The R16 was a genuine trailblazer: the first larger mass-market hatchback, still referred to as a “sedan/wagon” by R&T. It was the template for a huge wave of cars to come: FWD, hatchback, variable rear seat for different purposes, highly space-efficient, four wheel independent suspension and brakes, and more. It should have been a big success. Well it was reasonably so, in Europe. But not in the US, where it found little love.
But R&T gave it a pretty healthy dose, in their road test.
The R16’s most impressive quality was how its body was optimized for space efficiency. Although it was a full 20″ shorter than a contemporary Falcon, its interior accommodations and cargo space equaled or exceeded it. Its drive train was of course all up front, as well as the spare tire, and a refusal to follow American styling trends—unlike a number of European sedans, mostly those by the Big Three’s European ops—allowing the boxy body to be optimized for passengers. The three R&T editors had differing opinions on its actual styling; one liked it, one didn’t, and one was of a mixed mind. But the practical advantages could not be denied. And they all agreed that it was “distinctive”.
The R16’s unequal length wheelbase—by 2.75″—was due to how the transverse torsion bars were mounted. But it made zero impact on handling. In typically French fashion, the suspension was of the long-travel variety, which allowed considerable lean in curves. But adhesion with its Michelin X tires was never compromised as a result, and the shocks were carefully selected to harmonize with the springs.
Obviously, the ride benefited from that “very good indeed, with a soft, easy ride over indifferent road surfaces”, which along with its smooth and quiet 1.6 L hemi-head pushrod four, made for a comfortable cruiser, very happy at 70 mph with the engine exceptionally quiet at that speed. Performance with 70 hp was adequate, but certainly not either brisk or inspiring.
The issue in the US was that priced at $2500, competition was fierce from significantly cheaper cars like the Corona and others. You had to really be able to appreciate the 16’s qualities and be willing to pay for them. And be willing to put up with the notoriously weak dealer network. These two factors conspired to make the R16 a rare sight on American roads.
One of the engineers at the tv station in LA had one, and I got a ride in it once; its superbly comfortable seats, magic-carpet ride and smooth engine left a deep impression on me. It wasn’t that long after that someone offered me a well-used Peugeot 404, and I bit, because it had all of those same qualities but not the iffy Renault reliability reputation.
More at CC on the R16:
Car Show Classic – 1973 Renault 16 and Asymmetric Suspension Configuration
Automotive History Capsule: Renault 16 – Here’s The Real Car Of The Future
There were a few of these around in Canada when I was a kid. A school friend’s Mom had one and I recall riding in it a few times. There was a long, steep uphill from the local beach back to the main road, and it would barely crawl up with all us kids in it.
These folks had moved to BC from Montreal and bought the Renault because it was assembled in Quebec, at least for a few years. The last time I saw it was behind a tow truck, and a VW replaced it. Haven’t seen one on the road in many years!
Yes, you can look up the sales sheet for the Quebec built R16 on the net. Did do not have the front bumper overused ” nert” bar in the front so very similar to the French built versions. If think this was the last Canadian built model and R18s and the Canada only R30 were imported?.
The last Renaults built at SOMA were the 12. Production ended in 1972. At that point, the R16s sold here were coming from France.
Hello from Argentina . What i really love the most about this article isn`t a Renault 16 yet admited is a neat car very advanced for its time . What i still love the most is the Road Test itself, the way that Road & Track always use to be more credible than C&D or M.T.
Just discovering , unveiling, back the times through a Road & Track`s blacknwhite road test and it seems the text keeps alive , it feels as if a potential customer is there , vehicles normally are aging but the text , the concept, never fades away `cause is based on true facts. Me from so far away realized that Road & Track`s bibliographies joining CurbesideClassic is the most flavoured blend to those who enjoy swallowing automotive literature . Bravo Mr. Editor , keep this way !!!! Renault 16 was always a big player until the arrival of Renault 12 which was the most succesful global hit for the losange`s company also known as Regie Nationale des Usines
Here’s one I photographed in Spain a few years ago. They are becoming fairly rare in Europe too.
Actually, that’s a Renault 6. But it’s a great find anyway, much rarer than an R16 (in NL, I don’t know about Spain).
Renault 6 se ven a patadas .pero esto es un Renault 16 el cual se vendia principalmente en Francia. Por lo que en España hay muy pocas unidades.
That’s Renault 6. A cross read between 4 and 16.
Only the French could get 6 as the average of 4 and 16.
It sort of works in Montreal francais:
#4 = Jean Beliveau (outstanding)
#16 = Henri Richard (outstanding)
#6 = Toe Blake (an above-average player, and excellent coach)
Meh, perhaps a bit too contrived …
OK, my previous attempt was purely lame.
Have you read “The Promise” and “The Chosen” by Chaim Potok?
No doubt the clever Rabbi dad, with his love of the Kabala, could morph the numbers to make them work.
