(first posted 3/7/2018) CC’s Yohai Rodin posted shots of this gen1 Renault Espace at the Cohort, apparently shot in Vienna. Roger Carr did a very exhaustive CC on the Espace here, but he left out the fact that AMC was quite far along in plans to import the Espace to the US, which given the fact that Renault was its main owner at the time, is not surprising. AMC officially announced the plans to bring the Espace to the US in the spring of 1986. So what happened?
The first evidence of these plans was a public announcement, which was covered by the New York Times in a short blurb on October 3, 1984:
DETROIT, Oct. 2— The American Motors Corporation said it would import a mini-van for the 1986 model year from Regie Nationale des Usines Renault of France. A.M.C. said it would bring in 15,000 models a year of the front-wheel-drive Renault Espace.
I was even able to find this image of the Espace on the stands at the 1985 Chicago Auto Show, way back directly under the Renault sign.
I also found this February 1985 Popular Science article that covers the new minivans and said that “AMC will offer Renault’s innovative Espace in the spring of 1986”. Looks like the timetable was slipping already.
Wikipedia says that the purchase of AMC by Chrysler killed the plans to import the Espace. But that didn’t happen until May of 1987. So it appears other factor intervened.
A bit more digging uncovered a Detroit Free Press article from March 15, 1985 that stated that AMC had canceled plans to import the Espace. Perhaps it wasn’t considered quite competitive nought, due to its more compact size than even the swb Chrysler minivans? Or Matra, who built the Espace, couldn’t meet a price target? I suspect the latter, as Matra’s small factory required killing the Murena in order to build enough for Renault.
This is a gen1 Espace, but a post 1988 facelift version, and an extended body version. The original short body was a bit tight for three rows even for European standards, and the slightly elongated body became standard.
I suspect not very many of these gen1 Espaces are still on the roads in Europe, but then gen1 Chrysler minivans are getting scarce too.
I wonder if AMC management was LESS forward thinking than Chrysler management? There is also the possibility that Renault couldn’t supply a minivan that AMC dealers wanted to sell.
AMC was exploring the idea of a minivan even before this, but it never got beyond the styling buck stage.
https://www.hemmings.com/blog/2014/07/02/amcs-concept-80-am-van-coming-to-kenosha-history-center-in-time-for-2014-kenosha-homecoming/
The van as originally shown had solid side panels and the then-fashionable bubble windows. I prefer it.
Was that ever going to be more than a show car?
Also the article’s last 2 photos include a Renault Kangoo van, which is the same size as a Ford Transit Connect, for scale.
It was one of AMC’s 1977 “Concept 80” show cars. AMC was trying to attract investors by highlighting what the company saw as the future of motoring in the 1980s, where rising fuel costs and congestion would require smaller vehicles. Since no investors rose to the occasion and the company had already blown its tooling dollars on the Matador Coupe and Pacer there was no money to pursue the Concept 80 ideas further.
http://cardesignnews.com/articles/concept-car-of-the-week/2018/01/ccotw-amc-s-concept-80-cars-1977
Geez, it wasn’t exactly GM’s Motorama was it!
This AMC concept van has many dated 70s styling elements. Besides looking a lot like the Pacer, sans the engine compartment.
Interesting!
AMC/Renault was also planning to bring a 4×4 version of the Renault 21 wagon over to replace the Eagle, but that was also scratched.
Excellent research Paul. It would have been more competitive with the Chrysler vans, than either the Toyota Van, Astro/Safari, or the Aerostar. But a Spring ’86 introduction would have been so late to the game.
With ‘Americanized’ styling touches (like the Alliance), it would have sold all 15,000 copies easily IMO. No doubt, the exterior styling would have taken the wind out of the sails of GM’s Dustbuster vans.
I’ll add that Renault/AMC would have needed to ensure the robustness of the platform. If they planned to remain competitive with Chrysler. A lack of long term durability/reliability would have killed future sales for AMC. As with the Alliance.
The lack of second row seat legroom in the original Espace, compared to the Magic wagons and other minivans, would clearly have been a significant liability as well.
“We gotta be as reliable as a Chrysler” isn’t a high bar to clear.
Chrysler reliability/durability from the early 80s through the early 90s really wasn’t that bad. It took a turn for the worse later.
Interesting article and I wonder if any of these Renault Espaces have been imported to North America since they are now old enough.
