(first posted 3/20/2016) Another car magazine was vying for attention on newsstands in March 1966: Road Test, with its second issue in its second year, combined Consumer Reports-style critiques with the perspective of car enthusiasts. The magazine accepted no advertising at the time, so I’ll just jump right into the articles. The lead cover story compared the hugely successful VW Beetle 1300 with its French alternative, the Renault R-8. Which car would get the nod?
In spite of Renault winning the competitive comparison, Road Test knew that plenty of its readers were VW fans. So, the next several pages after the road test were dedicated to VW accessories, so readers could see how to make Beetles better.
I have an old Road Test that is devoted to the Rover 2000, circa 1966. It is painfully obvious to me that they were completely bought by whatever car they were featuring – they didn’t need to sell other ads!
A lot of interesting information, but NOWHERE do the say what their fuel economy is! I’ve read the article forwards and backwards three times. The do say the R8 got 6 mpg more than the VW. But what about the actual mpg numbers! Am I going blind?
Frankly, this glaring shortcoming in a very long and verbose article comparing these two economy cars is somewhat representative of this magazine, and probably explains why I didn’t read it regularly back in the day. It’s just very inconsistent, and poorly edited.
Seriously: No mpg figures anywhere? Yet very detailed braking numbers (27 ft/sec. squared). No wonder they went out of business.
You are right on that one. I feel no one can touch “Auto Motor und Sport” in it’s attempt to provide information in standardized forms. The same is true for Rainer Günzler and his Autotest series on TV.
From my own experience with both cars, the VW could get about 26-28 mpg in normal driving. The R8 got 35 without trying, 40 when I tried for economy.
Otherwise the review is exactly right on all details. Unfortunately they missed the one difference that mattered in the end: Dealers.
I like the Renault 8 better for all the reasons mentioned in the comparo. One thing they were unable or unwilling to take into consideration were the dealership networks and corrosion resistance. Those were the trump cards in VW’s hand.
What I’ve always liked about Volkswagen is that by the time of this article’s writing, they’ve managed to establish an extensive dealer and service network, imperative if you want to keep your car running. Which is more than you can say for Renault, or other French car companies.
Car & Driver had made similar comments.
Three big details: The VW was better built, exuded quality, and was a lot more reliable.
If it broke, it had a good dealer and service network by the mid 1960s.
My dad told me he bought one in the 50s, and when the Air Force reassigned him, he sold it for as much as he paid!
In Greece, where Renault was a bigger player (if such a term could be applied to one of Europe’s smallest, poorest markets), as kid in the 1970s, there were more Beetles than Renaults.
So, in real life, people liked VWs more, regardless of country (except France or maybecountries that had Renault plants)
What’s interesting, in that era and place, typically people would keep their cars for….10-20 years, due to the constantly rising prices of new cars (inflation AND additional taxes). But I sensed there was some brand loyalty
I can think of three friends/neighbors who changed cars in that era:
from an Renault R8 to an R9 (as I kid, I thought from lame to less lame)
from a Fiat 850 to a Fiat 128 (from OK to decent)
and from a Ford Taunus to a 65 (66 or 67) Mercedes 200 (I liked the Benz! And he hooked up a propane tank in the trunk to use less gasoline)
Same applied to Israel – more VW Beetles than R8s but more Renault sales overall on account of more models to suit different people’s different needs.
The V-dub was (more or less) reliable, with very good quality control, and there was a friendly dealer close by who knew how to fix the car when it did (seldom did) break down. Although not up to later on Lexus customer coddleing degree, VW dealers of this time period were easy going shops.
Renault (or Peugeot or Simca) could not claim any of the above.
“Renault attacked the American car market … like a French foot soldier attacking a German Panzer division. There was no market research or study of legal requirements for imported cars.” – Sanche de Gramont
Of course this was resolved later, but it gives one an idea of their mentality.
My first car was a ’66 Beetle purchased from dad in ’72. It had factory pop open side windows, and when we moved from Portland to So Cal had floor vents installed at the VW dealership (called “uni vents”) that went in the kick panels, one on each side, not like the EMPI vent in the article. What an improvement, made summer heat a lot more bearable.
The Renault had a lot of neat features, but over time VW had the durability ( and dealer network) advantage big time.
