(EXPANDED FROM 12/4/2020)
In a post on the Saab 99, we mentioned how in the late-60s and early-70s a handful of iconoclastic automakers tried to mainstream their basic designs. A case in point was Citroën.
This French automaker had been a leading disciple of aerodynamics with its groundbreaking DS. The executive sedan was so far ahead of its time that it was sold in the United States from 1956 to 1972. That said, it also didn’t sell all that well here, perhaps partly because of a high price, lack of power and spotty parts availability (Wikipedia, 2025).
The SM was introduced in 1970 as a luxury coupe positioned above the DS in pricing. The car offered a variety interesting aerodynamic features, such as glass-covered headlamps in its non-U.S. versions. In addition, the drag coefficient was quite low at .26 (Wikipedia, 2020).
Nevertheless, the SM was given surprisingly conventional styling for a Citroën. The car was designed in-house by Robert Opron and bears a family resemblance to the CX executive sedan and the mid-level GS (Wikipedia, 2020).
The SM’s engineering was interesting enough that the car generated lots of enthusiastic reviews by the U.S. car buff press.
As a case in point, this Citroen was the first import bestowed with Motor Trend magazine’s Car of the Year award (Evans, 2019). That was a surprisingly esoteric choice for what was arguably the most mainstream of the buff magazines.
The Citroën’s angular lines evoked U.S. cars
In a review of the SM, the British magazine MotorSport (Jenkinson, 1972) credulously quoted marketing copy: “Conceived by the styling department of Citroën’s research division from functional data, the shape of SM makes no concession to fashion. Its aesthetics have been rationalised and are the direct result of study of logic and reason.”
Also see ‘Mercedes-Benz W123: Back when form really did follow function’
Of course, Citroën designers paid far more attention to aerodynamics than U.S. automakers of that era. Nevertheless, the SM’s overall appearance is rather angular — and even Americanesque. The side sweepspear had a decidedly Cadillac vibe, while the windshield’s shape could have been inspired by any number of U.S. cars.
One might argue that the SM redeemed itself with the rear end’s styling. The low drag coefficient is reportedly achieved by use of a fastback that ended with one of the most dramatic kammback treatments of that era. Citroën added a few unusual styling flourishes, such as a second-story bumper that arched up in a U-shape at each corner.
Yet even here, Citroën’s gimmick is similar to that of the 1969-71 Chrysler Imperial, albeit with a dose of French weird. By the same token, Citroën’s designers apparently insisted on giving the SM full-width taillights that evoked American prestige cars.
But then where to put the license plate? Citroën designers threw it upstairs — and gave the hatchback lid an odd jog upward.
(Pop quiz, 100 points: Visualize what the SM’s rear end would have looked like if Citroën had added a 5-mph bumper without changing any sheetmetal.)
SM ends U.S. sales after only four years
As with the Saab 99, the ultimate test of the SM’s innovativeness is how long the design stayed ahead of everyone else. Here the Citroën arguably didn’t do a whole lot better than the 99, although the latter stayed in production longer.
In 1974 Citroën stopped importing the SM into the U.S., when the automaker was not given an exemption from 5-mph bumpers. The SM’s variable-height suspension made compliance “impossible,” according to Wikipedia (2020).
But even if Citroën had not been stopped by the feds — and the automaker had not gone bankrupt — I doubt the SM could have maintained much of a foothold in the American marketplace. Whereas the DS looked quite advanced for its day, the SM mainly came off as weird.
NOTES:
This story was originally posted June 10, 2017 and expanded on Dec. 4, 2020 and June 12, 2025.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Evans, Scott; 2019. “Why the Strange Citroen SM Was Our First Foreign Car of the Year.” MotorTrend. Posted July 9; accessed December 3, 2020.
- Jenkinson, Denis; 1972. “The Citroen SM.” MotorSport. Published September.
- Wikipedia; 2020. “Citroen SM.” Page last modified November 9.
- ——; 2025. “Citroen DS.” Page last modified May 13.
Some time ago I saw one at a classic car show in my area, it was a European-spec car and, despite being somewhat ambivalent on that kamm-back (I would have preferred something more akin to the DS/ID or the Porsche 911) I still was left gobsmacked.
Compared to the cars around it (typical boxy-ish small-ish European sedans), the SM looked like an absolute rocketship. It seemed out of this world and even today it still turns heads.