I never really noticed until I saw that Popular Science article how much the Espace looks like a shrunken Aerostar, at least from that angle.
I wonder how much the Espace’ large A-pillar DLO inspired the styling of the later Lumina APV/TranSport/Silhouette ‘dustbuster’ GM minivans.
Maybe one of the reasons the Espace didn’t make it to US shores was the lack of sliding rear doors. It’s very reminiscent of the first Honda Odysseys that didn’t exactly set the sales charts on fire. Frankly, I would imagine that, at that time, AMC was just treading water and could ill-afford just about any kind of new model introduction. Maybe they already knew that Chrysler was interested in buying them and figured that certifying and importing the Espace would be money down the drain.
For some strange reason, no one wanted to duplicate the exact Chrysler minivan formula during those first formative years after the Mopar made its stunning original entrance. I can only surmise that the competition figured that by the time they’d get their minivan into production, the formula would have changed and moved on. Unfortunately for them, it never really did, and Chrysler kept on racking up great numbers, year after year, for quite a long time. Even today, with the SUV/CUV having taken over the people mover crown, minivan sales are still nothing to sneeze at.
It wasn’t until the big Japanese players got on board that Chrysler’s minivan dominance began to slip. The first chinks in the armor were when Honda (and bit player Mazda a year later) beat Chrysler to the punch with the addition of the ‘magic’ folding third row seat on their complete package 1999 Odyssey. IIRC, Chrysler eschewed the folding rear seat and bet that the motorized rear hatch would be the next big minivan thing. At least when they did enter the folding seat act, they did it in a big way with the popular Stow ‘n Go package which, over a decade later, no one else has duplicated.
If you haven’t seen this series it’s one of my CC favorites: How Hard Can it Be to Make a Minivan? http://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-capsule-1998-mercury-villager-gs-how-hard-can-it-be-to-make-a-minivan-part-5/
The gen2 Odyssey, where Honda started with a clean sheet of paper and asked Americans what they want in a minivan. “A Chrysler minivan made by someone other than Chrysler!” the focus groups called out in unison. So that’s what Honda built, complete with bum transmission and fixed sliding-door windows.
The 80s was a tough time for the value of the dollar vs. European currencies. European cars sold in the US had significant price hikes due to this. A basic Voyager was only about $13k – it would have been tough for the Espace to compete.
I think AMC decided that it was a bad idea. None of the Renault-based vehicles they sold lit up the sales charts and no Renault-badged vehicle had sold in decent numbers in the US since the LeCar, which turned into a disaster.
This would have been all-Renault with pretty much no AMC input or Americanization, and Renault’s reputation here was not at all good. Also, as noted above the exchange rate was unfavorable and there were no sliding doors. This would have turned into a money sink and reputation killer for AMC. I think they were wise in placing their chips on the XJ Cherokee and making it a class-leading vehicle the way they did.
I am a little fuzzy on the timing of the Chrysler purchase, but if it was in the early discussion stages I can see where that would have led AMC to put it off. Chrysler would not have wanted it at all and it would not have been a big benefit to AMC in the short term, so question answered for AMC management.
Chrysler’s first agreement with AMC was in 1985 for a 3 year deal for M body cars (Diplomat, Gran Fury, Fifth Avenue) to be built in Kenosha. Rumors started floating around that time that a tie-up might be in the works. It does not strain credulity that AMC would not want to take steps that would make a sale/merger less attractive to Chrysler. I wonder if AMC also had designs on building some Chrysler minivans in addition to the M bodies, given Chrysler’s capacity constraints at the time. That did not end up happening, but again had I been in AMC’s shoes, it would have been something I would have explored.
If you want the inside story of what went on at AMC at the end and the gory details of the Chrysler buyout, check out the book “The Last American CEO” by Jason Vines and Joe Cappy. (Cappy of course being American Motors’ last CEO.)
While AMC definitely pulled some boners in their relatively short history, the decision not to import the Espace, whether by design or sheer luck, was not one of them. If they had been in better financial shape with a bright outlook, well, it might have been a way for them to take a chance and get in on the hot (at the time) minivan market, but it just wasn’t in the cards. For whatever reason, AMC (and, presumably, Renault) made the right choice.
As stated, concentrating on the Jeep line (specifically, the Cherokee) was a safer, smarter way to go and surely made AMC more attractive to Iacocca and Co. US Espace sales would have been very bad timing (even for AMC) and an impediment to the acquisition.