And the 1300 cc would prove to be the start of the 15/1600 cc engines which would have the ability to be modified to produce a good amount of power. IRS was 2-3 years away (depending on model and transmission). That would be a big time handling improvement.
I still miss my old ’66. Too bad I totaled it a few months after I started driving. I’ve owned at least a dozen air cooled VW’s over the years, great fun to read this old article, even if it did seem biased toward the Renault. And why no MPG figures, all the other results were well documented.
Fun read, especially enjoyed the aftermarket parts write up for the old 36 and 40 HP engines and swing axle suspensions. I did buy a bag of snakes header with glasspack from JC Whitney back in the day. Not any faster, but a whole lot louder on my second VW, a ’63 beetle that I put my wrecked ’66 1300 cc’s engine (along with the interior which included ’71 highback seats) into.
Also had a 66 model. Same color as the one on the top. 27 mpg was pretty typical. I also put one of the bundle of snakes headers but the same time I did that I had the judson supercharger installed. Together they gave me the capability to embarrass a bunch of domestic V8s until we hit about 80.
I guess there is something to say for the renault but I had a choice and took the VW for the perceived quality and durability. Neither would measure up today.
Claiming the fenders all interchange was a mistake, they dont there was a change around 63 and the front fenders were altered I tried fitting good 63 fronts to a 59 I was rebuilding they are very different the subtle changes VW made as they went along means there isnt really as much interchangeability as first appears.
In the US the front and rear fenders would all interchange from day one until the end of the 1966 model year.
bryce, what were you smoking when that fender wouldn’t fit? 🙂 I assure you that every Beetle front fender from 1949 through 1966 (for US versions) fits just fine, and the later ones actually “fit” (bolt on) but the light bucket and/or bumper bracket openings are different.
The basic attachment/fit of the front fender is the same on any non-Super Beetle, from beginning to end, except for things like the light bucket, turn signals, bumper bracket openings, etc. But they will all bolt on. Done it myself! In my case, I bolted on ’56 or ’57 fenders onto a ’63. Their turn signals were in a different location, but that was no problem.
No they arent on the front the shape of the body where they attach changed they are physically quite different or perhaps it was only on Australian stamped cars as a friend who is restoring a 63 Au built car says the same they do not interchange.
If that’s so, than it’s something specific to the Australian versions.
VW even advertised this exact thing. The car in the ad has fenders from a number of years.
It would have been even more interesting if a ’66 Corvair was in this comparison. (a stripped base model 500 to keep it fair)
An interesting read. As others have said, the Renault, while superior to the Beetle in many ways, didn’t have the reliability of the VW or a good dealer network to keep it running. It was also great to read about the range of aftermarket parts you could (and still can) get for the Beetle to improve performance and handling. For all its shortcomings, the VW was still a solid, well made basic platform that you could build on.
I’m not a VW fan and have never liked the Beetle. I like the Renault more but would only have bought it had I lived close to a dealership, otherwise no dice.
The updated Renault 10 with a new 1300 engine and a third larger trunk and cuter face debuted later. Yes, they were far better than a VW in every single way except for rusting away and falling apart all the time.
Before that when everyone was buying VW’s already a family of some friends bought a Dauphine, direct predecessor to the 8 and 10. It was cute and fun, the shifter was unlike a VW only vaguely connected to the transmission, and the ivory color plastic interior door handles tended to snap off rather quickly.
Yes, this is the one (R10) that my Father bought new in 1968 at Almartin Motors in South Burlington after a neighbor’s son totaled his ’59 Beetle parked in front of our house. so he owned these cars back to back. Unfortunately I never drove either as he sold the R10 in 1974, right before I got my license, but of course I rode in both several times. I remember that the Renault seemed to have great visibility (even the pretty long hood seemed to disappear from view) since you sat up pretty high, probably higher than in the VW. Also got a kick out of where they put the spare tire, it rode in a small compartment under the small “kick up” in the front bumper.
