The 2006 Citroën C-Triomphe didn’t quite live up to its billing.
PSA announced this particular iteration of their C-segment contender in 2004, a car which replaced the unloved and visually unimpressive Xsara model line. The C4, believed to have been the styling work of Donato Coco and Bertrand Rapatel under the supervision of Jean-Pierre Ploué marked the beginning of a stylistic renaissance at Citroën’s Vélizy design centre. Au revoir to the creative torpidity which characterised the Calvet era, welcome back creativity. Theoretically at least.
Now the C4 hatchback wasn’t a bad effort, even if it fell some way short of the class-leading Focus, in dynamic terms anyway. It certainly presented a more Citroënesque face to the world than the one the marque had been permitted for some considerable time, even if it probably suffered from as many durability-related issues as its ungainly Sochaux-built Peugeot 307 platform-mate.
Sold in most markets as either a five or three-door hatchback, the Mulhouse-assembled C4 became a fixture in the upper regions of the European sales charts and a regular sight on our roads, aided by the Cannes Lion winning Euro-RSCG-created ‘transformer’ TV commercials. Today’s subject however remains more of an outlier within the model hierarchy, the lesser-spotted C4 Sedan, or C-Triomphe, as it was otherwise known.
Built at PSA’s Argentinian production facility and aimed at the South American, Southern European and Chinese markets, the C4 Sedan/ C-Triomphe offered an alternative proposition not only in obvious stylistic terms, but also in overall dimensions. 510 mm longer overall, with an extra 100 mm between the wheels, the sedan’s extra length was a nod to Chinese market tastes, as was the new name – the C4 designation having decidedly unpalatable connotations in China.
The visible bodywork changes are evident aft of the centre pillar, with elongated rear doors, a heavily revised rear canopy and the provision of a separate boot. But it is at the tail where the sedan makes its strongest visual statement. Clearly an attempt to reflect styling themes explored to greater account on the range-topping C6 saloon, the expansive boomerang-shaped rear lamps arc luxuriantly over the rear deck, if not as dramatically as those of the flagship model.
The effect it creates however is a slightly incongruous one, the C-Triomphe lacking the proportions or requisite gravitas to wear it in any manner other than a slightly self-conscious one. So while the styling cannot be considered a ringing success, it appears to have had something of a precedent in Ford’s 1993 Synthesis concept – a design which reprised themes explored with a good deal more success in Ghia’s Focus showcar of the previous year – both vehicles employing softly curved forms, a glassy six-light canopy, and a rounded tail.
But Citroën didn’t stop with the C-Triomphe, employing another shuffling of the platform matrix to bring about the 2009 C-Quatrè. Employing the shorter wheelbase hatchback platform, this shake of the can resulted in a 328 mm longer car overall. Styled in a more contemporary idiom than that of the more classical C-Triomphe, a derivation of this car remains in production at the time of writing with Dongfeng Peugeot-Citroën in China.
But it doesn’t end there. Citroën currently sells the Spanish-built C-Elysée saloon in selected European, South American and North African markets in addition of course to China, where it is also assembled. In fact, the sheer fecundity of three volume Citroëns available worldwide turns out not only to be somewhat bewildering but really ought to warrant deeper examination.
One of the sternest tests a car stylist faces is to convincingly transform a car designed as a hatchback into a three volume saloon. It can be done and done well, but the C-Triomphe, while not particularly egregious, fails to be harmonious to behold – showroom death I would contend. Judging by the numbers viewed on the (Southern Spanish) roads, the C4 Sedan/ C-Triomphe appears to have been decidedly minority fare. Even the current C-Elysée model seems to be fading fast.
In fact, one struggles to think of a traditionally executed three volume Citroën that could be said to have been a visual success. Perhaps the double chevron should simply avoid the format. It’s clearly not their metier.
Driven to write regrets the poor quality of the appended images.
