Yeah maybe I was too mean to the "Ren-alt"...but you could probably take the Vega to any dealer for its bimonthly engine resealing/body welding, whereas upon fall-apart the 12 would require a trip to the shops that would touch it - one located in Glendale CA, one in Dorchester MA, and that's it :shades:
A safe bet would be on wagering neither that exact Stag nor the Jags are on the road today. Of course, the 12 and the Vegas are likely long gone too.
Okay, forced to choose between a Renault 12 and a Vega for a cross country trip in the '70s, I agree that Chevy's vast dealer network would have more than compensated for the possibility that you probably stood a better chance of not being stranded with the 12. You made a good point about the number of dealerships. So, using the contrived example of a cross country run in the '70s, the Vega would have been the better choice. I guess the comfortable French seats of the 12 wouldn't have compensated for the risk of having to wait hours for a tow truck, in the blistering heat or the freezing cold, somewhere in the Great Plains in pre-cell phone days. Come to think of it, why would one have even bothered calling a tow truck? Where the heck would you have towed a broken 12? It's hard to imagine finding a mechanic in Podunk who could even spell Renault, much less agree to repair one. And then there would have been the minor issue of finding parts. There was no Fed-Ex service from Paris in those days.
By contrast, mechanics might have snickered at the sight of a yet another disabled Vega, but at least the fact that it was a Chevy would have made them more agreeable to lift the hood. Also, parts weren't an issue.
Finally, as long as we're describing a nightmare, can we agree that every mechanic in Podunk, Nowheresville had some missing and rotting teeth?
Renault actually outsold the VW bug in the late 1950s, in the US.
Geez, what a choice for a cross country trip. You can take the Renault and blow up one engine and wait 5 weeks to get another, or take a Vega and blow up 5 engines and wait one week for each one. :P
Exactly. I have to think that a R12 would actually be a worse ownership experience, simply due to parts and service issues. Even for people who had local dealers, I bet the workshops weren't awesome, and there were parts supply problems. I am bearing in mind that your local Chevy dealership isn't probably a den of repair expertise, itself. But for the cars themselves...maybe equally bad. The Vega was an engineering catastrophe, but I bet the workers in 1972 France weren't working to any better assembly quality standard, and the R12 was probably finicky in its own ways.
Yeah, I think it was 1959 that Renault outsold VW in the U.S. Renault's big seller back then was the Dauphine, but the relatively small number of Caravelle roadsters may have made the difference in the import sales race that year. I'm just guessing here, because I don't know how many Caravelles were sold, but Renault's lead over VW was small.
The Dauphine had three advantages over the Beetle, These were better fuel economy, two extra doors, and cute styling, for those who wanted something that looked more conventional than the Beetle's counter culture design. I have no idea of the order of importance of these advantages.
I'm thinking that one other possible advantage (a disadvantage to some, especially enthusiasts) was that the Dauphine had a 3-speed manual instead of the Beetle's 4-speed. I'm saying this could have been an advantage because Americans were more familiar with 3-speed manuals than 4, since that was what had been featured on domestic cars for years. By the '50s, though, the gearshift on the manuals of domestic cars had long since moved to the column, whereas the Dauphine's was on the floor.
Performance wise, I think the Beetle and the Dauphine were pretty comparable, although the Dauphine's engine was a water cooled ~850 c.i. OHV I-4. To compensate for displacement deficit and one less gear, the Dauphine's engine was more stressed than the Beetle's. I'm too lazy to look up weights now, but I think the Dauphine also weighed a little less than the Beetle. It was definitely tinnier.
So why did the Dauphine lose it's sales lead? Poor durability and quality. These deficits were greatly compounded by lousy dealership service departments and an insufficient inventory of replacement parts. I may not have listed these deficiencies in the proper order of importance. For example, lack of certain replacement parts meant that some owners had to leave their cars at the dealer for days, or even weeks. For those who had this experience, lack of parts could have been the primary reason for not buying another Renault.
VW had gained a reputation as a solid and durable, if quirky, little car with a good dealer network, including well-trained mechanics and an ample parts inventory. In comparison, Renault hadn't done its homework in these critical areas. Renault may have viewed the U.S. market as a vast, convenient dumping ground for it's growing production capacity, where VW took a more disciplined, long-term view of this export opportunity. That's the way it appeared, at least. Confidence in Renault declined as a result of these things. I imagine VW had a much higher percentage of loyal, repeat customers than Renault in the '60s. Renault persisted with new models, the R-8 and R-10, which were arguably better than the Dauphine, although maybe not by much.
I remember going car shopping with my folks in '68, we looked at the Opel Kadett (the year CandD reviewed it, picturing it in a junkyard, it's future home) and a Renault (would it have been a 12 in '68?). Luckily we went for a '68 Valiant, slant 6, my brother ended up using it for more than 10 years, no major problems.