So, on paper I also think the Renault was probably the better (more modern) car for that time…but a good example of why you shouldn’t go only with a paper analysis. I can no longer ask my Dad why he choose the Renault, as he passed away 2 months ago, but it was a smooth driving car, had nice seats, and 4 doors and got good mileage….ironically he sold it in ’74 right after the first oil embargo I think mostly because it had a standard transmission, and he wanted my Mom (who learned standard transmission but never was comfortable with it) to be able to drive it instead of our ’73 Country sedan with the 400 CID engine to save gas sometime. So he sold the Renault and got a Datsun 710 with an Automatic (of course got worse fuel milage than the Renault, but of course better than the Country sedan). Anyhow, besides having to keep charging the battery on the Renault, the only other thing I remember him having is the clutch replaced (it died while we were driving back from a Washington Senator’s baseball game), but of course it was only 6 years old and didn’t have that many miles on it, since he used it mostly just to drive to work, which was pretty close. My mom hated the stying of the Renault, she claimed it looked the same going frontwards as backwards, so I think it was probably bought by my father without consulting her beforehand. I think the Renault had a tiny engine (800CC?…like a motorcycle engine) but it was water cooled, I don’t remember radiator on the front, I guess it must have been in the back with the motor)
So the Renault may have been the better car, but the better deal over time was certainly the Beetle. I guess if he had waited he could have bought a Renault R16 and gotten early taste of FWD, but despite Renault selling cars into the 1980’s (with AMC) they really never got established over here…maybe if Renault had bought AMC and Jeep in 1968, we’d be talking differently about these cars now (and have a choice of low-cost European cars besides VW and Fiat)….maybe the world’s first rear-engined AWD car?
Almartin is still in business, now in Shelburne, as a Volvo dealer. IIRC they had overlapping Renault franchises with Willie Racine’s (the AMC-Jeep dealers) for a few years until the pre AMC Renault franchises expired.
Thanks…my niece lives in South Burlington, but otherwise I’ve not been up to Vermont in 30 years now (live 1900 miles away now)..
We lived in Shelburne (moved away in 1982) the 2nd time up there, right behind the museum (the duBruils lived in our neighborhood, from their backyard you could look out and see the Ticonderoga). I think Jack DuBruil owned Automaster up on Spear St (which I think originally was an AMC dealer, but changed to Honda a few years before we left, in the late 70’s).
In 1968, we were living in north end of Burlington (1st tour, 1965-1969). Got moved to northern Virginia in-between, brought the R10 down there and that’s where it got traded in on the Datsun. Didn’t have many miles on it (maybe 22-23k). I was wrong on the engine size, now think it was 1100cc watercooled (despite having rear engine). His was the manual, had no options (no radio), he used it for commuting mostly, though I remember him taking me on errands and going to play golf in it. Really didn’t drive it that much, I’m pretty sure the manual transmission is why he got rid of it. My Mother stopped driving last year, and as I mentioned never was comfortable with a manual, but my Dad wanted her to drive the “small” car more after the 1st gas shortage, so he got the Datsun to replace it, since he bought that with an automatic.
The smaller and earlier Dauphine was VW level adorable.
The last time I saw one I was some years ago driving along 17th or 18th Street in San Francisco, by the place that fixed old cars. A black Dauphine pulled out in front of me. Cool, I thought, haven’t seen one of those things in years. Probably just got all rebuilt and fixed up. Suddenly the engine burst into flames, lighting up bright orange behind the black rear grille. Ooops.
I was not able to get a photo, but last year in Austin someone was driving a Renault 10. It was actually in pretty good condition. I saw no rust and it was not smoking out the pipe either.
In spite of being an air cooled VW die hard (Mechanic and Shop owner) I like Renaults .
If they’d been built by the Germans or Japanese things may well have been very different .
I owned a 1963 (IIRC) Dauphene and it was a pretty good little car .
I logged many miles in R8 and R10 Renaults when they were new , comfy and the fresh air was *much* better .
All the VW Dealers I ever dealt with were snobby jerkoffs who felt they were doing me a favor by selling me parts ~ screw that nonsense .
-Nate
They were by Hino… Sort of. The below is the Hino Contessa 1300 seen at Kaiser-Ilyn’s assembly plant in Haifa, Israel (they had the license to assemble these). It replaced an earlier model with an 1100cc engine which was, it its turn, based on the Renault 4CV, so there’s a clear heritage there.
