When it debuted in 1965, the Renault 16 was at the bleeding edge of mid-sized European family cars. This impeccable base model example, found in France last year, represents the tail end of the car’s production run. Fortunately, Renault messed very little with the design during a decade and a half. They just coasted and let the competition play catch up, slowly.
And, as we shall see in a bit, said competition took their sweet time – a few of them did catch up by the late ‘70s, but many did not. Sure, the 16 had a few wrinkles. It never got plastic bumpers, MacPherson struts, an OHC engine nor a floor shifter. Yet it did not look outdated the way, say, the Checker cab or the Trabant did by that point in time. That’s what happens when you initiate trends instead of following them.
In 1960, Renault had a problem at the top of their range called the Frégate (top left). It had been launched a bit precipitously nine years earlier and had never met its maker’s expectations. The large 2.2 litre RWD saloon was now taken off life support, but there was nothing in store to take over. Work carried on with “Projet 114,” an ambitious RWD 6-cyl. model (top & bottom right), but Renault’s top brass remained unconvinced. This was too big, too expensive and too much of a frontal assault against the Citroën DS, a formidable opponent. In late 1961, the 114 was definitely abandoned; in the meantime, Renault would sell AMC Ramblers (bottom left) assembled in Belgium, just to have something to field in the executive segment.
It was deemed a better bet to aim at the 1500cc class, i.e. against Peugeot and Simca, and gradually push the new car up. But that meant Renault could not play it too safe. A lot of the conceptual work on the new “Projet 115” was done by Gaston Juchet, who had been hired by Renault in 1958 from aircraft maker Sud Aviation and would have a hand in most Renaults until the late ‘80s. Juchet salvaged some aspects of the 114, but shifted to a more compact fastback. Some of these are quite fanciful, like the gullwing two-door (top left) or the curiously narrow rear doors on the red design.
By early 1963, the clay was dry and prototypes were being made. Some styling decisions remained, but the overall shape of the car was final, with the very novel hatchback included. For quite a while, a coupé version was also mooted – it went to a full-sized mock-up. But in the end, the R16’s main ace in the hole, namely its exceptional interior modularity, would have been completely negated by this two-door variant.
In the early ‘60s, Renault’s main output were smaller rear-engined cars, but the carmaker was actually turning away from that layout and embracing front-wheel drive, starting with the Estafette van. The tried and tested layout and suspension of the Renault 4 (launched in 1961) were scaled up: a water-cooled 4-cyl. sitting lengthways behind the gearbox and the front wheels, à la Citroën, coupled with an all-independent torsion bar suspension – longitudinal up front, transverse in the back – that entailed the wheelbase being 6.7cm longer on the left side of the car.
Renault figured a mid-year launch would help the car stick out; the press launch took place in January 1965 and sales started in March. The first model had a brand new all-alloy 1470cc engine that was entirely satisfactory, though the Renault engineers were criticised for not giving their motor an OHC head, unlike Peugeot’s also-new-for-1965 car, the 204.
And with only 55hp, the car wasn’t exactly fast. This was addressed with the TS version in 1968 (1565cc, 83hp) seen above and later with the TX (1647cc, 93hp), the latter also sporting a 5-speed manual transmission.
From the start, Renault decided to lean hard towards comfort and practicality. The suspension was set to be as soft as could be, which made the car take on a lot of body roll if pushed hard. That was the point: the R16 was not a sports car. Oddly enough, Lotus borrowed the 16’s engine for their Europa in 1966, and the 1565cc TS mill also made its way to the back of the Alpine A110.
The practical aspect of the car was obvious, due to the rear hatch. It still took a little getting used to on this segment: only the Autobianchi Primula could boast a similar half-saloon/half-wagon body at the time. But the many and clever ways the siding and folding seats could be rearranged were a huge selling point, something that no carmaker had offered until then.
This modular interior was made possible by two features. One was a flat floor, thanks to the FWD layout and the torsion bar suspension. The other was a very high roofline, brought about by a novel way to manufacture the unit body: the roof panel was welded to the side/door frames and topped by a metal trim piece, turning the traditional roof gutters into a sort of upward-facing rail. Citroën had been working on a very similar system, which they unfortunately neglected to patent – unlike Renault. The Mercedes “pagoda” roofs of the W113 did not employ this construction method, but their effect and philosophy were in the same ball park.
