I mentioned the other day about being miffed that I hadn’t found a Yugo yet, when one turned up at the Cohort from Spain. That also applies to the Renault R5, which was (unfortunately) branded as the Le Car in the US. Until that fateful day happens, we’ll have to do with this very fine shot of a non-Le Car R5, shot by Flat-Black 66 in Montreal. Check out the folks checking out the R5 (click on pic for full size). The question is: is this a European-spec R5 brought to Canada, or was Renault still selling Euro-spec cars in Canada at the time? I’m sure one of our many Canuckistanis will tell us.
I’ll save my R5 spiel for when I find one, but I have always found these cars to be compelling. Of course, I never owned one. But I love the timelessly-cute design, and the huge sunroof, and the soft French ride, and…
I remember these things have a about an inch different wheel base on each side?
I asumming this was the transmission end. Having wheels in differnent positions in the back would be too weird, even for the French
You assume wrong… :D. The difference was because it had IRS with transverse torsion bars for springing the rear. One was mounted about an inch ahead of the other under the rear floor, and the rest of the rear suspension came along with it.
It would have been so much neater to make the trailing arms slightly different lengths instead. I’ve never measured one of these to see if the rear wheel-arches are in the same position, and I suppose it’s too late now as these cars have all rusted away. I’ve never actually been in a 5 either, though I have experienced the Renault 4 and the 6.
I no longer have one to crawl under and look, but I suspect the trailing arms were interchangeable side to side. Given its market position, I’m sure much of the heavy lifting in the engineering was directed toward the lowest possible cost to manufacture. The slightly offest wheels created no perceptible problems that I can recall, and it’s not visible, so why spend money “fixing” a non-problem?
I assumed that something goofy with cv joints and half shafts was going on in the front because of packaging considerations. Didn’t think that getting a symmetrical rear end would be that hard, but if the wheels aren’t turning left or right, an inch isn’t going to affect the handling.
Totally harmless (handling-wise) in the back, but I doubt that would be the case in the front.
I was a young kid back when the R5 was sold in Canada so I can’t remember if Renault sold some Euro-spec cars here. ^^; I spotted lots of vintage French-Canadian commercials like this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sv0NHM8d-yQ
And another ad when they nicknamed the R5 here as “Le Chameau”(The Camel) because it didn’t taked lot of fuel. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw2OD5X5W2E
The R5 was fabulous to own and drive (provided that you keep in mind that it’s pretty close to being a 2CV with a bit more motor and cleaner styling) , right up until you need to replace a starter motor. At that point, all hell breaks loose.
I loved it. But when I had mine I went to the dealer to test-drive the original Renault Alliance, which seemed like a rocket by comparison. That tells you all you need to know …. the U.S. R5 (and most others, I guess) was also not graced with a five-speed, and could well have done with one.
I don’t recall wishing for a 5th gear. I DO recall that at the end of the day, it was more engaging to drive than the Scirocco I replaced it with.
I’m guessing it happened a similar story to Renault Mexico, at first we got the eurospec R5, including the sporty TS with bucket seats and tachometer, a higher ratio steering etc. until 83 that we got the really ugly american bumpers and sealed headlamps ( common practice to retrofit those ugly things to flush headlamps and smaller euro bumpers). I own a 84 TX, really tough car considering the age of the thing, the best of it is its character.
“the soft French ride and” … and the hilarious mid-engine R5 Turbo derivative?
Nothing funny about them R5 Turbo’s, obviously you have never driven one
I’m reasonably confident in saying Canada did not get Euro-spec R5s, though there were differences from the U.S. models that I’ll mention below.
Around 1980, I owned and was very keen on a 2-door R5 (no sunroof, alas) that I had purchased with about 5000 miles on it from a Palo Alto used car lot. It was a U.S.-spec car which, however, had been ordered by a French guy who drove it around to see America and then sold it in California.
As such, this car had escaped the U.S. port-side addition of the big Le Car stickers. I set about Europeanizing it further, purchasing a “Renault 5 Gordini” badge for the rear when I was in Britain …
Driving the car up to Vancouver, I naturally checked out a Renault dealer there, and discovered that in Canada, they were 5s, not Le Cars. And, amusingly, many were bedecked with big “La Cinq” labels, the same size and font as the U.S. “Le Car” labels.
Once back home, I wrote Renault Canada, telling them that I was in a Renault club, wanted to dress up my R5, and wound up being sent two La Cinq labels for my car gratis.
Anyway, the interesting advert linked to by Stéphane Dumas confirms my recollection that the Canadian R5s were sort of a hybrid, with added side marker lamps and other North America-related equipment, but also with the superior-looking flush headlamps (U.S. cars, in contrast, had sealed beams in either round or square versions).
The car in the YouTube ad has rectangular sealed beams, not the flush units. Canadian headlamp regs were harmonized with the US.