I sold parts at VW dealerships from ’74 to ’94 in So Cal and tried my best not to be an asshole. Some of my co workers, on the other hand…
Thanx for trying anyway .
So many in The Auto trade are deliberate assholes , liars and thieves too .
It’s unnecessary and always co$t$ you $ in the long run , why don’t people understand this ? .
-Nate
There is no shortage of back stabbers in the automotive dealership business.
When I first got my ’86 Jetta in ’91, there was a recall (SD recall) to replace the heater core. When I got the car back, the heater would not shut off after the repair. I brought it back, the mechanic unstuck it and the next day it jammed on again.
I was told I needed to buy a new heater air distribution box. Over $400.00 installed. Total BS. Sometimes they break when the heater core is replaced, we stocked them and I had given them out in the past for other cars repaired for the same recall.
Why do you think I was being jerked around? Because I worked at this dealership. I gave the mechanic the heater core for my car and he broke the case. The service manager told me tough luck.
I called VOA’s customer service line, explained the situation and asked if the recall included the heater case if needed. The girl said yes, and asked me the name of the service manager. I never told her I worked there.
A few minutes later the service manager walks up to me, gives me a dirty look and asked for a new heater case and my keys. Problem solved.
I could write a book on the joys of the automotive business experience working for dealerships. 25 years later the heater still works fine.
Never had a problem buying parts at the many local VW dealers in LA, but Riviera in Manhattan Beach was outstanding, even supporting grey market cars, probably without the approval of VOA.
Buying parts for most British, Italian and even worse, French cars was a challenge. Dealers didnt have everything in stock and I got the feeling that the Importers didnt care, or had trouble getting parts from the factory. I cant imagine what it would have been like outside of a coastal metro area.
This was the late-60’s early-70’s era.
I will take the VW over that French POS any day
@ Suzulight ~
Yes , I understand but you really had to have been there to appreciate funny little French cars ~ when they worked they were simply _amazing_ .
I loved Pop’s Pug 403 sedan , a nice solid car it took quite a while for the New England Winter salt to destroy and it still ran and drove just fine , the firewall had so many pin holes in it they failed it on the annual safety inspection .
Lots of Teachers bought Renaults in the 1950’s through the 1970’s .
-Nate
Nate- You’re right, you had to be there. These were great rally cars…
My dad’s 1964 R8 used to scare the hell out of my older brother and me on freeway off-ramps. The rear end would never let go and dad would laugh, go faster and faster until we thought it would roll over! The brakes were remarkable. 1964 and it had 4 wheel disk brakes, “Caution: Renault 4 wheel disk brakes!” (as warned in the rear window decal).
My dad was a HAM radio operator and needed a car that would track straight while he messed with his mobile unit (talk about distracted driving). The dealer demonstrated by traversing railroad tracks at different angles with no hands, it made the sale.
Dad never rolled the car but my brother did one Halloween night. He rear ended a Rambler at a stoplight so hard the R8 headlights were up against the firewall and the car flipped end over end. He walked away that night with only stitches in his forehead. Good chance he would have been charcoal if he had been in a Volkswagen. By the way, he dated in the R8 and says seat position #27 was the most comfortable… those French!
“69 positions are possible” in the front seats of the Renault.
I’m sold. 🙂
Heh,Heh,……You said “69”……..
Heh,Heh……
That’s the first thing my eyes went to in this article. I hope they told her what the caption was planned for that photo!
Funny how you can explain a half-dozen points of technical superiority, and someone will still toss out “French POS” as if that proves anything- except about him.
I’ve been a VW fan most of my life, and I grew up when Beetles were all the rage. But I count myself very fortunate never to own one. How was that? The first day I went out looking for a car after college, I lucked into a sportier, nonconformist alternative. A newspaper ad for an “Audi-NSU” led me into a 1970 NSU 1000 TT, which I snapped up immediately after the seller, a gorgeous blonde German woman, showed me what it could do in a winding road.
Like the R8, my car was boxy. It lacked some of the Renault’s advanced features such as liquid cooling and disc brakes, but at least it wasn’t stuck with the Beetle’s early-1930s technology. The first VW had a charming face, it’s true. Hard to believe now that its dealer network was regarded as friendly and helpful; where did that reputation go? It’s a nice piece of late Art Deco sculpture, but I wouldn’t want to drive one for a mile.
