Why the Citroen C3 is flawed

I've been driving Citroen's new C3 hatchback. It strikes me that this is one of the biggest missed opportunities by Citroen since it brought us the automotive gruel of the Xsara and Saxo.

So what's wrong with the new C3? Surely it's taken the supermini template and added 'creative technologie', yes?


No.

Here's what's good about the new C3:

- Great 1.6 90bhp diesel engine
- Soft ride
- Stereo sound quality

Here's what's bad:

- One of the worst dash layouts since Aston Martin's Lagonda
- Sloppy, slow, vague, high-friction gearshift (when will PSA fix this? It's been like this as long as I can remember - 205, 309, 206, 306, 307, 308... etc)
- Clutch has a worryingly high biting point suggesting attention is needed in the near future (at less than 5,000 miles old)
- Pointless 'Zenith' big windscreen gives visibility exactly where you don't need it (skywards)
- Crazy gear ratios with huge gap between first and second
- Speedometer marked in illegible numerals
- Fuel gauge digital, temperature gauge non-existent
- Only four-star EuroNCAP score
- Model tested costs £17,640 after options!

Why has Citroen gone mad on the dashboard? Who was let out of the asylum to position the switches? It's like several different blind people played 'pin the switch on the dashboard'. And then they got a five-year old to colour it in.

The looks are an evolution of the old C3, a bad move in my opinion. It's taken the worst of the old C3 (the dumpy creme egg profile) and added some chrome glitz and glamour - and that hopeless windscreen. You're struck by the enormity of it as soon as the windscreen wipers are turned on: they sweep less than half of the area, leaving the other half to gather dirt and dust.

You can, of course, slide the sun blind forwards to cure this. But somewhere between concept and execution the sliding blind mechanism got mercilessly cost-reduced, leaving a limp, flappy fibre board to rattle around (and rattle it will, given a few years ownership).

Anything I've missed?

So what's left to recommend the C3? Well, after its launch hype has died down, which will happen all too soon for Citroen dealers, the discounting will ramp up. Expect the 'no VAT' offer to make a comeback, driving prices down to a barely-profitable level - particularly with a weak pound.

There's not much rear seat space, nor boot space (despite those bulbous proportions). Reliability will almost certainly be a continual headache for owners. It's not particularly pleasant to drive, especially compared to an equivalent Fiesta (or Mazda2, or Renault Clio). The price proves there needs to be a lot more discounting before any sane person will consider it.

And, despite the chrome posturing, it is still a Citroen: a marque remembered less for the DS, rallying success and technical innovation and more for forgettable, disposable cars sold at knock-down prices.

Such a shame! We were shown such promise with the C3 Picasso! Admittedly that car was equally dynamically bereft, but there was evidence of genius in its design and packaging. There's no genius in this C3; all the money went on the insane giant windscreen, leaving none for creativity.

I haven't driven the DS3 yet but it's a better effort if recent reviews are to be believed. It too is expensive and poorly packaged but that's never bothered MINI buyers, and it's a market Audi wants too with its forthcoming A1.

Let's hope the C3 is a blip in an otherwise exciting group of new products for Citroen - who knows what the future could hold?

Copycat

I recently had an interesting conversation with a Honda engineering chief. He was chuckling to himself about the Toyota Avensis and how 'dull' it was (his words, not mine).

Surely this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black? If you had to choose between the Honda Accord and Toyota Avensis, which would you choose? Is there, in fact, anything to separate the two?

Neither sets the world alight in terms of styling or performance. Both will carry a family of four in very high levels of comfort and safety. But, and this is a crucial point, the family man company car driver will always choose the Avensis over the Accord.

Why? It's the economy, stupid. The Accord's ageing 2.2i-DTEC engine emits 170g/km CO2, meaning company car tax of at least £906.

You can have a 2.0D-4D diesel Avensis that'll cost you £654 a year, because a) it's cheaper to buy, and b) it emits just 135g/km CO2.

And should you feel the need to justify this choice to the neighbours, there's a 'built in Blighty' boast with it. Not to mention the fact it's more spacious, better equipped, and safer.

Me too
All this reminds me that there is too much copycat car design.