The R16 was not a success in North America, despite Renault’s efforts. In Europe, though, it did very well. Another one of the car’s bag of tricks was a sophisticated HVAC system that performed a lot better and homogeneously than its contemporaries, apart from very high-end cars. Renault sort of had to go for a column gearchange, as it made it easier to reach the transmission, sat ahead of the engine. By the early ‘70s, this was anachronistic in European cars, but it could not be helped. The R16 TX is therefore one of the few cars that had a 5-on-the-tree, alongside some Alfas and the later model Citroën ID/DS.
Super-soft suspension and squishy seats made for a relaxing ride, which some said was almost equal to that of the Citroën DS. In 1971, the car had its only major styling change, which mostly affected the rear end, trading the original design’s thin cat’s eye taillights for larger rectangular bezels. There were a few little detailing evolutions elsewhere, but the only other noteworthy change was the grille becoming black plastic in 1975.
By the late ‘70s, the R16 was starting to lose steam. The lower-end TL version got a detuned version of the TS engine, said TS disappeared and the higher-trim TX carried on with its quad headlights. Automatic transmissions (an in-house design, not ZF or Borg-Warner) were available on both cars. This was to be the final range until production was halted in January 1980.
Why did Renault keep the R16 around for so long? Because they didn’t really replace it. Instead, the régie launched the R20 in 1975 – essentially a modernized R16 TX, but with ambitions in the 2-litre-and-up category. Then in 1978 they recycled the lower-end 1.5 litre engine in the R18, but that was a completely different animal, a three-box design. So there were still reasons to go for the R16, even though it was an older model. Let’s illustrate that in the usual way…
The hatch was becoming more common by 1979, but it was far from universal. The Citroën GS was going to get one the very next year. The Simca was also COTY and was probably the R16’s most dangerous rival in this market. Aside from its somewhat underwhelming figures performance-wise, the Renault still held it own in all other respects.
In 15 years, Renault manufactured almost 1.9 million of these rather amazing machines. Of course, that meant they were everywhere in the ‘80s, and their image at the time was absolutely terrible. These were known in France as “brother-in-law” cars, i.e. the kind of wheels you wouldn’t want to be seen dead in.
This lasted through to the late ‘90s at least. The overwhelming majority of R16s had disappeared by the turn of the Millennium, devoured by rust and mockery. Nowadays, though, the model is feted as one of the best designs Renault ever made. It’s not easy to be right before everyone else.
Related posts:
Car Show Classic – 1973 Renault 16 and The Asymmetric Suspension Configuration, by Roger Carr
Automotive History Capsule: Renault 16 – Here’s The Real Car Of The Future, by PN
Never completely understood Renault’s crushing failure in the US (post Dauphine era) as the cars were innovative, forward looking, and filled a unique niche for those looking for economy paired with comfort. Treated properly they were decently durable, save for major salt using places, though neither were Japanese cars sound in that respect. I particularly like the R12 and R16 and would gladly own one for sure.
It was the same problem for many import brands that started out selling at the bottom of the market at low cost and then tried to go upmarket; Toyota struggled with that for years with their Crown, and that’s despite their growing reputation for being durable and reliable, neither of which applied to Renault.
Renault had only sold small economy cars in the US (Dauphine, R8, R10), and were already on shaky ground due to their reputations, which in significant part had to do with poor dealer service/parts support as well as just not being able to match the quality and reliability of the VW and the Japanese.
So launching the R16 in the US with its eccentric looks was a total failure. The R16 was very rare in the US. I met a guy who was still driving one in LA in 1977, and he was struggling to keep it running. What few there were had all disappeared by then.
The reality is that Renaults, as based on auto motor und sport long term reliability tests really did deserve its reputation as being on the fragile side. Blown engines; blown transmissions, and lots of niggling smaller issues.