My theory, humbly offered, is that Americans remember their Beetles so fondly because they were young then, when everything smelled, felt, sounded and tasted better. And because it was the only car that ever showed them the friskiness of rear-engined layouts.
Not to mention the association with “Hippies” (and thus the “cool” factor) aided the VDub. The Corvair was superior to the ‘bug” too (est 1965+) But no self respecting hippie was gonna buy a GM car. Oh,well. Of the two in this comparo, give me the “French POS” it seemed to be more car.
While I like the build quality of the VW, I also like the 4 door.
Nice test…no engine pic on the Renualt but I get to see the under side of the rear seat? That’s….useful…
And yet there’s a pic of the VW engine! Everyone knows what that looks like. Since the Renault comes in as the challenger here, surely we ought to see its engine.
A good editor would have ensured equivalent photo coverage for both cars. Except maybe a sequence for a hands-off panic stop in the Beetle. I’m still amazed they tried that in the Renault.
I’m sold!
…and having now read the whole article, I am shocked that two cars each having 50 horsepower; differing in torque by 8.7 lb·ft; on similarly-sized tires, and weighing within 98 pounds of each other gave such enormously different acceleration figures. The VW took:
56 per cent longer to reach 30 mph;
51 per cent longer to reach 40 mph;
44 per cent longer to reach 50 mph;
53 per cent longer to reach 60 mph, and
77 per cent(!) longer to reach 70 mph.
The Renault had a 12-per-cent gearing disadvantage in 1st gear, which makes the 0-30 and 0-40 figures especially weird. More, the VW had a 9-per-cent taller fourth gear and surely better aerodynamics (isn’t it?), yet they could get only the Renault to 80 mph.
What on Earth?!
The Renault weighed less. That’s one factor.
Road Test’s times with the VW were quite a bit lower than other sources, the typical for a 1300 being 22 seconds for the 0-60 time.
Another likely factor is RT may well have shifted gears too early on the VW, as VW had not changed the recommended top speed in gear red dots on the speedometer from the 1200 to the 1300, even though the 1300 could rev considerably higher.
Then there’s just the usual variations between cars: they might have gotten a slow VW and fast Renault.
In 1967, Car and Driver compared the VW1500 and the Renault R10, essentially the same car as the R8 technically (same engine and hp) with a longer nose. The results were very different: the VW1500 spanked the R10, with a 0-60 time of 17.4 vs. 19.2 for the Renault. There is no way to explain why the ’66 R8 was so much faster than the ’67 R10, except for about 90 lbs more weight. Variations in production and driving styles/skills.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/vintage-reviews/vintage-cd-road-test-comparison-1967-renault-10-and-vw-1500-renaults-last-shot-at-the-beetle/
YMMV
Oh, and don;t assume the VW had better aerodynamics; almost certainly not. What may have looked (or been) pretty aerodynamic in 1938 was typically not so by 1968.
The best I can find, the Beetle and R8 had about the same coefficient of drag (0.50), but the R8 likely had a smaller frontal area resulting in lower overall aerodynamic drag, the key factor, and would explain its higher top speed.
BTW, the top speed of a VW1300 was 78 mph.
PS: folks tend to put too much stock in these acceleration figures. Rarely in normal driving does one use 100% of available power. What’s more important is how the cars’ power curves work and feel in normal driving. Having driven these both, the VW’s fatter and lower torque curve was more pleasant in regular driving. But yes, the little Rennault engine would rev higher, with resulting grater power per displacement. But it felt a bit gutless puttering around, unlike the VW which rather thrived on that.
I reckon, Daniel, it goes like this.
The Renault could rev much harder: I’m certain those gear speeds are not at only 4,900 rpm. Second, the engine is quite undersquare, making the performance much more accessible lower down. Thirdly, the compression ratio is a lot (relatively) higher than the VW. It’s all-up just a more efficient unit, and considering the real-world torqueiness combined with a weight difference that’s not insignificant at these sort of weights, it all makes sense. As for 70mph, the VW top was an o/d, the Renault’s, not, and the VW had to groan away in o/d for 12 mph to reach 70.
