Citroën C3 1,4 HDi road test - post script

Prior to putting this test of the C3 on this site, I sent a copy to a contact at Citroën for his input and comments.

He responded, “However I am left in a quandary! I and most of my colleagues here reckon that the ride comfort of C3 is just fine and if it wasn't for one factor I'd be wondering if there was something awry with the car you drove. This one factor is that one of our technical people, for whom I have great respect, climbed out of a C3 the other day and made similar - but not quite so scathing! - criticism of the ride quality.”

My comments on the ride quality were, “Couple this with neutral handling and one has a recipe for being able to make rapid progress on country lanes. However, one of the ingredients was missing from the recipe. Ride comfort. Apart from a Traction, I have never driven such a firmly sprung Citroën. I gained the impression that such ride comfort as there was is largely down to the seating. Driving on roads with which I am familiar, I was shaken about and furthermore, both the steering column and the dash seemed to move in a manner reminiscent of many a convertible – the technical term is “scuttle shake”. Rough roads also triggered a number of squeaks and rattles from the rear … … There was also quite a bit of road noise transmitted into the cabin – manhole covers caused thumping and jarring.”

Tony Stokoe sent me a review from the FT Weekend Magazine in which it was stated “…it’s a roomy, comfy hatch with traditional Citroën qualities such as a pliant ride, tenacious grip, light steering (and trigger-happy brakes).”

Prior to testing the C3, I made a deliberate point of not reading any reviews of the car since I wanted to approach it without too many preconceptions. It is of course impossible not to have any preconceptions since inevitably one compares it with that with which one is familiar – in my case, the XM. One also has to factor in Citroën’s reputation for superlative ride comfort.

The company has employed a number of different technologies to achieve good ride comfort – ranging from the longitudinal springs of the 2CV to high pressure hydraulics to the thoroughly conventional MacPherson strut set up of modern Citroëns and therefore my expectations were very high indeed.

In fact, Citroën’s reputation relies on more than just ride comfort – on the positive side the list is long – unique styling – cutting edge technology – a “different” (some may say “unique”) driving experience – good handling – direct steering – light brakes, etc.

C3 lives up to the marque’s reputation in all respects bar ride quality. Now this is possibly a purely subjective judgment. My contact went on to say, “What I can't understand is how something so apparently objective can produce such wildly varying reaction from, presumably intelligent drivers.” I employ the word “possibly” since a ride that one person likes may be intensely disliked by another. Many is the person who feels that the ride of a DS is nausea-inducing and Jeremy Clarkson described the ride of the 2CV as “rolly polly”. On the other side, there are people who do not find the ride of a Morgan at all off-putting. Presumably it is possible to objectively measure the extent to which a suspension system isolates one from the imperfections in the road surface – accelerometers to measure vertical displacement, speed of displacement, change in rate of displacement, behaviour on the rebound after encountering a bump, etc. It is also possible to quantify this in mathematical terms. And it is also possible to enter this mathematical definition into a computer program to assist in the design of a suspension system. Presumably all the variables can be defined – with the exception of whether the end result is pleasing or not. In other words, ride comfort is not a wholly objective matter.

But ride comfort is not the only important matter either. Good handling is also necessary. Traditionally, for a car to handle well, it needed firm suspension. Softly sprung cars normally handled badly – as epitomised by American cars from the fifties through to the late eighties. Where Citroën rewrote the rule book was in the combination of soft suspension and good handling. It is however true to say that this usually came at the expense of body roll and understeer. The former is considered by many to detract from ride comfort while the latter discourages the enthusiastic driver from “press-on” motoring (although it also discourages the less able driver from pushing things beyond the limits of his or her competence).

As power output was increased, both the 2CV and D Series acquired firmer suspension in an attempt to counter the criticisms mentioned in the paragraph above. Over the years, this trend has continued – the GS was firmer than the D and the CX was firmer still.

In an attempt to reconcile the different demands of ride comfort and handling, Citroën introduced Hydractive suspension – a system that has two states, soft for ride comfort and firm for handling. Using electronics, the system switches from one mode to the other as required by the exigencies of the car’s and the driver’s behaviour. With the decision not to use hydropneumatics on C3, other solutions had to be found and inevitably this results in compromises.

I felt that the handling of C3 was beyond reproach and yet the car will shortly be equipped with ESP (Electronic Stability Programme) which corrects the path taken by the vehicle when it detects a deviation between the course steered by the driver and the course taken by the vehicle. In the event of oversteer, the ESP brakes the front wheel that is on the outside of the bed while in the event of understeer, the rear wheel that is on the inside of the bend is braked. C3 will also be equipped with traction control whereby power to the front wheels is reduced if the car goes into a skid or if grip is lost under acceleration – particularly if driving on a wet surface or one covered with the wrong kind of leaves.

Now it may be that ESP and traction control are a marketing initiative – the competition is, or will be, fitted with them. Certainly in my drive of the C3 that was not so equipped, I never felt any need for either of them. But assuming that they are desirable or even necessary, why wasn’t the opportunity taken to rebalance the ride/handling equation in favour of ride comfort and let the electronics deal with the consequences?

Perhaps once again, this is more a marketing issue than one of technology. Most cars have a fairly firm ride. Therefore that is what the punters desire. Therefore supply what the punters want. But in so doing, Citroën seems to have missed the point – that it is the combination of good ride and handling that differentiates the marque from its competition. It has the technology to resolve this dichotomy but for reasons best known to itself, chooses not to take this particular path.

I suspect that a lot of what the company does is as a result of market research. The problem with this approach is that it is only a very small minority of people who have the vision, the confidence or the intellectual wherewithal to step outside the mould. Most people are resistant towards change or are unable to visualise it. The marketers address their questions (which inevitably contain the in-built biases and prejudices of those who draw up the questions) to the hoi polloi and the answers they get in return reinforce those prejudices and biases.

In defence of this approach, it must be said that if success is measured by the state of the profit and loss account, if one wishes one’s products to have mass market appeal, one has to tailor them accordingly. In Citroën’s case, this was how the company started. Its early products were tailored to the mass market, both in terms of the product itself and the price. It was when the company decided on the cutting edge, technological approach as typified by the Traction and subsequent models that it got into trouble. By rights, if the punters had been sufficiently discerning, the Traction’s peers would have drifted into extinction and there would be only one motor manufacturer – or perhaps other manufacturers would have adopted Citroën’s solutions or come up with alternatives of their own. As we all know, this did not happen. The masses continued to buy cars equipped with beam axles, rear wheel drive, drum brakes, vague steering, poor handling, etc. And as has ever been the case, prophets are reviled for their vision.

Were the field of consumer product design like that of nature, the Darwinian principle of survival of the fittest would have ensured that Citroën’s 1934 – 1974 approach was a winner. We would all be using Betamax video recorders and I would be typing this article on an Apple Mac.

Finally, some time after the test, I discussed my comments with someone at Southgate who suggested that maybe reducing the tyre pressures to those recommended had been omitted from the PDI.