What is implied when describing a car as “very French”? One aspect is technical, i.e. a decidedly left-field approach to everything from how the wipers work or how the suspension is designed. Another is comfort, which is alleged to be a higher priority for French carmakers (very debatable). Yet another is dodgy build quality and/or reliability – YMMV on that too. And lastly, it’s the way French cars look, which can be pretty odd to the uninitiated. Could the Renault 6 be the most “French” car ever?
It certainly ticks a lot of boxes. We’re talking about a car whose left wheelbase is shorter than its right, and whose gearchange looks like an umbrella handle sticking out of the dash. It has softer seats and better suspension than anything in its class – except another French car, of course. The overwhelming majority of these have rusted away decades ago and the interiors were so cheap and nasty as to be both biodegradable and poisonous. Finally, it looks like it was styled by Ray Charles on a bad day. Very French? Extremely French.
So how did this most Froggish of French rides come to be? The story begins in 1961 with the launch of the Renault R4, the Régie’s first front-drive car. Nobody ever accused it of being pretty, quick or luxurious. It was somewhat cute, in its own way, with its smooth, chubby face and rounded tail, but the R4 was designed to be a workhorse, not a style leader. And it was especially aimed at the Citroën 2CV.
As it happened, 1961 was also the launch year of the Citroën Ami 6, a completely reskinned 2CV with a bigger engine and added creature comforts. Citroën were also working on what became the Dyane, slated to replace the 2CV with more hp, a better interior and a hatchback. Renault therefore decided to propose a re-skinned R4 with added edginess and luxury, aping Citroën in every way. The idea of the R6 was sound. The execution, as visitors of the 1968 Paris Auto Show discovered, was less so.
Under the skin, the R6 was 100% R4, at least initially. Renault’s all-torsion bar suspension, also used on the R16, was a real tour de force, though it did mean the cars leaned quite a bit in tight turns. But the roadholding was excellent. The R4’s longitudinal FWD layout, with the transmission in front of the engine, looks odd now, but was not that uncommon in earlier front-drivers, from prewar pioneers like Cord and Adler to the postwar star, the Citroën DS.
When it was launched in late 1968, the R6 met with mixed reviews. One issue was that it initially had to make do with the 845cc engine that used to motivate the Dauphine. At 34hp (DIN), the little straight-4 had a tough job hauling 750kg of car. This was a little better than the R4’s tiny 27hp 747cc mill, but the 4 was over 100kg lighter, too.
But the number one criticism levied against the new Renault was its lousy styling, reminiscent of a toddler’s impression of an R16. Where the larger car had an elegant shape with a high roofline and large glass area, as well as and interesting (if unconventional) design flourishes, the 6 had a fugly face, a low tail and a crude greenhouse that looked like a cardboard cutout.
Renault had a ready-made solution for the lack of power, which they deployed for MY 1971 with the TL: the Renault 8 Major’s 1.1 litre engine, initially producing 45hp. This, combined with the addition of front disc brakes, really improved the car’s sales performance, both at home and abroad. The TL was also available with the SINPAR 4×4 drivetrain, turning the R6 into a bona fide mudskipper.
The R6’s challenging aesthetics were a lot more difficult (if not impossible) to address. For the 1974 model year, Renault unveiled The Big Facelift: a plastic grille with the new corporate logo, square headlights and revised taillamps. It wasn’t much, nor was it seen as much of an improvement.
In fact, some argued it was even worse than the original. But by this point, it clearly did not matter, as the car was selling decently well despite its looks. And the TL’s engine gained an extra couple of hp as well, so at least there was some marginal improvement in there somewhere.
What was the secret behind the 6’s success? For one thing, if you’re inside it, you don’t have to look at it. And the interior was nice and comfy, with very good seats – a “very French” thing that lived up to the hype, it seems. Plenty of cargo space, a large hatch and a much quieter cabin (compared to both the R4 and flat-twin Citroëns, at least) were also high on the list of pluses.
Above: the right side; below: the left. The difference: 5cm/2 in.
The aforementioned comfort was further aided by the famous torsion bar suspension, longitudinal ones up front and a pair of transverse ones at the rear. The latter gave the Renaults of the period their trademark unequal wheelbases – completely strange, very French. Well, very Renault anyway.
The dash, on the other hand, was a rather sad and outdated affair. Nothing to see here, please disperse. And this is about as deluxe as the R6 got. At least this one’s plastics look pretty good, but give it a bit too much sunshine and cracks will magically appear.
Our feature car is beyond pristine, but panel fitment was also a widespread issue in ‘70s Renaults. Not that they were the only carmaker with such issues at the time, of course. Speaking of which, let’s take a look at the competition – it was easier to find 1975 prices for whatever reason, but an almost identical lineup would have applied for 1976 as well.