I don’t agree the VW torque was better in real life driving. It just sounded puttery, and unstressed, but if floored to pick up – for change lanes, etc – it had nothing. Engines like the Froggie one had much more ready to go. And if the change of pace was a biggie, and done via a change down, the VW breathing strangled it well before the Billiancourt rustable-dunger ran out of revs.
The lack of revs (and compression) in the Veewees was a huge factor in their longevity in their times. As, resultantly, was their lack of go.
I’m not going to rebut all of your points, but as I noted earlier, one factor seems to be that there is a divergence in the performance in these two from those in other tests. The VW was slower than average, as the 1300 typically does 0-60 in about 22 seconds.
As I noted, there’s another vintage review in our archives that tested a VW1500 Beetle vs. the R10. The 1500 has only 3 more hp (53 vs. 50) than the 1300, and has a higher (lower numerical) axle ratio. Yet it spanked the R10 in acceleration (16.6 sec. vs. 19.2 sec. 0-60), despite its higher gearing.
The VW’s top gear was not a true overdrive. Yes, top gear was 0.92:1, but that’s not the definition of overdrive. The VW hit its top speed of 78 mph at 4900 rpm, the engines power peak. Overdrive means that the engine speed is reduced at top/higher speeds, to below its power peak. Many cars (all Alfas) had top gear ratios of less than 1:1, but it’s the final drive ratio that makes the difference. Alfa’s 5th gear was designed to attain top speed at top engine output.
Cars with true overdrive top gears almost invariably can’t hit their top speed in that gear, as they can’t attain the engine’s power peak.
Here’s that 1967 comparison:
curbsideclassic.com/vintage-reviews/vintage-cd-road-test-comparison-1967-renault-10-and-vw-1500-renaults-last-shot-at-the-beetle/
Was the R8/10 objectively a better car? Of course. It was a lot more modern, so it well better be. The point about the VW was how well (and reliably) it still served in its role given that it was created in 1938.
Performance aside, and I suspect the test driver didn’t wind out the VW, what really struck me was the quoted repair prices. Yes, I know all about inflation since ’66, but a clutch on the VW for $62, parts and labor? Transmission “job” for $100-150? Inflation is probably around 10X since the review, but the repair prices on modern cars are more in the 20X to 30X as expensive. Granted they were talking about new cars at the time, but on a less than new car today any of those repairs are likely to total a car, which they didn’t then.
With a soft spot for French cars, I had a great Simca 1204, and friends with Peugeots, I’d take the VW in a heartbeat, then or now.
The R8 seats turn into a bed where “69 positions are possible”…seriously? How did this make it past the copy editors?
They were really comfortable seats…that I remember (discounting marketing hype over number of positions possible)….at least on the R10, guessing the R8 was similar. My only gripe is that they were vinyl, of course back then vinyl was in its heyday; that’s one gripe I have with VW going to vinyl rather than cloth seats for many of its models; don’t want to have to put on seat covers with airbag in seat but don’t like feel of vinyl in hot weather (most of the year where I live). Also, last year before required head restraints, so you could crank them all the way down to make a bed (without having to deal with head rest getting in the way).
They made a comment about VW rear brakes wearing out, which I found interesting…I have a ’00 Golf with rear discs, and it seems I get more brake dust on the rear wheels than the front ones….might be proportioning on the ’00, but on the beetle, don’t think they had proportioning valve? So why would rear drums wear out so fast…even on rear engine car, don’t think that would matter, the weight of the car goes forward independent of where the engine is located, so the fronts should wear out sooner (all other things being equal). Yeah, I think my Dad was sold on discs after he bought the R10, though it was years till he had 4 wheel discs, starting with our ’69 Country Squire he got the optional front discs…my Uncle bought a ’69 LTD with the 4 wheel drums (he was poor college student just graduating so I’m sure money was tight) new, not sure if they were power or not…but my Dad drove Uncle’s car once and commented on how different the brakes felt between the 2 ’69’s.
The R-8 was launched in 1962. A better VW for the comparison test would have been the VW Type 3 which was introduced in 1961 and started selling in the USA ‘officially’ in 1966. If only they’d sold the Notch here!
