports Car Magazine — it eventually won several awards of its own, including Europe’s Car of the Year award in 1975.

Citroën’s offering was perhaps a bit too strange for Americans

Europeans may have gone gaga over the CX, but Americans were never as enamored. Car and Driver, for example, wasn’t that keen on the idiosyncratic dashboard instru­mentation and control-switch layout. The left side of the CX’s futuristic dashboard pod housed non-self-canceling switches, such as turn signals, lights, and the horn; washer and wiper controls were located on the right. Both the speedometer and tachometer were technically digital but not electronic, as they used rotating drums rather than dials or needles. 

Car and Driver also noted that the engine vibrated, the windows didn’t keep out noise, and the seats — while plush — may have been too soft. Lastly, the vehicle’s hoodline was so high that it hindered the driver’s view. On top of that, each time the CX was started, the Hydractive suspension went through a quirky ritual: first lifting the rear, then the front, to reach the appropriate ride height before going into full operational mode.

While these quirks probably don’t sound like dealbreakers, they certainly wouldn’t have helped. Despite OPEC’s 1973 oil embargo, many Americans were still driving around in huge gas-guzzling cars. The market perhaps wasn’t ready for an odd-looking little car with gas-sipping aspirations, especially given its many idiosyncrasies. Sure, it was pretty normal compared to Citroën’s Karin concept car, but it was still quite a departure overall. However, the biggest reason the CX never made a mark in the U.S. was unfortunate timing.

Bad timing stopped the CX from coming to the U.S.

In 1971, U.S. regulators introduced the nation’s 5 mph bumper rule, which was set to take effect for the 1973 model year. This rule regulated bumper height and required that front bumpers on new cars withstand a collision at up to 5 mph. This resulted in radical changes to the bumper designs for U.S.-market cars, but the real killer came the following year. By 1974, additional bumper laws made height-adjustable suspensions illegal – eliminating one of the defining and integral features that made Citroëns like the CX so cool in the first place. That same year, financial woes forced Citroën to merge with Peugeot, effectively putting the kibosh on sales in the United States.

The U.S. repealed its bumper rule in 1981, opening up a gray market that saw some 1,000 CXs enter the country. However, with the U.S. dollar in free fall, importers were forced to sell them at twice the original European asking price. At over $30,000, they were just as costly as Cadillacs — making them a non-starter for most Americans. But there’s one final twist, which comes courtesy of Robert Boston, CEO of both Citroën Importers of North America and Euro-Car in the ’80s. 

In a blog post on Citroën fansite Citroënvie!, Boston revealed that the majority owners, Peugeot, simply didn’t want Citroën-branded cars in the U.S. — especially since Peugeot cars weren’t selling. Basically, the suits were jealous. Ultimately, all of these combined mean that the CX goes down as one of the greatest examples of “wrong place, wrong time” in automotive history.





Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews







In the ever-shifting geopolitical sphere, China’s growing military presence and the ongoing tensions over Taiwan and the South China Sea continue to be a closely watched topic — particularly in regard to China’s ambition for naval power. In recent years, much speculation has been made over the country’s rapid military development, including the capabilities of the newest Chinese amphibious assault ships.

While there’s no denying its military advancements and buildup, much has been made about the logistical and military difficulties that China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) would face if it launched an amphibious invasion of Taiwan. However, there’s growing concern that if a Taiwan invasion were to happen, it wouldn’t just be military vessels taking part in the action, but a fleet of commercial vessels, too — including a massive new car ferries that could quickly be repurposed into valuable military transports.

While the possibility of the PLA using commercial vessels for military operations has always been on the table for a potential Taiwan invasion, the scale with which China has been expanding its commercial shipbuilding industry has become a big factor in the PLA’s projection of logistical and military power across the Taiwan Strait. It’s also raised ethical concerns over the idea of putting merchant-marked ships into combat use.

From car ferry to military transport

The rapid growth of modern Chinese industrial capacity is well known, with Chinese electric vehicle factories now able to build a new car every 60 seconds. Likewise, China has developed a massive shipbuilding industry over the last 25 years, with the country now making up more than half of the world’s shipbuilding output. It’s from those two sectors where China’s latest vehicle-carrying super vessels are emerging. 

With a capacity to carry over 10,000 new vehicles for transport from factories in Asia to destinations around the world, these ships, known as roll-on/roll-off (Ro-Ro) ferries, are now the biggest of their type in the world. The concept of the PLA putting civilian ferries into military use is not a new one, or even an idea China is trying to hide. Back in 2021, China held a public military exercise where a civilian ferry was used to transport both troops and a whole arsenal of military vehicles, including main battle tanks.

The relatively limited conventional naval lift capacity of the PLA is something that’s been pointed out while game-planning a Chinese amphibious move on Taiwan, and it’s widely expected that the PLA would lean on repurposed civilian vessels to boost its ability to move soldiers and vehicles across the Taiwan Strait. With these newer, high-capacity Ro-Ro ferries added to the fleet, the PLA’s amphibious capacity and reach could grow significantly.

A makeshift amphibious assault ship

However, even with the added capacity of these massive ferries, military analysts have pointed out that Ro-Ro ships would not be able to deploy vehicles and soliders directly onto a beach the way a purpose-built military amphibious assault ship can. Traditionally, to deploy vehicles from these ships, the PLA would first need to capture and then repurpose Taiwan’s existing commercial port facilities into unloading bases for military vehicles and equipment.

However, maybe most alarming is that satellite imagery and U.S. Intelligence reports show that, along with increasing ferry production output, the PLA is also working on a system of barges and floating dock structures to help turn these civilian ferries into more efficient military transports. With this supporting equipment in place, ferries may not need to use existing port infrastructure to bring their equipment on shore.

Beyond the general military concern over China’s growing amphibious capability, there are also ethical concerns if China is planning to rapidly put a fleet of civilian merchant vessels into military service. If the PLA were to deploy these dual-purpose vessels into direct military operations, the United States and its allies would likely be forced to treat civilian-presenting ships as enemy combatants. On top of all the other strategic challenges a Taiwan invasion would bring, the U.S. having to navigate the blurred legal lines between military and merchant vessels could potentially give China a strategic advantage amidst the fog of war.





Source link