Driven To Write 
Oh dear. I’m a big fan of this series C4, but this 4-door effort is bloody awful. What were they thinking of? The 5 and, in particular, 3 door were well conceived shapes and lined up with the early C3, Pluriel and C6 looked like a cohesive range (note how I have conveniently forgotten the C5 of that era). There were echoes of the era of Alfas when the 147, 156, 166 and GT bestraddled the highways, only for all that promise to be allowed to crumble into zip.
In Brazil this car was called the C4 Pallas and it did sell reasonable well, although its price on the secondary market are plummeting due to build quaility/bad reputation issues. I rode in one a few years ago and it was very spacious on the rear seat but, even though relatively new, was full of rattles and squeaks. The automatic transmission didn’t help on the matter of smoothness, which is why it had such bad reputation throughout the PSA lineup and ended up being early replaced by a 6-speed Aisin on newer products.
On the subject of hatchback to saloon adaptation, there are a bunch of other examples of how bad it could get. The Argentinian market is quite fond of saloon cars (and french ones) and they are usaually offered on the rest of the continent too, so it is normal to see hatch to saloon transformations from almost everything out of the B and C segments. Among the most hideous jobs I can recall: the Peugeot 206/207 Passion, also from Peugeot the 307/308 sedan, the Hyundai HB20S, the Fiesta sedan and the famous Nissan Versa. I would name the Toyota Etios Sedan, but the hatch version is also rental-car dreary, so it’s not the transformation’s fault. The saloon versions of the Fochi(?) Mks I and II were more on the forgetable side, but also worth mentioning.
Come to think of it, the C4 Pallas is now quite pretty…
That is wonderful list. I must dig into that further.
Daniel: now you mention it, the Xsara seemed solid. The thing I noticed was the fine chairs – and that’s not the most important detail at all. Subsequent cars have not had the same tightness; my experiences of the first and second C4 were that they felt casual.
Don’t forget the 2 previous generations of the Renault Symbol !
Unloved and visually underwhelming Xsara model line. But not unbought: more than 3 million sold worldwide. Plenty still chugging around in France, as they’re cheap to buy and run.
It’s intersting to note that – while visually challenging – the Xsara had way better build quality/was better assembled than its successor. Bruno’s points about the rattling Pallas only serve to affirm my hatch impressions.
In typical PSA fashion, while the C4 marked a return to form in some areas (styling, sedan notwithstanding), they dropped the ball in others.
With the C4 II one could argue that the pendula swung in the other direction once again.
So much about PSA’s consistency, Daniel. Where they also dropped the ball was in not offering an estate any more for the C4. At least in German speaking markets, this version was very successful in the Xsara line. Since not all its customers could be convinced of a Picasso, these sales were subsequently lost to other marques.
Rodrigo: thanks for the Peugeot image. It is doomed to look as if it’s been rammed from behind. The worst part, the messy a-pillar and wing survived the facelift, alas.
Your insight on the perception of Citroen and Peugeot makes sense if one doesn’t see the cars. I could imagine the brands being so distinguished; the cars themselves only show the faint relic of whatever those perceptions were built on just as BMW, Mercedes and Audi today are really quite similar yet the persistence of vision leads people to assume them to be sporty, bourgeois and technically superior respectively.
Here in Argentina the C4 4 door was a sales success when appeared. Nowadays the value of this model is lower than the 5 door “original” C4 even in higher trims. Mainly used by taxi drivers and personal charter. A roomy car for carry the hole family but in terms of quality and design this C4 was just an average car. A Ford Focus 4 door or a Toyota Corolla are more reliable and strong sedans than that C4.
Actually PSA sells the C4 Lounge, a sedan that replace the C4 4 dorr and uses the 308/408 platform. Better car, with gasoline and diesel options.
The C4 Lounge is inoffensive and also makes me ask what is point? Is it there because a C4 saloon would sell better than a Peugeot saloon?
It IS a C4 saloon, isn’t it?
Richard, in Argentina the european C4 hatch does not exist. Peugeot sells the facelifted 308 and the 408. Citroën only C segment option is this C4 Lounge. In my opinion i would rather buy a Citroën C4 Lounge than a 408 just because of its design. In fact, for the consumer, Citroën still represents the “avant-garde” and Peugeot stands as an more “luxurious and chic” brand. Things of the Argentinian market.