In the good old days, cars were driven by a single-minded 'architect' - think Alex Issigonis' Mini and Minor, or Ferdinand Porsche's Volkswagen. These cars were radical and ground-breaking due to the vision and foresight of a strong-minded individual.

But could you point to a car of today and give a name associated with its conception? Did the Peugeot 207 have a visionary mind behind it? Who was the brains behind the Volvo S80?

Cars are designed and shaped by committee, and this removes any hint of individuality. Moreover, they are driven by the competition: if the Ford Focus features independent rear suspension, all other car makers will try to emulate this, or provide excuses as to why it's unnecessary.

"It's like a Golf"
There are thousands of components that are fitted first and foremost because of the competition: witness Chrysler's redundant Voyager airbag, or the ever-increasing horsepower arms race between medium size performance hatchbacks.

One of the most refreshing ideas to come out of a litany of outlandish and unrealistic concept cars is Citroen's C-Cactus. The idea behind it is to reduce the spiralling part count in modern cars, and the associated weight and complexity. The result is a unique, refreshing family car ethos that may or may not be beaten into submission before any production intent is announced.

Another epoch-making newcomer will certainly be Gordon Murray's T25 city car. While most of its details are still secret, it seems certain that it will lead the field in terms of flexibility and economy, if and when it finally reaches production status.

There is some logic to carmakers deliberately designing out high performance from their cars, though they are loathe to admit so.

Design to unimpress
Countless cars are driven at 20% of their performance envelope, by those who neither know nor care what they are capable of.What's the point of spending thousands of development hours producing sports-car like grip and handling, if the owner isn't even going to test drive it before purchase?

Following this reasoning I predict that if Dacia/Renault finally deliver on their promise to bring the Logan to the UK, it will be a massive success (assuming it is sensibly priced). Good luck to them.

Fuss-free, practical and safe motoring for the masses, it'll be a budget car without the baggage of shame that used to be part of the package.

Van Drivers

It is neither new nor controversial to have a go at van drivers. But correct me if I'm wrong: are they the newest breed of inconsiderate drivers?

Is there something about these vans that makes the driver:

• a) late
• b) angry
• c) impatient
• d) aggressive
• e) all of the above?

Top three bad vans

I've even got a sub-theory regarding which type of vans are the least considerate to other road users.

In first place, it's the flat bed Transit-type builder's truck - instantly distinguishable by the broom sticking out of the upright behind the cab.

In second place, the ubiquitous Transit Connect. Where once builders were forced to trundle around in Escort Vans "powered" by ancient 60bhp 1.8 normally-aspirated diesels, the latest Transit Connect sports turbo-diesel power up to 109bhp and an unrivalled capacity to produce thick, black smoke on demand.

Third spot goes to Luton's finest: the Vauxhall Vivaro and its clones, the Renault Trafic (the lost 'f' is deliberate, apparently) and Nissan Primastar. Their all-round rear bumper seems to encourage a carefree, myopic driving style which other road users would do well to steer around.

I wonder if there is a difference between those that drive 'company' vans, and self-employed one-man-bands who have a vested interest in their (usually crumbling, rusty and unsafe) asset? I suppose a knackered, poorly maintained older van is just as likely to cause harm as a newer, badly driven one.

King of vans

For van drivers, the top of the van food chain is the aptly-named Mercedes Sprinter. Rarely seen at less than 90mph, the Sprinter clearly has an abundance of thrust.

Why must vans be capable of over 100mph? What purpose does this serve? I understand the need for a heavy-duty engine in case of large loads, but surely these high-riding vehicles aren't safe at these speeds. How would they cope with a sudden lane-change manoeuvre, for instance? Almost certain loss of control, if not loss of contact between tyres and the ground.

When I am in charge* the light van will be limited to 56mph. To combat lengthy tailbacks as van tries to overtake van on dual carriageways, they (and HGVs) will be limited to the nearside lane at all times.

In Singapore, these vehicles have a flashing light on top of the roof. If the speed limit is exceeded, this light starts flashing, informing the (very attentive) law enforcement brigade that a transgressor is in their midst.

What a great idea.







* never