Note: European cars were subject to an extra shipping fee (500 to 900 Francs), not included here
The R6 TL was not that cheap, for a 1100cc economy car. And that’s in its home market, too. It was a very busy segment: there were even more rivals than I listed here, including the Simca 1000 GLS, the base model Citroën GS, the Audi 50, the Alfasud and the Opel Kadett C. And that’s only counting models with at least four doors – two/three door competitors would add to the mix the likes of Innocenti, Honda, Toyota, Volvo-DAF, as well as the eternal duo, namely the BL Mini and VW Beetle 1200. Not to mention Renault’s own technically identical and much prettier R5…
It’s a testament to the R6’s engineering that is held its own in the face of such overwhelming opposition, and in spite of its many faults, it fared as well as it did for so long. Production in France totalled over 1.7 million units and lasted until December 1979 for the 845cc version and stretched to May 1980 for the TL.
Note that this was only French production. The R6 was also built (and had quite a lot of success) in Spain and Colombia. In Argentina, the ungainly little Renault, produced by IKA, even went through a third series in 1980, with extra black paint and a 1.4 litre engine. This ultimate avatar lasted until 1984, but Spanish production carried on to 1986.
The Renault 6 belongs to that special category of cars whose shortcomings – especially looks-wise – were outweighed by their intrinsic qualities. It’s France’s AMC Gremlin, or Renault’s answer to nearly all of Nissan’s mid-‘70s range.
As the R4 might have said, “It ain’t ugly, it’s my brother.”
Good grief,1.7 million! Were the French recalcitrant in their adoption of eyeglasses in period?
Our roads were blessedly un-infested by the R6, despite the local factory, though it must be confessed that they were instead diseased by an eternal plague of dynamically diabolical Japanese pretties. In those more parochial times too, it must also be said that what was implied about the owner of a French car also began, like France, with an “f”, but thereafter ended differently. (Thankfully, we’ve grown up somewhat and become a multicultural success story, so everyone drives Toyotas, but I’m digressing).
I’ve really loved my series of well-insured French cars – on the days I was not trying to set fire to them – but this dour washing machine would’ve been too much even for me. It might well roll and pole and grip and ride and seat with the best of them, but for once, they entirely split the joie from de vivre, and I’d be about as happy as the glumbucket this looks to be if I were reduced to ownership.
Justy, while it is not beautiful it is also not ugly. It is, what I call, just Ok which is a notch below Ok. I can say that because I do know a thing or two about vision.
Yup, it’s ugly. But to my eyes the only remotely attractive competitors in the field were the Fiat and the VW, so when viewed in comparison to most of the field, the R6 wasn’t too much fuglier than the majority of them. So if its dynamic qualities allowed one to get past its looks, it obviously proved itself attractive in other ways.
“But to my eyes the only remotely attractive competitors in the field were the Fiat and the VW”
Agree – remotelly attractive. Whereas the mentioned Kadett C was really a nice one. To my eyes, at least. If you took a CarAVan (Wagon), you got a vehicle as practical as the R6 but so much more fun to drive.
Most of the Opels were excellent designs. Opel get faint praise for their styling work, though.
Agreed about Opel, and the niceness of the Kadett C (aka the dreaded Chevette in US), and especially the fine coupe, but was the C actually Opel’s work? I ask because it was a so-called “world car”: seems possible to me that Detroit HQ might logically be expected to have shaped it. (Then again, given the bulgy broughammed excressences GM was starting to churn out in the ’70’s, maybe logically not!)
It’s a bit hard to readily pin down who is most responsible for the Kadett C (T global platform). But there’s no doubt that the mothership kept a pretty close eye on what was being designed at Opel; Chuck Jordan was there until 1970, and his influence can be felt in the C/T.
I have to wonder if this car’s success hadn’t ultimately harmed Renault, since it meant they took their sweet time doing a 4-door hatchback R5 despite the doors having already been tooled for the Spanish-market Siete 3-box sedan. How many people looked in a Renault showroom at a 5 with too few doors and a 6 that was just…no, and then went and bought a VW?
Hmm, this looks pretty normal to me, at least compared to many of its classmates. Not as elegantly proportioned and detailed as a Fiat 128 or even the Golf … but no worse than an Allegro or Cherry or 204, and far less weird than any Citroen of the time. I’m not French so I don’t know if I have any credibility, but I’d say it’s the LEAST French looking car, along of with the Simca, of the French quartet.
I quite agree. It’s certainly not “beautiful”, but it was meant to be a highly practical compact car, and it succeeded there. The Citroen Ami family was decidedly quirkier and more bizarre. But then I love the qualities of both of them, so I’d have been quite happy with either. But then my taste does tend to be a bit out of the mainstream.
FWIW, this R6 strikes me as something of a distant predecessor to my xB. Now if only it had the R6’s suspension.