Makes sense. The Hornet/Eagle station wagon was reasonably successful at the time, and didn’t need internal competition.
The alliance and encore were pretty popular, of course they disappeared fairly quickly.
That would have been quite interesting if Renault had gone ahead with selling this in North America either as a Renault or AMC, leaving Chrysler with their own, competitive yet very traditionally styled Caravan/Voyager, and this very space age Escape minivan. I guess it would have been a similar story to the Premier versus the C-bodies. Chrysler probably would have sold whatever they were contracted to do so, yet offer little in the way of promotion compared to their “own” cars.
Already in the mid-80s Chrysler was selling the Mitsubishi Colt Vista, not much smaller than the early T-115s and without sliding doors. It had an AWD option log before the Caravan/Voyager did, and each of its’ swing doors contained a gen-u-wine roll-down window so it was more comfortable in hot weather without A/C. Both of which factors made it a decent seller in the Northeast at a time when Mitsu’s own dealer network was very sparse.
Good call on the Colt Vista. If AMC had been importing the Espace at the time of the Chrysler purchase, it would have slotted in right between the Vista and the T-115. The issue would have been that either of the Chrysler products would have been a better choice, depending on the needs of the customer, and particularly if the Espace had been priced higher than either of the other two. Coupled with Renault’s poor reputation in the states, well, I can’t imagine Iacocca doing anything other than immediately terminating the Espace if it had been in the AMC line-up.
Didn’t you guys get the motor home based on space in USA?
I think that the Espace was based on a Matra designed van that I saw in Europe in the mid 1980s. I recall that it said Matra-Simca on the hood.
You’re thinking of the Matra Rancho, I suspect, and that is a different vehicle based on the Simca 1100
Here’s something that mystifies me. It’s been over 30 years since Chrysler’s first minivans hit the showrooms. If you look up current sales stats, the Pacifica/Grand Caravan still outsell all their competitors combined. In that time period, no one else has figured out how to crack their dominance in this segment.
Toyota and Honda are very competitive against the Pacifica. The low cost GC essentially has a market to itself, esp with fleet buyers. The GC isn’t competitive against Odyssey and Sienna for buyers in that price range. Before the Pacifica, both Honda and Toyota each had about the same volume as the combined sales of the GC and T&C.
I’m impressed that Chrysler has been smart enough to keep giving the Grand Caravan stays of execution. Yeah, it might be ancient (MY08) in most ways, but it does have the relatively recent Pentastar V6 engine, same as the Pacifica. For someone wanting the most practical vehicle to move the most people/cargo on a budget, the Grand Caravan is hard to beat.
As to the Pacifica, it’s a tough call. While the Pacifica is truly ‘new and improved’, it’s still built by Chrysler. The Odyssey and Sienna, while more modern than the GC, don’t have the latest bells and whistles of the Pacifica. But they’ve got that reliability reputation, and that means a lot to those with the cash for a premium minivan.
While the Chryslers always sold well and had good market share they only dominate due to being the last hold out and the bargain option. Fact is many if not most minivan buyers are looking for a low entry price first and foremost. If todays buyer is looking to spend Honda or Toyota minivan money on a family truckster they are more likely going to be looking at a Utility Vehicle.
Back in the minivan’s hey day the Ford Aerostar was the best selling minivan in the US in more than one year, sure Chrysler Co sold more overall. However once the Villager and Windstar were added to the line up FoMoCo sold more minivans than Chrysler Co. The Astro wasn’t exactly a poor seller either and when the Dustbusters were added GM moved a lot of minivans and had a significant market share.
Rentals/fleet sales. I bet the GC’s share of fleet sales is one of the highest of any vehicle sold. It’s probably the main reason they decided to keep making it. It’s the corollary to the what the Chrysler Sebring convertible used to be.
And their high volume and amortized costs mean that FCA can sell them cheaper than anyone else, to retail clients too. There’s still a market for that, although certainly not out here. It’s all Asian brand minivans. Never see a new/newer GC (except obvious rental) and very rarely a Pacifica.
I just looked it up. The Grand Caravan ($25995 base MSRP) now starts at $2k under the Kia Sedona (27,990). The GC also boasts up to $5k off in a rebate, taking the thing down to about $21K before any dickering. This is in the ballpark of what my Sedona priced at *six* years ago. ChryCo has indeed staked out the low-dollar territory, and this probably explains why I have seen more recent GCs on the road than I have new Sedonas.