The VW bug was definitely put together better than a Dauphine, but "on paper", the Dauphine outperformed the VW bug in every category, including handling, certainly comfort, braking, acceleration, fuel economy, (up to 40 mpg) you name it. They were not absolutely defective and doomed cars like the Vega, and some of my friends got some good mileages out of them---but these were gearheads who knew how to maintain a fussy car.
Americans were, and perhaps still are, negligent car owners because their cars were not fussy---they were simple and rugged. Put them into a foreign car in the 1960s and things got ugly quickly, if they were not mechanically minded.
it is no coincidence that the VW bug developed a cult of DIYers, thanks to John Muir and a few others. Too bad the Dauphine never developed a similar legion of wrench-benders. Renaults buyers were not DIYers at all, and compounding that with poor service and parts, and the car was doomed.
But pound for pound, the Dauphine was a much better conceived and designed car than a VW by a long shot---but alas, in the "execution" of the concept, things went horribly wrong.
On the positive note, there is no American company that today can match Renault's Formula 1 records. Renault is not a two-bit player, but they played like one in America. Even in the 1960s, the Renault R8 won some brutal world rallies, something a 60s American car would have found hard to do.
When did Renault start selling cars in the US? I think I read somewhere that VW started in 1949, and had a grand total of TWO sales that year!
I'm sure either a Dauphine or a Bug would be a torture chamber for anyone used to a big domestic product of the time, but just from looking at the two, I think the Dauphine looks to be a more substantial car, what with being bigger and having 4 doors. Plus, it just looks more modern. The Beetle, well, it looks like the 1930's era car that it is! The Dauphine at least looks like something from maybe 1952.
According to HowStuffWorks, a 1957 Dauphine base priced for around $1645...about $150 more than a base VW Bug. Considering that you could get a stripper Chevy, Ford, or Plymouth for around $1900-2000 that year, those little cars don't really seem like much of a value. Unless you really prized fuel economy. Those 30-32 second 0-60 times really scare me, too. In those days a 6-cyl Ford/Chevy/Plymouth would at least be ale to do 0-60 in around 16-17 seconds, while the base V-8's were probably around 11-13.
I guess those little cars weren't bad though if you didn't try to take them on the highway, where you'd need the power to accelerate and merge. Wikipedia mentions a supercharger, offered as a $165 option in 1958, that was designed to be installed in about two hours, with no chassis or body modifications. I wonder how much that helped performance, or if it sacrificed engine durability?
The difference in driving experience between a Dauphine and a VW Bug is dramatic. The Dauphine is smooth and quiet, has a great heater and is cute rather than ugly.
I think the appeal back then was the car's maneuverability in traffic, ease of parking, and fun-factor. It's really a fun car to drive.
Remember this was the late 1950s, when American cars had reached an absurdity of size and garishness. They were often the subject of mockery in the press and in cartoons because of their excesses in design. The Dauphine was, like the VW, a second car for putting around, and also a great "first new car" for newlyweds.
The American "compacts" were HUGE in comparison, and felt like big cars. They really didn't offer the driver any different an experience, and they had the same unruly road manners of their larger brethren.
Going from an American car to a foreign car BACK THEN was like stepping into another universe. We today do not experience this. Controls, etc are pretty much standardized. But back then, you could have shifters in the dash, on the floor, on the column, turn signals on the right, on the left, steering wheels with one spoke, speedos that ran right to left, toggle switches for wipers, a heater activated by a pull cable, manual chokes, dual carbs...lotsa neat weird stuff on foreign cars.
...yellow-beige 1978 or '79 Mercury Zephyr coupe with that weird "basket handle" roof. When's the last time you saw one of them? They used to be dirt-common. They also had that super-stupid turn signal stalk mounted horn.
Well I doubt many are being held by collectors. That horn turn signal thing was dumb. I found the GM turn signal wiper control problematic as well, and you had to replace the entire unit when something went wrong. The late 70's early 80's was kind of a low point in cars I think. Other than the nice downsizing of GM full sized cars, can't think of much that was decent back then.
Which brand was the first to come out with all that stuff on the turn signal stalk, anyway? The earliest I've really noticed it was on 1979 Chryslers. They put the windshield wiper on the stalk and if you got cruise control, it was on there, too.
Now that I think about it, I believe the cruise control for my '69 Bonneville was on the stalk, although the windshield wiper controls were still on the dash. The cruise didn't work on that car by the time I got it, but I don't think it did very much. IIRC it just had a button you pressed in and held for a few seconds and then it would maintain whatever speed you were at. I don't think it had an actual on/off, and I don't think it had "resume", either.
I know the MB W116 had wipers on the stalk, this car came out in 1972. It also had a cruise stalk, but headlights have always been on the dash for MB, I can't think of an exception.