Add me to the list; I think it’s kind of cool. It’s not traditionally beautiful in any way, but it’s unique and it would be nice if we had more of that kind of thing at my local car shows.
I’d nominate the original Citroen Ami 6 for sure… so off-the-scale weird that only could be French, yet so odd it’s cute. The 2CV would have to be in there too. I’d love to have either of them.
Ami 6 front:
For some strange reason I want to draw a mustache on the front.
Looks like a “homemade” for sure! In a crowded parking lot, it’s be a “cinch” to find.
It’s so ugly that it’s kind of cute in a way.
I have a question. In the article you mention the unequal wheelbases and you show some pics of the dog legs being larger on one side. Can you help me understand that? I didn’t see anything more in the article. Are you saying the car has one wheelbase on the left and a longer one on the right?
The rear suspension of the R4, R5, R6 …
Correct. The wheelbases are different because the transverse torsion bars extend across the full width of the car, therefore must be located one behind the other, offset by a few centimeters. In the close-up pics above, what you see between the tire and the dog leg is the anchor point for the torsion bar that is attached to the wheel on the opposite side of the car.
This allows for longer torsion bars, which improves ride comfort and extends wheel travel. Half-width torsion bars would have the opposite effect.
Hope this helps. Ah… looks like ztalfu beat me to it.
Thanks Louis D and xtalfu:
Just goes to show that you can still learn something new every day! I’ve been in love with the automobile since I was 8 years old, driving (not legally on roads) since 10 and been in the auto business for 28 years. This is the first I’ve ever seen/heard of something like that.
Fwiw, the R9 and R11, the Alliance and Encore in the USA, also had this arrangement. I’m one of the weirdos who owned a Renault in the USA.
PSA had the same horizontal torsion bars but part and parcel of the rear axle beam so no change in wheelbase side to side and the death of many cars when the needle rollers fail, swapping in another rear beam takes 2 hours including a run for more tools.
My grand father – who was a French has can be – had one – his last car before he decided – on his own – that he was too old to drive and renounced his driver’s license. To me, it says everything – a car for old people, that they drove primarily in the countryside, between their summer house and the local supermarket.
Yes, it was ugly, but the other French cars competing in the same category (Citroen Ami, Simca 1000) or even a bit higher (Renault 10, Renault 12 before its facelift) were not exactly beautiful either. At that time, the dealer network of foreign car makers was rather thin, and buying French (even ugly-French) was often perceived as a necessity. Renaults were not sexy but they were reliable, cheap to maintain, and comfortable.
How is it CC has not seen this car in detail before? A great CC role model and a great rite up.
I’ve never seen them as ugly, and to be honest, considered the square lamp/plastic grille cars as not bad looking somehow, but you have *(sadly!) enlightened me.
Still, good to see it and know it sold nearly times the Allegro’s effort
While it’s certainly not in the classic Jag E type category of good looking, it’s not chew your arm off to escape coyote ugly like say a Pontiac Aztek or Datsun F10. I think I’d call it below average meh.
I also see a lot of resemblance from the side of another French car, the Simca 1100. The one piece doors especially as opposed to the typical bottom and almost separate top with the window in it. Not particularly stylish, but probably cheaper to build and stronger.
What a find! Over the past, well, 30 to 40 years, I’ve seen only a few of these. Certainly less than a handful. Unlike the numbers 4, 5 and 16, those are still around in large numbers.
In the early seventies, a neighbor across the street had one. Refrigerator White. For the rest, I’ve never known anyone who ever had an R6. Unlike those other numbers, such as my own 1982 R5.
It’s always fascinating to hear your critiques of French cars. And I really appreciate the research you do to fit cars into a context largely unknown to many of your readers. It helps me understand the rationale for what appear some strange decisions.
Personally I think it’s rather attractive. Plain but not ugly. (Ugly is the early Ami6.)
The 6 flew under my radar, as we didn’t get it down here; ah, I see Justy has said that. From memory the 4 disappeared from our market about ’66 or so; the smallest we got thereafter was the 8, the 10, then the 12, which seemed to age very quickly. I’m somewhat surprised the continued the 4 once the 6 arrived, but I guess that’s France. And then the 5 on top of the 4 and the 6 – shades of British Leyland!
Ive not seen that version before maybe it didnt export as for innovation Citroen led the rest,
Ride comfort and handling is why I still drive a Citroën throw in the great reliability and there really isnt a viable competitor, Ive had more issues with Australian and Japanese cars than Ive had with diesel Citroens, current car has done 40,000kms in the last 10 months, it was doing less than 10,000kms annually before I bought it, the lack of mileage clocked up since new is one reason I bought it.