The facelifted 408. Ugly.
Thanks for your last paragraph, Eóin. (I appreciate the rest as well, of course)
I think the only ever convincing three-box Citroën was the Ami6. It was proportioned the right way, but looked unmistakeably non-German.
There is a long, descending line from the BX to the last C5. Already with the Xantia, a hint of notchback was introduced, but it was still clearly a Citroën hatchback with the right proportions. The first C5 then was already a clear 3-box design, which became even more pronounced when they elongated the back with the facelift. At least they still kept the hatch, leading to the paradoxial situation that they offered a 3-volume hatchback (C5) and a 2-volume car with a bootlid (C6) at the same time. This was corrected (in the wrong direction) when the next C5 also became a boring saloon like every other car.
This is a car catered for a very male and conservative clientel. In many parts of the world, men feel threatened driving around in cars with a feminine touch, and there are certain kinds of cars women traditionally prefer. Like station wagons, minivans, and hatchbacks. And there are certain markets that are skewed quite conservatively where the men have more buying power and would never drive around in something so lowly as a hatchback. These men would’ve bought a Cortina or Marina in the 70’s, in the 80’s a Ford Orion or Volvo 360. PSA only catered to these people in the cheapest possible most cynical way by mounting a large ass trunk on their oh so feminine C4. I can’t see it as anything but a giant FU to those people. You wanted One giant ass on your car? Baby, you got it….
That’s the first time I’ve heard gender preferences as a basis for the selection of a saloon car. It has a good degree of plausibility to it and is testable. Gender seems the missing link in the correlation between a conservative social outlook and saloon car preferences.
nice text, Eóin. I’m particularly fond of the velour seats of the base C4 Pallas sold in Brazil. images simply can’t suggest how comfortable they are:
http://mg.olx.com.br/belo-horizonte-e-regiao/veiculos-e-acessorios/pecas-e-acessorios/carros/jogo-de-bancos-citroen-c4-pallas-394801317
sadly, the top-spec Exclusive version came with leather as standard. not bad, but the velour is much nicer.
Agreed. The disappearance of velour is explained only by interior designers taking a random dislike to it. It may be more expensive than a woven fabric? Cheap leather-faced seating has been one of the biggest cheats of car production in the last 20 years. Good, soft leather can be accepable. Decent velour is always better.
I think The Triomphe name, as well as Elysée, are cheap attemps from Citroën to capitalise on Paris and France’s names to try and lure disoriented chinese customers into their claws with the promise of French Art De Vivre in packages that are anything but reminiscent of said art. At least we might now be spared any further brazen attempts from Citroën to profit from these plunderings…..since DS in China has now been duly tasked to take on the mantle of shameless French-heritage profiteering. The amount of Eiffel towers, arcs de Triomphe and other Paris-related landmarks in their Chinese communication is staggering and that’s on top of the Opera, Bastille, Rivoli, Passy (only for China this last one!) trim designations for the new DS7.
How many Chinese know Passy is a posh district of Paris? I didn´t and I live a bit closer and have actually been to Paris (so long ago it the W-140 Mercedes had been launched around then and I still remember seeing it for the first time. It was like waking up and seeing that a mountain range had taken on a new profile overnight).
I agree for the Passy name. I guess PSA will ram it down their neck that it’s a posh district. Auteuil was taken by Renault back in the 80’s, I don’t recall Neuilly being used but that maybe too difficult to pronounce for China. Perhaps the pool of names is getting smaller before we veer into seedy or downtrodden territories like Pigalle or Barbes.
Small correction, the European Rivoli trim is called Rivoli Pioneer and Rivoli advanced in China. I’am not sure if the Pioneer name comes from the namesake brand or if it’s used as an adjective although I believe DS has an arrangment with Focal so I doubt Pioneer is the actual brand name here.
All in all it feels like this was a (very) poor man’s B4 Audi A6. I think the surface treatment and some details were Audi-inspired, down to that vertical rear bumper shutline on the side.