>I'm sure either a Dauphine or a Bug would be a torture chamber for anyone used to a big domestic product of the time,
I recall a relative and her husband having a VW beetle, black. I drove it down the road and back maybe before I had my license. I recall they were in an accident going home to Michigan in the city of Ft. Wayne. She went through the windshield. They never considered another VW.
Many people talked about having to stop and adjust the valves or work on the motor regularly when taking a trip of a couple hundred miles or less.
other than about a million harley's, i saw an early 50's tomato red chevy convertible with a white top. also green studebaker lark and next to it, a really nice metallic green cadillac 4 door hardtop. i am guessing a 66. the day before, a 7 up edition mustang with the top down.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
Spotted a MB C140 today...not the most common car.
The other day I saw a Volvo 242GT coupe. It was excellent...engine noise that sounded like a blender full of rocks, and it was emitting more fumes than my fintail could even dream of at initial startup.
Speaking of Harleys, one thing I like the changing of the seasons - more rain and cold weather makes for less Harleys.
Edit: and right after I post this, a black 61 Ford 4 door HT, the "formal" style, drives by.
Speaking of Harleys, one thing I like the changing of the seasons - more rain and cold weather makes for less Harleys.
Yesterday I went for a walk and while I was walking, I got a phone call. It was a nice day, so the Harleys were out, making it occasionally impossible to converse on the phone. Makes me wish that the "Law" would enforce the excessive noise statutes that they were so keen about when I was a kid.
Shiftright once said something to the effect that: "Motorcycles should be just as loud as the rider wants, as long as the pipes are routed through the helmet!" :P
We all know that "law enforcement" is selective, especially as many "law" types are also Harley owners :shades:
The one that gets me is the riders who will claim the noise is what makes them more visible to other cars. Sorry, the SUV driver yapping on the phone and eating that big mac while reaching for a kid (you know, the one who will hit a biker) or the 90 year old driver has tuned you out or simply can't hear you at all.
"... the Dauphine outperformed the VW bug in every category..."
I didn't think the performance difference was as significant as you describe it, but I defer to you on this.
"Americans were, and perhaps still are, negligent car owners..."
This is an important point, in terms of the durability problems Americans experienced with many European cars. It's not that these cars couldn't be driven fast, for their capabilities, but they didn't do well when driven roughly or negligently, and weren't properly maintained. I believe the Dauphine held up much better with European drivers than the American Experience suggested. The same could be said of Fiats. Fiats weren't considered so problematic in Italy, France and Spain, even though they were frequently driven in a spirited manner, or even dangerously fast for the conditions, especially in Italy.
Many American drivers tended to lug small displacement European engines big time, frequently out of laziness or ignorance. For example, American cars could be driven around a city corner in 3rd gear, without downshifting. Not that this was good practice, but American drivetrains could take this kind of abuse. Small European cars weren't designed for this style of driving. Instead of mashing the accelerator to regain speed after a 90 degree turn, you needed to downshift the Dauphine, and depress the accelerator as the car gained speed. Driven in the manner they were designed to be driven, which included not driving flat out or nearly so over long distances on the interstates, Dauphines and Fiats lasted longer than their reputations here suggested.
"some of my friends got some good mileages out of them---but these were gearheads who knew how to maintain a fussy car."
I imagine that their driving style also contributed to the longevity.
I also seem to recall reading that Renault engines were relatively easy to overhaul. Is that accurate?
Some time in the late '40s or '50s, Renault exported a few 4CVs to the U.S. That model was the predecessor to the Dauphine. It was smaller than the Dauphine, although it seated four, and had a 750 cc engine, 100 cc less than the Dauphine. Like the Beetle, it was a quirky looking thing, but also kind of cute in its own way. Check it out on Google.
Zero-60 performance has always been more important to Americans than to European drivers. I don't think it's only because American cars were traditionally quicker off the line. I think it's due more to driving style. At the risk of generalizing here, I think European drivers tended to get their jollies more from cornering fast and exhibiting their bravado on the road than at stoplights. Tire squeal in Europe was more frequently a result of fast cornering than "peeling out." Well, okay, between its low torque and the engine over the drive wheels, you couldn't really peel out in a Dauphine, even if you wanted to. My point, though, is that I don't think this mattered too much to aggressive European drivers compared to aggressive American drivers.
"Many American drivers tended to lug small displacement European engines big time, frequently out of laziness or ignorance."
Good point, and it still happens. I've posted on a thread elsewhere, trying to assure a new Acura TSX owner that it's OK to rev her 6 speed manual over 4000 rpm. She seemed convinced she was hurting it, even though it redlines at 7000 rpm!
Surprising that someone who would choose a manual would be scared to rev it, especially knowing how Honda engines are natural revvers. Their previous ride must have been a 6 speed GTO or something.
I know Shifty has said a few times old MB I6 were frequently lugged down to the point where they would foul the plugs, as the average 1960s era MB owner was used to American V8s. I shift my automatic car manually much of the time to keep it at a higher rpm - it's just happier there.