“Four is the square root of 16. The exponent of a square is two. Four plus two equals six!”
With that kind of numerical dexterity, just think how many fewer years we could’ve been stuck wandering in the desert!
Well, more in the direction of a 4, since parts for those interchange with the 4s, 5s, and to a lesser extent, the Duphines. The 15s and 17s belonged to the 16 family of which were remotely related to the 18s and Fuegos
I’m still trying to get my head around the unequal wheelbase. Gah! Did that make wheel alignments challenging?
I have a vague memory of Renault ads in the 1970s, in which the company apologized for past quality issues amd promised to do better in the future.
My friend’s parents had a used but late-model Dacia in the mid-’80s, and called on me to repair it once when it wouldn’t start. It turned out it was still using breaker points, and a wire had come off. Easy fix, but I was slightly surprised to see points being used on a car that new.
I mention the Dacia because I believe Romania had bought the old tooling from Renault and was cranking out early-’70s R12s some 10 years later.
They loved the car for its comfort, but didn’t keep it long due to mechanicsl issues.
Unfortunate, such a practical and advanced design didn’t catch on sooner in North America. However forward it was, it remained a utilitarian design in an era when large cars and horsepower was dominant. If the R16 was widely accepted here, it may have resulted in a GM X-car-like long term marketing debacle, with a dubious record of fragility and long term durability cursing Renault even further. But on a large scale. Making the future merger with AMC less likely.
So when was this “sedan-wagon” body style first referred to as a hatchback?
I think the frumpy styling probably hurt sales some. This probably looked odd compared to typical American cars in 1968, or even some of the more popular imports. The interior is a bit off-putting as well; certainly not as luxurious as I’d expect for this price, though it’s plenty roomy and comfortable. I don’t find any of Renault’s sedans of the ’60s or ’70s to be attractive until maybe the 18i.
The practicality of it does appeal to me. That rear seatback hanging from the ceiling is rather odd though; future hatchbacks had easier seat-folding arrangements. But I like the external key lock for the engine compartment; I often have to pop open my hood when the car is locked and the two-step process always struck me as annoying.
Tough to blame Renault for designing a car that was 10-20 years ahead of the times for North America, if it was already the right car for France/Europe. It clearly put utility ahead of US-style luxury, which made it a tougher sell here. During an era where consumerism, not conservation, was still boss in the US and Canada.
Styling isn’t much worse for the 1960s than the Alliance or Encore, which were better accepted, because that’s what the market dictated.
The French never knew how to market to Anglophone North Americans, beginning with the introduction of the Citroen DS. It was difficult enough to try entering a market dominated by larger and simpler vehicles equipped with monometallic engines of which careless owners could overheat without subsequently needing to replace head gaskets and wet liner seals. I need not mention the general neglecting of fluid change intervals and other maintenance of which presented challenges to even Japanese brands.
Then you had the problem of finding mechanics who would willfully service these unfamiliar types of vehicles. The indifference towards fully independent suspension didn’t help either, evident through uninterrupted sales of solid-axled vehicles continuing long after Renault’s disappearance from the North American continent. Superior handling thanks to the R16’s mid-engine drivetrain and comfort thanks to lengthy torsion bar suspension should have made test drives at dealerships mandatory for salespersons to persist potential customers undertake.
What perhaps could have prolonged the R16’s existence, in this market, would have been to focus on only making the sporty R16 TX available. The more generous round instrumentation itself would have set this model apart from domestic vehicles of which were mostly equipped with the usual boring bar speedometer, idiot lights and humdrum front bench seating
I had an old R16 I got for free – it was great to drive, fantastic ride. I put two new wings [ fenders] and ran it for a year until the head gasket went. I tried to fix it myself but b**gered the wet liners in the process and that was the end of that !!
It’s interesting that back in the 60’s — the golden age of car design, to many — complaints could be found about most cars looking alike.
R16 Engine & transmission were good enough for LOTUS, I believe. The EUROPA pioneered Chapman’s mid-engined GT tourer development.
Yes they did in the “van ” Lotus in the MK. 1 version and kept using Renault transmission in the later Esprit .
I remember looking at these with my parents one night at the Renault dealer on Washington Street in Morristown NJ. My mom drove a ‘67 Volvo 144S and my dad drove a ‘66 Beetle. Not sure why they passed on the R16, but there were few dealers, spotty parts availability and the Dauphine damaged the public’s perception of Renault quality. My parents ended up trading their 144 on a 164 which was a lemon.
We had 4 in succession after the last 404 Diesel retired.
All were TL’s as my father needed a workhorse and unfortunately he did not go for the much sexier TS, with Jaeger dials and two complementary Cibie Airport driving lights as standard equipment.
They were all around in Europe and were family cars that did their job, BMC tried to copy the R16 with its Austin Maxi and Volkswagen launched a 411 but forgot to fit a hatch !