Heuliez did try to tempt Citroen with a lower-cost 4-cylinder CX coupe replacement for the SM (in French link below), however Citroen given their own problems were not interested. They also looked at fitting the Maserati V6 in the CX pre-bankruptcy to build a case to continue the Maserati V6 as SM production was being run down.
Citroen also later prototyped the PRV V6 in the CX, which remained stillborn because Peugeot actively prevented Citroen from using the V6 due to it offering a powerful in-house rival to the their own flagship Peugeot 604.
Fwiw there were plans by Citroen for the SM to feature an entry-level 4-cylinder before they decided to discard the idea and push further upmarket. Both the SM and CX coupe would have probably been more successful in sales terms had they received both 4-cylinder and V6 engines.
https://www.largus.fr/actualite-automobile/un-moteur-de-citroen-cx-dans-la-sm-heuliez-y-a-songe-30034793.html
There was a Citroen SM who appeared in an episode of Columbo titled “Identity Crisis”
https://imcdb.org/vehicle_61447-Citro%C3%ABn-SM-1972.html and another SM who sadly, have a sad fate at the end of a car chase in the movie “The Longest Yard” starring Burt Reynolds.
I knew one of the Motor Trend Car of the Year judges that selected the SM. That selection completely pissed off Bob Petersen to the point where the criteria for which cars qualified for consideration was changed.
I see nothing in the SM that is American design. I seriously doubt that the Citroen designer considered that although worldwide general design trends would be something they would be cognizant of.
I can’t understand any love for the tail of the SM. To me that is where they had no cohesive vision of what they wanted. The nose is fabulous, in Euro trim.
The SM although wonderfully advanced also created monumental problems keeping it all working. Shops that can do that are to be admired.
Take note that although it is front wheeled drive, the engine is aft of the front wheels.
Style Auto did a great multi-page article on the SM back in the day.
The windshield was fairly squared off, much like what Detroit cars looked like during that time period. In addition, the SM’s front end was much less tapered than the DS’s; again, that aligned more with the angular U.S. styling of the times. And you don’t see a hint of Cadillac in the side sweepsphere?
You appear to be intent on finding American design idioms where they are not to be found.
I find it interesting how people from different professions can have very different debating styles. For example, a scholar is considered an effective debater when he or she responds in a direct and substantive way to what the other party has argued by drawing upon facts and logic. However, at Indie Auto I’ve noticed that people from in and around the automobile industry have frequently had a tendency to engage in terse putdowns. That doesn’t deepen the quality of the discussion, but perhaps for some folks “winning” is more important.
Steve,
Design is not always easy to put into words. If the design works it really doesn’t need words to prove what your eye already knows. If it doesn’t work then no amount of story telling can make enough excuses to change the reality.
Designer see everything from all the manufacturers. The reality is that they are already projecting design multiple years into the future. To the designer the latest introduction of what they have worked on is made to the public they have already lived with that design for years and are likely have been working on something else, or even its replacement, for at least a year.
Now to the SM. Citroen was always different. One can easily see that they created within their own environment (Europe and US). See the Ami, CX, BX and others; some worked well while others (Ami) were jumbled messes. Yet, that did not remove them from the larger world of what was going on worldwide in car design.
You have pointed to the windshield of the SM. To expect that the SM would used the big wrap around of the DS does not make sense. The DS was a early 1950 design while the SM was a late 1960s. The SM did a a far larger plan view curvature than was industry typical but somewhat less than the DS. That it had square top corners to the rook was nothing unusual. That certainly makes sense for its integration with the roof design and was industry typical worldwide at that time.
The body side “sweep spear”, I assume this is reference to the line coming off the bottom of the side windows. This makes sense as the bulk of the area behind the windows needs a way to break up the surface mass. Not having been in the studio during the design development (one would assume they too used clay), it is possible that during design development it was tried with and without the surface break-up. What the SM end up with was a logical solution to extend an existing line and let it fade into the body side at a point when it looked right.
Should the reference of the “sweep spear” be to the surface break down the body side, this is another typical design solution worldwide. It makes the body side not look so fat and bulbous.
Years later after Citroen was part of PSA, there were American designer in the studio. I remember at least one of them had been at Chrysler in the late 1970s. Then one might be able to point to more American type design solutions but prior to that I would not expect that. I would find it far more likely in the later part of the 1960s that Citroen’s design group would be paying more attention to Pininfarina and Bertone for their inspirations.
Two references for the SM:
Autoweek articale by Dave Rand: https://www.autoweek.com/opinion/a62387925/citroen-sm-design-dave-rand/
Style Auto #31