I knew someone would explain it, and very well too. Didn’t know about the La Cinq labels. How long did you have it?
I had to sell it in 1984 before a move from California to Scotland, and still miss it — though at the time it only had about 35K miles on it, if that, so whatever trouble might have been in store had yet to crop up.
Sadly I don’t seem to have any photos of it from the side showing the labels. I should have snapped some before selling it, but back in those days of student life and film cameras, I was too stingy about such things …
I can’t prove it — someone also will no doubt chime in — but I believe that Canadian R5s had the flush European units during the early period when the U.S. R5s were forced to have round headlamps. When the U.S. got rectangular sealed beams, so did Canada.
This matches my recollection too. The early R5’s in Canada had the Euro headlights, but sidemarkers and larger plastic bumpers than the car pictured above. I liked thease early cars much better than the later ones with the rectangular sealed beams, different grille and other “Amercanized” changes.
Le Junque?
Junque? Mais non, as DanielJ writes, they were pretty tough.
Even saw police duty.
This car really didn’t make sense in the US, it really needed a 5th gear to cruise in a motorway without the discomfort of a high rev engine. Also in Mexico the rust is not a problem , and i do believe that the craftsmanship was better, add to that that the Mexican cars didn’t have all the antipolution equipment and you simply have no reason to call them LeJunque. The only thing that really killed the brand in my country was the marriage and then divorce from AMC (VAM in Mexico) that pulled the brand out with the parts and service support.
I’m so fond of these little cuties and we hardly have any left in Scotland – they never fail to raise a smile when I’m in France though (where they’re still relatively common)
Back in the late eighties at the boat shop I worked at the owner had,among his other high-end cars, one of the mid-engined Turbo2 versions of this. What a sweet ride, still brings a smile to my face when I think about the time I got to drive it. I was hooked. 🙂
I always thought them to be incredibly neat, and always wanted one. In ’84 I saw a nice ’81 (Le Car, of course) at the local Toyota dealer. Talked to the salesman, looked it over closely, the price was right (resale wasn’t all that great), so we took it for a test drive.
Five miles from the dealership, it caught fire
At which point I figured it was God telling me that I really didn’t want one after all. And dropped the idea, with more than a bit of regret. I still want one.
I might be able to get some pics of one. If the car is still there and the owner lets me that is. It’s about thirty-five miles away from me.
If I get them, I’ll send them to you 🙂
These things probably made sense in France; where population density was such that one didn’t have to drive far; where various other mass-transit was available; where they didn’t throw corrosive melting agents on the streets in winter.
But in America, where things are spread out and where the automobile is the travel option of choice for most…where carbodies must be resistant to brine immersion…where cars must be DEPENDABLE…not so much.
Those cars arrived fast and disappeared faster. That is not an accident; nor is it a coincidence that the closest Renault can now come to an American presence is to buy Nissan.
America is far too large and far too varied to legitimately make any sort of blanket assertion about “conditions”. Where I live I’m not foreced to immerse my car in brine, I make plenty of mediuim and long (3+ hours) trips, I have multiple mass-transit options, and I found the 2 Renaults I owned to be neither particularly more, nor particularly less, reliable or suitable than the various VWs, Fords, Suzukis, Plymouths, Hondas, and other miscellaney that I’ve owned and driven over the years. And they beat the hell out of the 20-foot land barges in everyday driving.
In short, whatever reason caused Renault to fail in this country, it can’t be laid on the alter of “not good enough for America”. The cars were fine. It was other forces which drove them out. An R5 made just as much “sense” for this market as an air-cooled Beetle. Have you ever even driven one before?
There were most definitely Euro-spec R5s in Montreal when I was a kid but only the very early ones. There were always direct importers of French cars in Quebec at the time as some Quebecois thought it a way at thumbing their noses at the Anglos by driving Froggiewagons, as we called them.
Most French cars did not do well in Quebec’s very cold winters. They were hard to start and salt destroyed them in record time.
The R5 was a throw-away car. Cheap and built that way, everything was just cheap and poor all over the car. At our garage, when one came in, it always needed more work than it was worth. We sent several to the scrap yard.
The were produced in Slovenia until 1996. My friend had a later one, a 1.5 diesel beater with at least 250000km on the clock. The car was incredibly specious and the fuel consumption was never more than 5l/100km though it was not very powerful, perhaps 55hp. It was hilarious watching him challenge “sports cars” like Ford Puma and Opel Tigra on traffic lights.
The one pictured was part of a car show on one of the main streets in Montreal. It was for sale and the sign said it was a 1974. It looked like a recent import. By that I mean it did not look like a typical Canadian Renault. There was no dents, rust or parts falling off. Plus it had a French plate in front and tail lights that seemed unusual.
