|
The car's body panels were made via injection molding with a specially-designed resign. The four pieces could be colored from the get-go, eliminating the need for a paint shop, saving hundreds of millions of dollars. The production process was similarly designed for simplicity and cost-effectiveness. Only four basic panels were needed, in addition to the doors, hood and canvas roof, all of which were anchored to a steel frame. Adhesive was used instead of hardware, save for four bolts. The body panels were designed to be recyclable as well. A CCV required 25 percent of the parts that a comparable 1998 Neon used, and took 6 hours to build, versus 19 for a Neon. Power came from a two-cylinder air-cooled engine, designed for simplicity and ease of maintenance. While 50 mpg was expected, the engine only produced 25 horsepower and 60 mph came in an estimated 25 seconds. And all for the rock bottom price of $6,000. Sound too good to be true? The CCV died a quiet death shortly after its public introduction, apparently the victim of Daimler's veto. The CCV's one saving grace may have been not making it into production; the Tata Nano, which is similar in concept, ended up flopping in its home market of India. According to Citroen enthusiast George Dyke, who wrote an article comparing the CCV with the Citroen 2CV, buyers in the Chinese market that could afford a motor vehicle wanted one with the same creature comforts as mainstream cars, as opposed to basic transportation like the CCV. This sentiment is hardly confined to China, and is doubtlessly a driving force behind the success of "premium" low-cost cars like the Dacias, which offer most of the features of a comparable Renault for significantly less money. Of course, no Dacia has ever gone on display at the MoMA.
from The Truth About Cars http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com | |||
| | |||
| | |||
|
No comments:
Post a Comment