A shame, as they did have some of the attributes of my 504 diesel which was a pretty durable and reliable car as well as being supremely comfortable, comfort being one quality that I put a higher value on than sportiness, me being kind of a mellow “smell the roses” sort of driver. The 504 did have dependability and durability and that mattered also, so ultimately owning several 240 Volvos instead of a silver-blue R12 I had once admired new and considered at a dealer in Vermont was probably a good thing, all things considered.
Even without selling many cars, Renault had a significant presence in the US.
From the 1960s with the Dauphine until the 1980s, while not extensive, it wasn’t insignificant either.
Peugeot, I believe, was the French brand that sold the most cars and had the longest presence (only leaving the American market in the 1990s).
As for Renault, its absolute decline occurred in the 1980s, with a drop in reliability (especially with the Fuego model). The R15 and R17 could be considered good cars; very few people speak ill of them, unlike other Renaults.
The Dauphine was so unreliable in the US that later Renault advertising apologized for it and asked Americans for another chance.
The Renault Alliance was very well received when it was introduced in America and immediately developed a radioactive reputation for unreliability to the point that they were unsalable.
I wouldn’t compare the Escort to the Renault 16. I think the Ford was a half-class smaller. A more appropriate opponent would have been the Ford Taunus / Cortina.
By the way, that’s a great color on the Renault. I would have loved to have that ice green metallic on my Volvo 850. Unfortunately, it wasn’t available back then.
you’re right about the Ford. I’ll amend the table to put the Taunus 1600 in there.
This is a pretty car but the uphill slog to overcome Renault’s terrible reputation was hard plus they simply look weird .
-Nate
I see it as a bigger R6 with a bit more luxury and accessories.
I think that compared to the competitors shown in the photos (at least most of them), it falls a bit short.
I like the R16 – they were well regarded in the UK, especially the TX.
Also noticing how lovely that GS X3 looks in that color on those wheels!
Not really my sort of car, but interesting all the same. I shot this one a couple of years ago, I thought it looked nice with it’s red paint and alloy wheels.
That’s a nice ‘TS’ model, the topline trim level, above the regular ’16’ and 16TA’. Even though it was nicely appointed, with standard power windows (front only), and full carpeting inside, it sold at Buick prices in Canada. Naturally, it was a poor seller. At the time, a car’s size and the engine’s number of cylinders and displacement more or less dictated the price level a car should be sold at, even though it was slowly starting to change, especially after the energy crises.
I never knew that any car had a 5-on-the-tree – so that’s my new random fact of the day.
It’s interesting to hear the European perspective on these – about their reputation as a “brother-in-law” car, etc. These Renaults were so uncommon in the US that I don’t think people thought about them at all, once the small, initial batch decomposed. I wonder if any of these cars survive on this side of the Atlantic?
Huge swathes of Japanese utes had them, as did even huger swathes of such vans. I think some ’70’s and maybe ’80’s JDM cars had them too.
For the record, any I’ve driven are best described as excremental, especially on vans. The angle is all un-natural, and by the time you’re going for 5th, you feel like you’re reaching down around your bloody kneecap!
That said, any French column shifters I’ve encountered have been lovely. Well, except my early Pug 404, whose worn mechanism was literally 180 degrees out from its original LHD arrangement, and frequently diabolical (although admittedly fun to foist on confident strangers to the layout).
Thanks – I had no idea. I’d love to try one of those out… once.
The styling has its odd fan – your current interlocutor, being both very odd and a fan, is in fact he – but for the vast majority, they’re uglier than the worst sin you’ve always wanted to commit. My disrespectful father always called them the “cars with the railway lines going over the roof”, but to most hereabouts, they were just some weird Frog shitbox that were uglier than a hatful of arseholes. Hard to sell that.
Actually, they were assembled as CKD units here from ’68-’76, and seemed to be around in reasonable numbers, usually noticeable by their presence, bonnets agape, festooning the sides of the roads and garage forecourts, awaiting a cure. Motoring journo-types loved them, and rightly so: they were vastly more comfortable and better handling than the local GM/Ford/Chryco dominants, and no slower than the vast-majority 6-cylinder ones of those. However, they couldn’t tow, and never did have Peugeot’s local name for resilience. Unlike that brand, they were rarely seen outside metroland, and even then, mainly confined to inner beardy polo neck suburbs, or outer leafy handmade-bricks and knit-your-own-curriculum ones.