No it wouldn’t have, as the Type 3 was considerably more expensive. The R10’s obvious and stated competitor was the Beetle, priced essentially the same.
In the 1960s a friend needed to sell his VW in France and found it really hard to move. He said the Mercedes Benz was well-received so apparently the association with you-know-who worked more against VW than against MB
I have a bias as regards Beetles, sometimes really quite liking them, and mostly not, but it’s taken this article to put the finger on the why.
It is often wet, and windy, for a lot of folk, and these 1930’s heaterless farters are absolutely one of the most miserable cars ever made to drive in such conditions. Any car that makes the driver feel puckered-up and on edge while doing ordinary motoring is indeed a thing to be avoided.
Sure, at 70mph on a flat, dry, road, pretty quiet, fast cruise for a tiddler in the ’60’s, and a guarantee of arrival by virtue of reliability would’ve had appeal, but far too much driving doesn’t look like that. The Frenchie is hardly one the great cars, but it’s far in advance of the dated miseries the VW imposed (and yes, I know the German won the war of reliability by quite some).
The fact it sold hotter than ever from here for a number of years more shows forever that perception is reality.
Waiter, fetch me a marketer!
People say I’m overweight, and I don’t want to eat less.
I’ll take the Renault, please and thank you! Though I am inclined toward engines that produce more grunt down low (sounds like the VW is more in this vein), pretty much everything about the R8 just speaks to me more than the Beetle. I didn’t grow up in the era where Volkswagens were romanticized as a countercultural icon, so I mostly view them as wheezy, outdated curiosities. Cool? Sure. But the R8 and 10 just have so much more to offer.
Yes, as some of y’all may remember, I do tend to have a bit of a pro-Renault bias, as I grew up in a northwestern Montana town that must have had one of the strongest dealers in the US… Pre-AMC Renaults were everywhere! Many of them *did* eventually end up parked in driveways and yards for years, and it generally boiled down to parts availability… one of my first cars was a Renault 12 wagon that had been sitting in someone’s backyard for eight years due to a bad fuel pump. Once I replaced that, I ended up with a great little car that never let me down. Seats were extremely comfortable, it rode nice, got great fuel economy, and even got me out of a bind a couple times by starting in subzero temperatures when my other vehicles refused to awaken. But yeah, sometimes even regular service parts took a bit of extra planning and effort to get, and prices could be quite high on some stuff… I’m pretty sure it would be a easier to procure parts for an old Renault now with the internet at my disposal.
I’ve never actually driven an air cooled VW, but I’ve ridden in them. My Renault and the others I’ve been around just felt like a much better car. I still do wonder if their story might have turned out different had they cultivated the same level of dealer and parts network that Volkswagen did.
Yes…and the R8/R10’s were water cooled despite having rear engine, so you have a “regular” heater which I’d guess was important in Montana, as it was in Vermont where my Dad bought his R10. I was a bit young so I never noticed where the radiator was, don’t think it was in the front since the spare tire sat in a compartment under the trunk (the dip-down in the bumper for spare access gave it an odd grin), so it must have been in the engine compartment…which was finned but don’t recall any special air ducts for it (but again, more than 50 years ago, and pretty young, I don’t recall details). Of course you have to maintain a cooling system, hoses and all.
We had a prolific Peugeot shop a long while ago here in the city I’ve lived in awhile who used to also service Renault, but they’re long gone, as was our Renault, even before we moved here (followed my parents when they moved, 1900 miles from where they lived in VT). Even then, wonder how hard it was to get Renault parts since they weren’t common and even persisting in the US into the 80’s with AMC, don’t think many parts were common from the 60’s (maybe I’m wrong, never had to work on them so never looked into it).
Same here! Likely some sorta up-and-coming Curbigate Scandal that’s yet to be exposed…
Both the Dauphine and the R8 were arguably better cars than their contemporary Beetles — on paper. However, Renault had nowhere as good of a dealer network in the US as VW. Volkswagen figured out early on that they needed lots of dealerships nationwide with well-stocked parts departments in order to give US buyers confidence. Renault franchises were often either multi-make foreign car shops or small garages with inadequate facilities.
It was never sold in the US, but I wonder how the Hino Contessa would have stacked up against these two.