...beautiful silver 1969 Buick Skylark 4-door hardtop with black vinyl roof in an alleyway off Oxford Avenue in NE Philly. I should've stopped and seen if it was for sale.
When I worked at Honda I had a middle aged lady come in to test drive a used S2000 because she wanted a convertible. She said she heard good things about the car and that it was supposed to be quick.
We got in the car and she started driving and was shifting at 3500rpm, being in 4th gear already at only 40 mph. She turned to me and said she doesn't know what's so special about this car. I tell her to pull over so that we can switch. I would drive, she would watch how this car was supposed to be driven.
We got up to speed and I kept the engine revving past 5500rpm before shifting so she could feel the Vtec kick in. Once the car was up to speed and the engine screaming, and I was shifting at about 6500rpm, she then saw what was so special about the car. :shades:
But I think she wanted something calmer like a PT Convertible or a Sebring convertible.
yeah this is a continuing problem with American drivers but I think the younger generation knows better how to rev up a car.
The Renault Dauphine engine was a wet-sleeve IIRC, so easy to rebuild yeah. VW engines had to be rebuilt every 50,000 or so. Not sure why, since a BMW motorcycle engine would do double that easily. Cheesier parts, no doubt.
I always find it disturbing when someone suggests that a VW bug engine is "just like" a Porsche engine of that period. The Porsche engine, disassembled, looked like fine jewelry next to naked VW engine parts.
"I always find it disturbing when someone suggests that a VW bug engine is "just like" a Porsche engine of that period. "
Recently saw a show on HD theater call 'VW emergency" or something like that, where some Brits were getting a custom old Bug ready for a show. They had a friend come by to rebuild the engine, he did it in the back yard on the grass, small set of tools, ran fine :surprise: Somehow don't see somebody rebuilding a 911 engine on the grass, not and have it run...
A middle aged lady who wanted to drive a stick...that alone is something to remember! :shades:
I can't imagine someone closer to my mother's age than me even wanting to sit in such a car.
I swear, my fintail feels twice as fast when I select the upshift timing. If a person shifts a manual at the same times as a traditional auto, they are going to kill a lot of the benefit.
I'm embarrassed to say that I knew It was something relating to "sleeve" that the Dauphine engine featured, but I couldn't remember the term wet-sleeve. Since I'm an armchair car enthusiast, but a lousy mechanic, I'd appreciate an explanation of what this feature meant in practical terms. As I understand it, Shifty, changing the rings, and maybe the pistons too, required less labor, but I'm not clear on the details.
Wasn't it unusual for a Dauphine engine to go 50,000 between overhauls, in the U.S.? That's my perception, but I don't have any evidence to back this up. Maybe in France 50,000 miles, or more, between overhauls wasn't so uncommon, but, again, I'm only guessing.
"...a 1957 Dauphine base priced for around $1645...about $150 more than a base VW Bug. Considering that you could get a stripper Chevy, Ford, or Plymouth for around $1900-2000 that year, those little cars don't really seem like much of a value."
In terms of pure value, for most people and families, you're right. But as Shifty pointed out regarding the Dauphine, "...the appeal back then was the car's maneuverability in traffic, ease of parking, and fun-factor. It's really a fun car to drive.
Remember this was the late 1950s, when American cars had reached an absurdity of size and garishness. They were often the subject of mockery in the press and in cartoons because of their excesses in design. The Dauphine was, like the VW, a second car for putting around, and also a great "first new car" for newlyweds.
The American 'compacts' were HUGE in comparison, and felt like big cars. They really didn't offer the driver any different an experience, and they had the same unruly road manners of their larger brethren."
I would differ some with Shifty on his last paragraph, but his points are very relevant to the mid-late '50s. Americans were pretty much limited to two size extremes, the huge domestic cars and the subcompact European ones. There was the Henry J, by Kaiser, and AMC and Studebaker made some lighter, less large models, but these were pretty much bottom feeder choices. Regardless of what you thought of the Falcon, Corvair and Valiant, they greatly expanded the choices.
Oh the wet sleeve engine---yeah, that's an engine that has cylinder liners---hollow tubes of steel that are, in fact, the cylinder bores. So when the engine needs rebuiding, rather than boring out the block, you just press out the old wet sleeves and install standard size pistons and rings all over again.
Since the Renault was a water cooled engine, it tended to be sturdier than the air-cooled VW, which, with its small and buried oil cooler, was doomed to failure on #3 cylinder....and also very prone to damage should one get the timing wrong and create "pinging".
