Roll over to preview

Do you like cars or do you like driving? If that seems like a silly question, let me explain what I’m going on about: Some people see cars as a means to go driving and tend to prefer cars that enhance that experience and the faster, sharper and rawer the experience the better. A car that, by design, removes you from the driving experience by majoring on comfort, lightness of touch and luxury isn’t going to be their cup of tea. Then there’s the other camp, which is the one I’m now realising that I fall into. Whether a car is slow or quick, spartan or luxurious, cosseting or bone-shaking, it is what it is and driving it is the way to experience the car rather than the other way around. What has brought on this bout of introspection is that I have finally driven a hydropneumatic Citroën. This is just as well, as I will bore anyone in earshot with my views on ‘proper’ Citroëns and how wonderful they are from a technical perspective, always with the nagging thought that I had no idea ifthey were any good to drive. I’m pleased to report that the experience was exactly as I had expected – the big ’Fifties Citroën is probably the slowest car I have ever driven and with its dedication to removing any impression of actual motion or progress it is the polar opposite of a ‘driver’s car’. However I found that feeling (and hearing) the suspension soaking up every imperfection in the road, or using the finger-light column gearchange (which felt as if it wasn’t attached to anything at the other end) was just as satisfying as thrashing a sports car along a back road and feeling each grain of tarmac through the steering wheel or having to feather the throttle to keep the back end in line. I suppose some people would dislike the Citroën for its complete lack of driver appeal, but surely that’s rather missing the point of the exercise? Anyway, regardless of whether you like cars, driving, driving cars, or cars that you can drive, there should be something in this issue of CCB.