As for the Pacifica, I probably see at least one a day. They are not flying out of showrooms but they seem to be finding a market here in the domestic-friendly midwest. I would really like to drive one to see if Chrysler has improved on the iffy stiffness on the old one.
I didn’t even realize they still made the grand caravan, but sure enough, there’s a 2018 on dodges website.
2017 was supposed to be the last year for the Grand Caravan, but continued strong sales and Canadian government persuasion (it’s assembled in Windsor) got Marchionne to update it to 2018 airbag standards and continue production for, evidently, an unknown period. My guess would be until they can get costs down to the point of being able to offer a significantly cheaper, Dodge version of the Pacifica.
The original plan was to terminate the Journey at the same time as the GC and replace them both with some sort of crossover-like, smaller two-row SUV/minivan (which was kind of what the Journey was, i.e., replacing the SWB Chrysler minivan in 2008), but that’s now up in the air and, if Dodge gets a version of the Pacifica, may not happen, at all.
The idea was, if you wanted a larger, Sienna/Odyssey-sized minivan, you’d have to get a Pacifica. Dodge would, instead have a smaller, crossover-like SUV/minivan replacement. But with solid Grand Caravan and Journey sales, that plan has been put off.
So, while the Chrysler Town & Country minivan got replaced by the all-new 2017 Pacifica, Dodge solders on with the Journey and Grand Caravan.
It’s not just a question of manufacturing cost. An obvious Dodge Pacifica can’t be priced in a way that makes a much more expensive Chrysler on the same lot look like a stupid upgrade. The GC is like a brand-new ten-year-old car, so it doesn’t compete directly with the Pacifica or undermine its perceived value.
I don’t know. Hasn’t that pretty much been the formula from the very beginning? There was the lower-tier Plymouth Voyager, mid-level Dodge Caravan, and the upper-level Chrysler Town and Country, but they were all virtually the same vehicle with different trims levels.
The various models were priced in relationship to each other. There was no misperception that a Town and Country was more than a Voyager with bacon and cheese.
The Voyager and Caravan started with exactly the same pricing. When the Chrysler brand was added to the mix, the Caravan kept a full range of models from stripped to loaded for Dodge dealers, and C/P dealers had a range of similar Plymouths and Chryslers. The T&C was very briefly a uniquely upward expansion of minivan prestige, but Dodge quickly matched it. The T&C was always perceived as a trim package on the standard corporate van, not a unique product.
I think I read that the Matra minivan that became the Espace was a Chrysler UK design originally. The grille/lights certainly are reminiscent of the Alpine
Correct, Fergus Pollock designed the Alpine and the concept that eventually became the Espace. He also spent time in Highland Park in the mid 70s.
Uncle Mellow I have some pictures of the Chrysler UK prototype called the “supervan”.Arthur Blakeslee was then in charge of the Whitley styling department and brought the idea from America
The Whitley design team for the ” Silk Short Van “
Dont think I have a photo of the front of the ” Silk Short Van “
Mattel just called. They want their prototype for the Malibu Ken and Barbie van back.
Paul choosing my photos off the Cohort- I feel like a celebrity…
Yes, those were taken in Vienna last month, as I was on a two-day-vacation with my wife. Once we dropped off the luggage at the hotel, off we went in search of the nearest Vapiano.
Needless to say I needed no excuse to stop and snap a few photos (the wife was heading on in an attempt to escape the cold, as it was about 2c. I had to chase her down the street afterwards- never seen her tracking so fast before!).
Once again, I never cease to be amazed by the comparison between what was essentially a large car back in its day, and the commercial modern Renault Kangoo parked next to it. And yes, I photographed them together for that purpose.
Horrible cars. Akward seating and view, rattles galore, not very relaible…….
I never understood why they were populair, guess there was not much to chose from, but then still.
It wouldn’t have helped AMC. The Espace had normal ’80s Renault quality. i.e not much.
There’s apparently one (a 1987 model) at the Lane Museum in TN.
https://www.lanemotormuseum.org/collection/cars/item/renault-espace-1987/
Consulting the dimensions of this original Espace, it doesn’t strike me as a Caravan competitor as much as the captive import Colt Vista (which was longer!). Like the Vista, it also doesn’t have sliding doors. That being said, unless AMC had some sort of trick up their sleeve to get the cost down into Colt Vista territory of well under ten grand, they almost certainly would have sold dismally.