American compacts behaved better than their large brethren in terms of not having to steer and brake quite the same amount of massive weight, but they were not in the least "sporty" or fun to drive unless maybe you had a convertible and drove it carefully in a straight line, or unless you didn't mind tire squeal, fading brakes and car sickness, and winding the steering wheel like it was a crank handle on a hook and ladder truck. :P
Probably the Valiant had the best handling of its type. The Corvair handled sharper, but without the right tire pressures, tended to flip over. The 60 Falcon was pretty pathetic from an engineering point of view and the Studebaker Lark, while quite successful, was the product of a dying company, and it showed.
Remember the foreign cars offered disk brakes (some of them), 4-speed floor shifts, and radial tires, items that you'll never see on a 1960 American compact.
I remember attempts to make these compacts sporty. There was the 1965 Fitch Corvair, a GREAT handling and braking car, and the 65 Valiant with 4-speed floor shift and the Falcon Sprint with V-8 and 4-speed. The Fitch was much better than either of the others as a "sports" car, but it wasn't a factory car exactly.
Thanks for the explanation regarding the cylinder liners.
It seemed that each of the domestic compacts had one thing or another that prevented them from being fun. For example, I agree that the Valiant had the best handling, but until '65 the transmission choices a 3-speed manual with a crummy shift linkage (at least the shift lever was on the floor, but that's not saying much) or the push-button Torque-Flyte automatic. The Torque-Flyte was an excellent automatic, and distinguished itself from the Corvair and Falcon automatics by being the only one with three speeds. But, it sure wasn't fun to drive.
I'd say the Corvair Monza with the 4-speed, if you were mindful of its handling pitfalls, was the most fun to drive of the first generation Big 3 compacts. You seem to imply this too. The Falcon Sprint V8 had some sporty attributes and design cues, but the steering retained much of that uncommunicative, slow old Detroit feel to it. It also came to market later.
Yeah, I don't think it would be fair to compare the Fitch Corvair with the others.
I saw two obscurities. First was what I think was a 1935 or so Chevy 2-door sedan. I'm not really up on my 30's cars, but it looked low-end, but didn't look like a Ford. I guess it could've been a Plymouth though. It was white, had modern tires on it, and my guess is that it had a Chevy smallblock under the hood. Not that I could tell from the sound, but that just seems to be the default.
Then, making a right turn off my home street onto the main road, a '55 Chevy 2-door wagon (not a Nomad). Main body was kind of a tomato orange/red, with a white top and accent. Looked pretty nice. I've seen this one around before, so I think it lives close by.
I doubt that was the case in general, I dumped my '65 Beetle 1200 at about 44K but not because I had any indication that the engine was shot. I was just tired of driving such a REALLY SLOW car (0-60 in 29 sec!). The motor in my old Bug never burned any oil, or leaked it and appeared to have as much power as ever (which is to say not much).
I didn't baby that car either, in nice weather I seldom took my right foot off the full throttle position.
I traded the Beetle on a TR-4A which did have significant engine issues by the time it approached 50K, it leaked oil out of the rear main seal and burned oil as well (400 mi per quart).
That said I doubt a VW engine rebuild went much more than $500.
Maybe it's a crusher. That would have saved a lot of people some misery.
VW engines---the bad thing about them is that they disintegrated almost instantly and without any prior warning. One day----fine---the next----KABOOM! :surprise:
On the positive side, they were pretty easy to rebuild and are still just about the CHEAPEST rebuilt engine on the market.
Just don't count on one mile over 50-60K. I'd even offer the radical advice of rebuilding or replacing the engine at 50K as a preventative measure. It would cost no more than a BMW starter and alternator. :P
I bet with the build quality of those things, they'd have to be shipped dry. It can't be good for an engine to be stored like that full of fluids, can it?
I have to admit I think the wagons are actually halfway decent looking cars...horrible to own and probably not much better to drive...but design-wise, it's not bad.
Comments
A safe bet would be on wagering neither that exact Stag nor the Jags are on the road today. Of course, the 12 and the Vegas are likely long gone too.
By contrast, mechanics might have snickered at the sight of a yet another disabled Vega, but at least the fact that it was a Chevy would have made them more agreeable to lift the hood. Also, parts weren't an issue.
Finally, as long as we're describing a nightmare, can we agree that every mechanic in Podunk, Nowheresville had some missing and rotting teeth?
Geez, what a choice for a cross country trip. You can take the Renault and blow up one engine and wait 5 weeks to get another, or take a Vega and blow up 5 engines and wait one week for each one. :P
The Dauphine had three advantages over the Beetle, These were better fuel economy, two extra doors, and cute styling, for those who wanted something that looked more conventional than the Beetle's counter culture design. I have no idea of the order of importance of these advantages.
I'm thinking that one other possible advantage (a disadvantage to some, especially enthusiasts) was that the Dauphine had a 3-speed manual instead of the Beetle's 4-speed. I'm saying this could have been an advantage because Americans were more familiar with 3-speed manuals than 4, since that was what had been featured on domestic cars for years. By the '50s, though, the gearshift on the manuals of domestic cars had long since moved to the column, whereas the Dauphine's was on the floor.
