Translation:It did not take much for them to get lost.
I don't understand where the è in c'è voluto comes from, because it's not present in ci vuole at all. (also because the auxiliary verb of volere isn't essere, but avere so it makes even less sense for this è to appear...)
You are right, volere would take the auxiliary avere. The verb volerci, however, requires essere. Verbs ending in ci and si, such as aspettarsi, use essere as the auxiliary verb.
I strongly disagree. I didn’t understand this sentence at first. There were very interesting things to learn from it. The expression “ci vuole” I have seen before but this was the first time to see it in past tense. “Perché not only means “why” or “because” but also “in order that” or “for” when followed by the subjunctive. “Perdere” (to lose) becomes “perdersi” (to get lost). Excellent sentence to study.
My view of the literal meaning;
non c'è volute molto = "It did not want/need much" = "not much was wanted/needed"
perché = "in order that'. If you consider the literal translation of perché to be "for that", i.e., per che, then it's not such a stretch.
si perdessero = "they lost themselves" = "they caused themselves to become lost/to be lost".
Putting it all together in a literal sense, "It did not want/need much for that they caused themselves to be lost."
A lot of reflexive verbs can make sense if you put them in terms of: "[I/you/he/she/we/they] caused [my/your/him/her/our/them]self/selves to be [past participle of verb]".
So literally: "There was not much want for that they lost themselves"?
It's more idiomatic indeed. E.g. italians say 'ci vuole tempo' meaning 'it takes time/will take time'. But it's so devastating that Duo gives me more difficult stuff during Strengthen skills practice instead of putting it into the lesson in the first place!
This is really difficult because it is a colloquial expression with no indication of the meaning anywhere.
I think you mean "idiomatic"
"axiomatic" means that the logic obeys very fixed rules which allow only one result.