The strengh of the design was probably best proven when Renault launched the TX in 1974, the R16 had been on the market since early 1965 ! but the introduction of the TX meant a complete renaissance for the 16 range. The TX had a five speed gearbox, central locking and electric front windows and Gordini styled wheels. The car was developed as ” auto-routiere ” made especially for the French long distance peage toll roads.
I personally see the Renault 16 range as the car that made Renault take over the role of innovator of the car industry, a role previously carried out by Citroen.
One must really admire the guts of Renault to start a whole new concept in a segment of the car market where – in France- Peugeot (with the 404) and Citroen (with the ID19) ruled. A completely new factory was built on the banks of the Seine river in Sandouville east of the port of Le Havre just for the R16 back then.
The Sandouville factory is still working today and produces mainly light commercial vehicles the Renault Trafic is one of them.
As with other Renaults from this timeframe, they were unusually well represented in my NW Montana hometown. And as such, I never knew that they weren’t particularly common in other areas until I started frequenting CC. I will be honest though, and admit that many of them were parked in driveways, backyards, and in carports with long expired tags when I became car aware in the mid-1980’s; there were a few still in use, though. Even stuff like the 15 and 17 weren’t super unusual (?!) The detail that stood out to me the most on the 16 were the curved up roof ridges on the sides, and I often conjured up mental images of them upside down sledding down a hill in hard packed snow.
My own Renault experience involved a 12 wagon that had been neglected in a back yard with a dead fuel pump (a bog standard SU electric pump). I had to rehabilitate some other stuff that deteriorated during its slumber, but I ended up with a car that still sits pretty high on my list of memories. The seats and ride were awesome, it always started in the coldest weather… remembered because I *had* to rely on it for 2-3 weeks during a particularly cold spell around 1997. It just felt like it was rung up from many of the other cars it would’ve competed with when new. Just my subjective impressions, mind you.
The parts situation was the only downer. Stuff required some searching, and prices were often quite high. Had I only known that that would become much less of an issue once I got my first internet connected computer in late 1999. As before, I’ma go out on a limb and speculate that many of the Renaults in my area were sidelined due to difficult to source and prohibitively expensive parts.
My father had a Renault 16TL and we still have fond memories of it. Its comfort could only be surpassed a DS. They were everywhere during the 70’s and 80’s, at least in France and some other countries like the Netherlands. The base version with its 8CV (1470 cc) engine was somewhat underpowered but the 9 CV (1565 cc) was a good contender, especially in TS form (+ 165 km/h). As expressed before, the 16TX was even gutsier with its 1647 cc engine. These were available with a sunroof, leather interior, air conditioning and an excellent automatic gearbox which was the first to be electronically managed.
To me, it was not surpassed by its successors as the R18 was only a redesigned R12 and the R20/30 noticeably bigger.
As with many cars of this era, when we still had real winters, its main problem was rust. Once it has gotten to the anchor points of the rear supension arms, the car was usually trashed.
All this reminds me that a firend got a pristine exemple of a 1969 TS which has not seen the road for many years. I got to get at his house to get it back in running order.
My Dad bought a new Renault R10 in 1968…it was his first new “2nd car” replacing a VW Beetle that was totalled in front of our house.
I started thinking that he probably should have bought the R16, but as the article mentions, it was more expensive than the R10….we were living in Burlington Vt at the time (he bought it at Almartin Motors in South Burlington near the Airport) so traction was a big deal, but the R10 was probably similar to the Beetle being rear engine/RWD. It took him 8 years (and another stint in Vermont, we’d actually moved to northern Virginia where he sold the Renault…my Dad moved quite regularly in his job back then) till he got a FWD car, which was a new 1976 Subaru DL. By then RWD / rear engine was pretty much gone (though you could still buy a Beetle there wasn’t anything else), and FWD was still pretty new and expensive…as a 2nd car he didn’t want to stretch to a Saab, but Honda and VW were pretty expensive, I had a bad experience with Fiat so that was out. He could have bought a LeCar but didn’t care for it, and he looked at the Datsun F10, but didn’t like the vents on the hood that looked like an engineering change to him).
I can say I would have gone for the R16, but I’m different, my Golf is my only car, he had our family wagon as another vehicle, and really didn’t put many miles on his 2nd car, so price was an issue. The R10 did have 4 doors, so it was a bit more usable for family than the Beetle was (though the front trunk wasn’t huge)…and we didn’t use it that way much. Only in 1973 when the gas shortage hit, my Dad wanted my Mom to use the Renault sometimes, but it was a manual, and she never was comfortable with manual (probably he should have bought automatic, especially since he had the clutch go on it,even though it probably only had 22k miles on it when he sold it.
The seats in the R10 were nice…just vinyl, but really comfortable…but we didn’t take long trips in it, so it probably went to waste on us…it also had great visibility (you sat up pretty high, and the sight lines were good, much better than on the Beetle.