Performance wise, I think the Beetle and the Dauphine were pretty comparable, although the Dauphine's engine was a water cooled ~850 c.i. OHV I-4. To compensate for displacement deficit and one less gear, the Dauphine's engine was more stressed than the Beetle's. I'm too lazy to look up weights now, but I think the Dauphine also weighed a little less than the Beetle. It was definitely tinnier.
So why did the Dauphine lose it's sales lead? Poor durability and quality. These deficits were greatly compounded by lousy dealership service departments and an insufficient inventory of replacement parts. I may not have listed these deficiencies in the proper order of importance. For example, lack of certain replacement parts meant that some owners had to leave their cars at the dealer for days, or even weeks. For those who had this experience, lack of parts could have been the primary reason for not buying another Renault.
VW had gained a reputation as a solid and durable, if quirky, little car with a good dealer network, including well-trained mechanics and an ample parts inventory. In comparison, Renault hadn't done its homework in these critical areas. Renault may have viewed the U.S. market as a vast, convenient dumping ground for it's growing production capacity, where VW took a more disciplined, long-term view of this export opportunity. That's the way it appeared, at least. Confidence in Renault declined as a result of these things. I imagine VW had a much higher percentage of loyal, repeat customers than Renault in the '60s. Renault persisted with new models, the R-8 and R-10, which were arguably better than the Dauphine, although maybe not by much.
Americans were, and perhaps still are, negligent car owners because their cars were not fussy---they were simple and rugged. Put them into a foreign car in the 1960s and things got ugly quickly, if they were not mechanically minded.
it is no coincidence that the VW bug developed a cult of DIYers, thanks to John Muir and a few others. Too bad the Dauphine never developed a similar legion of wrench-benders. Renaults buyers were not DIYers at all, and compounding that with poor service and parts, and the car was doomed.
But pound for pound, the Dauphine was a much better conceived and designed car than a VW by a long shot---but alas, in the "execution" of the concept, things went horribly wrong.
On the positive note, there is no American company that today can match Renault's Formula 1 records. Renault is not a two-bit player, but they played like one in America. Even in the 1960s, the Renault R8 won some brutal world rallies, something a 60s American car would have found hard to do.
I'm sure either a Dauphine or a Bug would be a torture chamber for anyone used to a big domestic product of the time, but just from looking at the two, I think the Dauphine looks to be a more substantial car, what with being bigger and having 4 doors. Plus, it just looks more modern. The Beetle, well, it looks like the 1930's era car that it is! The Dauphine at least looks like something from maybe 1952.
According to HowStuffWorks, a 1957 Dauphine base priced for around $1645...about $150 more than a base VW Bug. Considering that you could get a stripper Chevy, Ford, or Plymouth for around $1900-2000 that year, those little cars don't really seem like much of a value. Unless you really prized fuel economy. Those 30-32 second 0-60 times really scare me, too. In those days a 6-cyl Ford/Chevy/Plymouth would at least be ale to do 0-60 in around 16-17 seconds, while the base V-8's were probably around 11-13.
I guess those little cars weren't bad though if you didn't try to take them on the highway, where you'd need the power to accelerate and merge. Wikipedia mentions a supercharger, offered as a $165 option in 1958, that was designed to be installed in about two hours, with no chassis or body modifications. I wonder how much that helped performance, or if it sacrificed engine durability?
I think the appeal back then was the car's maneuverability in traffic, ease of parking, and fun-factor. It's really a fun car to drive.
Remember this was the late 1950s, when American cars had reached an absurdity of size and garishness. They were often the subject of mockery in the press and in cartoons because of their excesses in design. The Dauphine was, like the VW, a second car for putting around, and also a great "first new car" for newlyweds.
The American "compacts" were HUGE in comparison, and felt like big cars. They really didn't offer the driver any different an experience, and they had the same unruly road manners of their larger brethren.
Going from an American car to a foreign car BACK THEN was like stepping into another universe. We today do not experience this. Controls, etc are pretty much standardized. But back then, you could have shifters in the dash, on the floor, on the column, turn signals on the right, on the left, steering wheels with one spoke, speedos that ran right to left, toggle switches for wipers, a heater activated by a pull cable, manual chokes, dual carbs...lotsa neat weird stuff on foreign cars.
Now that I think about it, I believe the cruise control for my '69 Bonneville was on the stalk, although the windshield wiper controls were still on the dash. The cruise didn't work on that car by the time I got it, but I don't think it did very much. IIRC it just had a button you pressed in and held for a few seconds and then it would maintain whatever speed you were at. I don't think it had an actual on/off, and I don't think it had "resume", either.
I recall a relative and her husband having a VW beetle, black. I drove it down the road and back maybe before I had my license. I recall they were in an accident going home to Michigan in the city of Ft. Wayne. She went through the windshield. They never considered another VW.