First off, I have owned a Citroen 2CV for over 30 years, so you know where I am coming from. I don’t think the R6 is ugly, just utilitarian, but I prefer the R4. Now a Datsun B210 is ugly, and has no reason to be styled the way it is. In the early 70s I worked with a guy who I thought had some style, but he loved the R12 and disliked the R5. My feelings were the reverse of his. Taste is definitely personal.
When I was at university I was in a co-op program where you went to school one term and then worked the next term. There was a guy who was 2 years ahead of me who worked at the same company. When he graduated he went to Europe for the summer. At that time there was a deal for long term rental of French cars (3 weeks to 6 months). He got an R6 for his summer. At the time I thought it was an ugly car and wondered why he had not chosen an R4, but now I realize it was a rational decision. As I remember the savings came from the substantial purchase tax. As a non-resident you were not required to pay it until the car was registered when you turned it in. The tax was then calculated on the depreciated value.
Another neat and obscure French car .
-Nate
The stylistic oddness of the car centres on the coachline running from the front lamps to the tail lamp. It falls when it should be at least level or, better, rising. Apart from that this car is not at all as ugly as the author deems it. It´s a packaging design: most space in the smallest shell. For goofiness the Ami trumps it easily.
French ride quality: I´ve never been in a French car that didn´t ride nicely. And the body roll that journalists love to drone about is only an issue if you are a motoring journalist given to 9/10ths driving. For the people for whom the car is designed this “problem” never manifests itself.
A mate had an ’08 or so Pug 207 wagon from Peugeot’s inexplicable (and long) period of substandardly-suspended cars in the 2000’s, and rest assured, it rode poorly. AND it was, perversely, still quite rolly. (And it was unreliable, and ugly. A really, really disappointing machine).
Interesting – I was a passenger in that car over some long trips and yes, it was ugly and not that nicely made but the seats and ride quality seemed above average.
Lack of gas and oil in Peugeot suspension, I had a C4 turbo loaner recently horrible ride compared to my C5 but a gokart to drive, recently test flew a VW Golf GTI for a mate same thing actually the only real difference was the number of shifts at WOT getting to the speed limit, he didnt buy it and got a Toyota Aurion instead and only because he couldnt find another Citroen for sale, With the current state of our roads here I still get a nice ride over the potholes at speed
Our old ’06 Peugeot 307 wagon rode reasonably on 16″ wheels – not amazing but not awful. Handling was quite decent. Its replacement, a ’13 308 wagon with 18″ wheels and sport suspension rides and handles better. Our ’16 508 wagon with 18″ wheels rides like a whallowy whale with octagonal tyres below 80km/h, but when driven enthusiastically, the nobbly wallowiness goes away and the ride/handling balance becomes rather sublime.
This is a repost (my first attempt vanished).
Here´s the revised side view with a rising coach line. The rear lamps need to be revised, I know. You get the idea, I hope.
Fifty-plus years ago I often rode-in, and sometimes drove, an R6. I remember it as being a very practical and comfortable way to traverse Irish country roads, which were much worse then than they are now. The car in question was in its’ first flush of youth, and was sold-on before the onset of rust – which killed most of them fairly early.
Looking at the list of competitors, is it any wonder the Golf left the rest behind? Like a vehicle from another age.
Not surprising. It was the latest thing in 1974/75. To me, the Allegro looks at least as advanced – if not more. What a pitty it lacked quality in detail and execution.
Does this have the same type of platform frame that the Renault 4 has? I am late to the party, but just recently realized that the VW Type 3 series, sedan, coupe, Variant (Fastback/Squareback) were all built on a platform frame very similar to the Bug. Any ideas on why the platform frame was being built so late into the 1970’s? One assumes cost and inertia, but the penalties of terrible torsional resistance and poor crash protection seem very clear, at least in hindsight. I am just ending an exploration of the Lotus Europa with its backbone frame and fiberglass body. The floor, doors and roof of the passenger compartment are all fiberglass (as is the rest of the body work). A death sentence in any serious crash, it began production in 1966 lasting to 1975.
Undoubtedly it does have the same platform frame as the R4.
I wouldn’t be so harsh on the platform frame. Once the body is bolted to it, it’s essentially a unibody. The original Chevy II’s whole front end was bolted to the body at the cowl; it’s considered a unibody. Bolts are/can be as strong as welds. Unibodies have their “platform” floors welded to the body instead of bolted.
There’s no reason a platform frame car should inherently have “terrible torsional resistance and poor crash protection”. In fact, all the Type 1 and 3 VWs were consistently considered to have rather stiff body structures for their time. The beetle was very much conceived to have its strength and rigidity derive from the combination of the platform frame and body. It’s precisely why they could keep it in production so long; it was a quite solid structure.
Quite a few cars have had fiberglass bodies on steel chassis frames; the Corvette comes to mind. It doesn’t have to compromise safety with the right reinforcements.