Not long after I got mine, I shut the glovebox door on something like a pen sticking through it. The hinges snapped with very little force, as if it was a polystyrene snap-together toy. Replaced under warranty. I liked the car aside from the cheapness. Very comfortable, very nice ride, easy driving, better handling than the soft ride would suggest, awesome visibility, great fuel economy. Slow, yes, (1.4, 4 speed) could've used some speed. Something under the hood started making noises. Not loud, may not have been a serious issue, but given the car's reputation, I was concerned. And I was envious of a co-worker's 1988 Accord. As a 20-something, I was conscious of the image I was projecting. So I traded it on a 1989 Accord. Got very little for it.
I mean this is the era and time where they were hardcore trying to force the Americans to get with the four cylinders. Somewhere between AMC/Renault's offerings and Chrysler's k-car efforts as well as the Omni line, cheap cars with shit engines was 100% more than common in the 1980s. I guess the reason why people tolerated it was because well they had great big huge boat cars with acres upon acres of engines that were detuned to hell and back and couldn't get out of their own way through the decade of the 70s. So basically in the '80s the companies at least attempted or pretended to attempt some sort of boost of performance particularly that in the hot hatch territory! So it was still all about fuel economy, well at the same time they tried to distract everyone with this notion of four-cylinder performance vehicles, and so the interiors were super freaking cheap it didn't really matter! I mean AMC wasn't really the only one that was close to going belly up at the time to be honest if the k car with a failed Chrysler would have been no more. If GM hadn't have been sitting on some odd amount of moldy money coupled with being backed by foreign partnerships that brought in money as well as whatever bank loans they were running at the time the chevette Chevy celebrity citation etc could have easily killed them off. I mean technically the only one that was really doing worth a shit was primarily forward and that was thanks to their escort line as well as their introduction of the Taurus later that decade!
It wouldn't suck if the 1.7L 4 didn't have horrible failures of cylinder head gaskets. It was really prone to easily overheating, much more than the 1.4L Cléon.
My dad had one. Traded it in with less than 40,000 miles. It barely made it up a hill going to the dealer, had to keep downshifting to make it. They checked it out for a trade in value and said the engine has had it. That car was maintained very well. POS.
Not long after I got mine, I shut the glovebox door on something like a pen sticking through it. The hinges snapped with very little force, as if it was a polystyrene snap-together toy. Replaced under warranty.
I liked the car aside from the cheapness. Very comfortable, very nice ride, easy driving, better handling than the soft ride would suggest, awesome visibility, great fuel economy. Slow, yes, (1.4, 4 speed) could've used some speed.
Something under the hood started making noises. Not loud, may not have been a serious issue, but given the car's reputation, I was concerned. And I was envious of a co-worker's 1988 Accord. As a 20-something, I was conscious of the image I was projecting. So I traded it on a 1989 Accord. Got very little for it.
Well but every car particularly that of the "economy genre" in the '80s was cheap as fuck.
I mean this is the era and time where they were hardcore trying to force the Americans to get with the four cylinders.
Somewhere between AMC/Renault's offerings and Chrysler's k-car efforts as well as the Omni line, cheap cars with shit engines was 100% more than common in the 1980s.
I guess the reason why people tolerated it was because well they had great big huge boat cars with acres upon acres of engines that were detuned to hell and back and couldn't get out of their own way through the decade of the 70s.
So basically in the '80s the companies at least attempted or pretended to attempt some sort of boost of performance particularly that in the hot hatch territory!
So it was still all about fuel economy, well at the same time they tried to distract everyone with this notion of four-cylinder performance vehicles, and so the interiors were super freaking cheap it didn't really matter!
I mean AMC wasn't really the only one that was close to going belly up at the time to be honest if the k car with a failed Chrysler would have been no more.
If GM hadn't have been sitting on some odd amount of moldy money coupled with being backed by foreign partnerships that brought in money as well as whatever bank loans they were running at the time the chevette Chevy celebrity citation etc could have easily killed them off.
I mean technically the only one that was really doing worth a shit was primarily forward and that was thanks to their escort line as well as their introduction of the Taurus later that decade!
Zhiz week on Hittler, he demonstrates a French engine!
2:25 poor guy with the name lol
The son
When a 40 year old Renault sales training video makes you nearly do a real life spit take.
Oof
The 1.4l Engine is the best! It can handle a ton of abuse and still run fine! That engine is awesome
If it was the 1.6l engine, it could have been improoved to have 100hp's!
It's Dr Rick Webber from General Hospital.
It wouldn't suck if the 1.7L 4 didn't have horrible failures of cylinder head gaskets. It was really prone to easily overheating, much more than the 1.4L Cléon.
I had a 1.7 snap the timing belt, I had a 1.4 lose the head gasket.
@@bobbydean6483 Both common problems if you dont maintain the car properly
2:25 oof
They were not bad looking cars. Too bad they were such a POS.
My dad had one. Traded it in with less than 40,000 miles. It barely made it up a hill going to the dealer, had to keep downshifting to make it. They checked it out for a trade in value and said the engine has had it. That car was maintained very well. POS.