Many people talked about having to stop and adjust the valves or work on the motor regularly when taking a trip of a couple hundred miles or less.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
also green studebaker lark and next to it, a really nice metallic green cadillac 4 door hardtop. i am guessing a 66.
the day before, a 7 up edition mustang with the top down.
The other day I saw a Volvo 242GT coupe. It was excellent...engine noise that sounded like a blender full of rocks, and it was emitting more fumes than my fintail could even dream of at initial startup.
Speaking of Harleys, one thing I like the changing of the seasons - more rain and cold weather makes for less Harleys.
Edit: and right after I post this, a black 61 Ford 4 door HT, the "formal" style, drives by.
Yesterday I went for a walk and while I was walking, I got a phone call. It was a nice day, so the Harleys were out, making it occasionally impossible to converse on the phone. Makes me wish that the "Law" would enforce the excessive noise statutes that they were so keen about when I was a kid.
Shiftright once said something to the effect that: "Motorcycles should be just as loud as the rider wants, as long as the pipes are routed through the helmet!" :P
The one that gets me is the riders who will claim the noise is what makes them more visible to other cars. Sorry, the SUV driver yapping on the phone and eating that big mac while reaching for a kid (you know, the one who will hit a biker) or the 90 year old driver has tuned you out or simply can't hear you at all.
I didn't think the performance difference was as significant as you describe it, but I defer to you on this.
"Americans were, and perhaps still are, negligent car owners..."
This is an important point, in terms of the durability problems Americans experienced with many European cars. It's not that these cars couldn't be driven fast, for their capabilities, but they didn't do well when driven roughly or negligently, and weren't properly maintained. I believe the Dauphine held up much better with European drivers than the American Experience suggested. The same could be said of Fiats. Fiats weren't considered so problematic in Italy, France and Spain, even though they were frequently driven in a spirited manner, or even dangerously fast for the conditions, especially in Italy.
Many American drivers tended to lug small displacement European engines big time, frequently out of laziness or ignorance. For example, American cars could be driven around a city corner in 3rd gear, without downshifting. Not that this was good practice, but American drivetrains could take this kind of abuse. Small European cars weren't designed for this style of driving. Instead of mashing the accelerator to regain speed after a 90 degree turn, you needed to downshift the Dauphine, and depress the accelerator as the car gained speed. Driven in the manner they were designed to be driven, which included not driving flat out or nearly so over long distances on the interstates, Dauphines and Fiats lasted longer than their reputations here suggested.
"some of my friends got some good mileages out of them---but these were gearheads who knew how to maintain a fussy car."
I imagine that their driving style also contributed to the longevity.
I also seem to recall reading that Renault engines were relatively easy to overhaul. Is that accurate?
Zero-60 performance has always been more important to Americans than to European drivers. I don't think it's only because American cars were traditionally quicker off the line. I think it's due more to driving style. At the risk of generalizing here, I think European drivers tended to get their jollies more from cornering fast and exhibiting their bravado on the road than at stoplights. Tire squeal in Europe was more frequently a result of fast cornering than "peeling out." Well, okay, between its low torque and the engine over the drive wheels, you couldn't really peel out in a Dauphine, even if you wanted to. My point, though, is that I don't think this mattered too much to aggressive European drivers compared to aggressive American drivers.
Good point, and it still happens. I've posted on a thread elsewhere, trying to assure a new Acura TSX owner that it's OK to rev her 6 speed manual over 4000 rpm. She seemed convinced she was hurting it, even though it redlines at 7000 rpm!
I know Shifty has said a few times old MB I6 were frequently lugged down to the point where they would foul the plugs, as the average 1960s era MB owner was used to American V8s. I shift my automatic car manually much of the time to keep it at a higher rpm - it's just happier there.
We got in the car and she started driving and was shifting at 3500rpm, being in 4th gear already at only 40 mph. She turned to me and said she doesn't know what's so special about this car. I tell her to pull over so that we can switch. I would drive, she would watch how this car was supposed to be driven.
We got up to speed and I kept the engine revving past 5500rpm before shifting so she could feel the Vtec kick in. Once the car was up to speed and the engine screaming, and I was shifting at about 6500rpm, she then saw what was so special about the car. :shades:
But I think she wanted something calmer like a PT Convertible or a Sebring convertible.
2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX
The Renault Dauphine engine was a wet-sleeve IIRC, so easy to rebuild yeah. VW engines had to be rebuilt every 50,000 or so. Not sure why, since a BMW motorcycle engine would do double that easily. Cheesier parts, no doubt.
I always find it disturbing when someone suggests that a VW bug engine is "just like" a Porsche engine of that period. The Porsche engine, disassembled, looked like fine jewelry next to naked VW engine parts.