I had a buddy who had one of these as a beater when I was 18. It was a blast to drive, especially with the sunroof. Like Canucknucklehead said, I remember it going in for some minor repair that would have required the engine coming out for access and that was the end of it.
With the weak Euro we’re seeing a lot of older European cars being imported into Canada. Anything older than 15years can be imported with just a basic safety check. I’ve recently seen a couple of Mercedes campers that were never available in Canada.
It’s a looker. I’ve always liked orange cars.
These cars kinda define “cheap and cheerful” is almost hard to not want one in a bright color and a full length sunroof, sadly though they had the same lifespan as a chunk of brie left in a hot car all day.
Hello!
I’M THE OWNER of this R5! I’m happy to read all the messages. Very interesting!
The car was import from Cote D’Azur, France in 1980.
I have a lot of fun with and all the people are so happy and smily on the street when we ride in the city.
I’m always happy to exchange with Renault fans.
My email is benzavid@yahoo.ca.
Thanks!
Louis-David
Another great article; I happened on a very dilapidated ‘Le Car’ in WA recently – yes there are a few still lurking about. I didn’t realise the wheelbase was 1″ different on these; the R16 was a full 3″ different! I guess all those Renaults used similar rear suspension. I know the R8, R10, Dauphine and Caravelle were marketed in the States; I picked up an R16 (one of my favourite cars) handbook there so were they sold in US?
OK it’s an old post but here is some info.
1. Canada has always – and still, in 2023 – recognized both USDOT AND European headlamp homologation standards. Some manufacturers over the years have taken advantage of this for out market, among them, Renault with the 1970-1972 R12, the 1967-1972 R16, the 1976-1979 R5. Peugeot did it with the 504 (1975-1979), 604 (1977-1980), Citroën with the DS (1967-1971) and SM (1971-1972). the most recent example was the smart 450 (2005-2006) which had E-1 headlights.
2. The Canadian spec Renault 5s from 1975 (’76 model year) through late 1979 (early 1980 spec) had the US rubber bumpers, the side markers, Ducellier E-2 flush headlamps with P45T non-halogen bulbs. The “GTL” models were all R1124 spec mechanically, which was identical tot he European spec TS, so 69 SAE gross HP (64 DIN), no air pump, no cat, high compression (9.5:1) and a decent turn of speed. They required premium leaded fuel. The 1976 “R5L” models had the 782 cc 34 HP mega gutless engine with dash shifter, flush headlights. in 1977-1979, the “R5TL” model was sold too and it also was an R1224 but with the super long 3.1:1 final drive ratio 4 speed of the European 42 HP GTL model rather than the usual 3.63:1 of the GTL. That gave some impressive highway FE numbers and allowed the car to reach 145 km/h (90 MPH) in 3rd gear. Top speed for the GTL was officially 152 km/h, but 160 was easily on tap (100 MPH) at redline of 6000 RPM. At the end of 1979, the engine spec for 1980 stayed the same but most 1980 models had sealed beam rectangular headlights.
3. For 1981 through 1986, the 1397 cc version of the TL and GTL were sold here (R1299, 1399 4 door for only 1981-82) with the fibre bumpers from the US model, sealed beams and a unique version of the engine: again, no air pump or cat, but they did have EGR. Because of the lack of the other emission equipment, the car had a little more power than the US version. The last R-5s sold here were built in early 1986, and new ones could be had at dealers until early 1987. The “TL” version now had the same gearing as the “GTL” but lacked a brake booster, opening rear windows, adjustable seatbacks and had a hard plastic dashboard, and rubber floor matting instead of carpet.
4. All badges on the rear of Canadian cars said “Renault 5L, Renault 5 TL, or Renault 5 GTL”, but some, and nearly all between 1977 and 1979, had Le Car stripes added at dealers. Except in Québec, where they had “La Cinq” stickers.
5. I owned one of each type: a 1976 model GTL and a 1985 model TL. Good cars, not resistant to the ravages of rust. I rustproofed the 1985 model and when I sold it in 1995 it was till looking very good.
Canada has not always recognised the UNECE (“European” or, more recently, “rest of the world except USA”) headlamp standard; that recognition came some years after the 1971 establishment of the Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standards—around the mid-late ’70s, IIRC; I’ve got some of the research done by and for Transport Canada leading up to it.
How certain are you about the non-halogen headlamps on the Canadian ’76-’80 Renault 5? That would not seem to comport with Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108.1, which at the time was the regulation containing and specifying the Canadian recognition of certain ECE headlamp regulations. Regulation 8 (halogen headlamps with single-filament bulbs) and Regulation 20 (halogen headlamps with dual-filament H4 bulbs) and Regulation 31 (halogen sealed-beam headlamps) were recognised, but Regulation 1 (tungsten non-halogen headlamps with R2 bulbs) was not, and neither was Regulation 5 (tungsten non-halogen sealed-beam headlamps).