I’d still have one. Anyway, I look like someone’s brother in law, and indeed, am.
My overriding memory is that they were a nightmare to service, with the engine being in the heater and the double-wishbone torsion bar suspension being where you’d expect…
IIRC, the TX had PAS, which was an easy install as a consequence, but the US would’ve demanded emissions and A/C and the thing was fragile enough without that.
The R20 was a bit charmless (though there was nothing really wrong with it) but at least like the R12, the engine was where one could reach it.
Still, they were eminently more salable anywhere that Britisch Elend’s Maxi & Princess!
” …British Elend …”
Funny. That’s how we here called it, too.
British Laidlow (or Waylaid) was probably more contemporary, but I like the Teutonic version better!
We had a large extended family living near us who traded in there fleet of VW’s (3 beetles and a bus) for four R16’s in the early 70s. They moved in the mid-seventies so I don’t know what brand they migrated to after that. This was a small mid-western town and I don’t recall ever seeing an R16 besides those four.
There was a small SAAB & Renault dealer in town. SAAB’s were seen around town but only a few R8’s and R12’s.
Once again, probably because he’s industrious and has facts embedded in his system, T87 has beaten me to the CC. I have 2 16s in the files, just waiting for me to retire and complete, without going down rabbit holes like 5 on a tree…
Great find though T87 – as you say, seemingly 99% have gone for being too rusty or too ordinary, or both. Absolute trend setter that was not fully appreciated, esp in the UK, for several years. And never really replaced by Renault – the 20 was supposed to but couldn’t as too big and slow, and probably too pricey as well.
I remember CAR putting one up against a Passat and a Chrysler Alpine (SIMCA 1308) in 1976 and was by no means outclassed by either. Or by the Austin Maxi in case you were wondering.
A 16TX was almost a budget DS, and praise comes little higher than that.
”The R16 was not a success in North America” As always, N.A. does not only mean the United States.The R16 was popular here in Québec and was even built here. https://www.cockpitdz.com/post/l-histoire-de-la-production-de-renault-au-qu%C3%A9bec
We didn’t live in Quebec, but in Burlington Vermont, in 1968 my Dad was looking to replace the ’59 Beetle that got run over parked in front of our house, which he did with a new Renault R10. About that time he’d been making business trips to a fab his company had at Corbeil-Essones, France and think became something of a francophile which likely led to him getting the R10 at Almartin Motors in South Burlington.
Like the R16 it had 4 doors rather than 2 for the Beetle, but he used it mostly as a commuter car so it kind of didn’t matter as we had an Olds F85 wagon as our main family vehicle. The Beetle had been his first “2nd” car bought probably after he started working longer hours and didn’t want to spend weekends shopping with Mom since he’d otherwise need the Olds to commute to work.
He had the R10 thru about February of 1974; which was within a week of when I turned 15 years 7 months and could get a learner’s permit, so I missed driving the Renault by that much. Ironically he sold it mostly because it had a manual transmission and he wanted my Mother to also drive the smaller car rather than her wagon in case of gas shortage, he ended up with a small car but with automatic that didn’t get as good fuel economy as the R10.
Yes, it had the horn at the end of the stalk like Ford tried to do a decade later in the Fox body cars…actually I think you could choose city or country horn. It still had some European lighting mostly on the sides of the vehicle though pretty sure it had sealed beam headlights. You sat really upright, had a good view of the road, better than from the Beetle. And the seats though vinyl were really comfortable…no headrest though, since this was the model the year before they were required…and this was an economy car.
Dad kept buying imports for his 2nd car until he went domestic in 1980 and never bought another foreign car afterward. His last import was a ’76 Subaru DL, back then Subaru only had 1 4WD model his DL was FWD, good thing as we’d yet again moved back up to Vermont and it had better traction as FWD cars started out not being inexpensive until they later caught on