Recently saw a show on HD theater call 'VW emergency" or something like that, where some Brits were getting a custom old Bug ready for a show. They had a friend come by to rebuild the engine, he did it in the back yard on the grass, small set of tools, ran fine :surprise: Somehow don't see somebody rebuilding a 911 engine on the grass, not and have it run...
I can't imagine someone closer to my mother's age than me even wanting to sit in such a car.
I swear, my fintail feels twice as fast when I select the upshift timing. If a person shifts a manual at the same times as a traditional auto, they are going to kill a lot of the benefit.
Wasn't it unusual for a Dauphine engine to go 50,000 between overhauls, in the U.S.? That's my perception, but I don't have any evidence to back this up. Maybe in France 50,000 miles, or more, between overhauls wasn't so uncommon, but, again, I'm only guessing.
In terms of pure value, for most people and families, you're right. But as Shifty pointed out regarding the Dauphine, "...the appeal back then was the car's maneuverability in traffic, ease of parking, and fun-factor. It's really a fun car to drive.
Remember this was the late 1950s, when American cars had reached an absurdity of size and garishness. They were often the subject of mockery in the press and in cartoons because of their excesses in design. The Dauphine was, like the VW, a second car for putting around, and also a great "first new car" for newlyweds.
The American 'compacts' were HUGE in comparison, and felt like big cars. They really didn't offer the driver any different an experience, and they had the same unruly road manners of their larger brethren."
I would differ some with Shifty on his last paragraph, but his points are very relevant to the mid-late '50s. Americans were pretty much limited to two size extremes, the huge domestic cars and the subcompact European ones. There was the Henry J, by Kaiser, and AMC and Studebaker made some lighter, less large models, but these were pretty much bottom feeder choices. Regardless of what you thought of the Falcon, Corvair and Valiant, they greatly expanded the choices.
Since the Renault was a water cooled engine, it tended to be sturdier than the air-cooled VW, which, with its small and buried oil cooler, was doomed to failure on #3 cylinder....and also very prone to damage should one get the timing wrong and create "pinging".
American compacts behaved better than their large brethren in terms of not having to steer and brake quite the same amount of massive weight, but they were not in the least "sporty" or fun to drive unless maybe you had a convertible and drove it carefully in a straight line, or unless you didn't mind tire squeal, fading brakes and car sickness, and winding the steering wheel like it was a crank handle on a hook and ladder truck. :P
Probably the Valiant had the best handling of its type. The Corvair handled sharper, but without the right tire pressures, tended to flip over. The 60 Falcon was pretty pathetic from an engineering point of view and the Studebaker Lark, while quite successful, was the product of a dying company, and it showed.
Remember the foreign cars offered disk brakes (some of them), 4-speed floor shifts, and radial tires, items that you'll never see on a 1960 American compact.
I remember attempts to make these compacts sporty. There was the 1965 Fitch Corvair, a GREAT handling and braking car, and the 65 Valiant with 4-speed floor shift and the Falcon Sprint with V-8 and 4-speed. The Fitch was much better than either of the others as a "sports" car, but it wasn't a factory car exactly.
http://www.golsn.com/listings/automotive/cars-trucks/1116925.html
http://www.golsn.com/listings/automotive/cars-trucks/1115503.html
It seemed that each of the domestic compacts had one thing or another that prevented them from being fun. For example, I agree that the Valiant had the best handling, but until '65 the transmission choices a 3-speed manual with a crummy shift linkage (at least the shift lever was on the floor, but that's not saying much) or the push-button Torque-Flyte automatic. The Torque-Flyte was an excellent automatic, and distinguished itself from the Corvair and Falcon automatics by being the only one with three speeds. But, it sure wasn't fun to drive.
I'd say the Corvair Monza with the 4-speed, if you were mindful of its handling pitfalls, was the most fun to drive of the first generation Big 3 compacts. You seem to imply this too. The Falcon Sprint V8 had some sporty attributes and design cues, but the steering retained much of that uncommunicative, slow old Detroit feel to it. It also came to market later.
Yeah, I don't think it would be fair to compare the Fitch Corvair with the others.
http://www.golsn.com/listings/automotive/cars-trucks/1116574.html
Then, making a right turn off my home street onto the main road, a '55 Chevy 2-door wagon (not a Nomad). Main body was kind of a tomato orange/red, with a white top and accent. Looked pretty nice. I've seen this one around before, so I think it lives close by.
http://www.golsn.com/listings/automotive/cars-trucks/1015640.html
I doubt that was the case in general, I dumped my '65 Beetle 1200 at about 44K but not because I had any indication that the engine was shot. I was just tired of driving such a REALLY SLOW car (0-60 in 29 sec!). The motor in my old Bug never burned any oil, or leaked it and appeared to have as much power as ever (which is to say not much).
I didn't baby that car either, in nice weather I seldom took my right foot off the full throttle position.
I traded the Beetle on a TR-4A which did have significant engine issues by the time it approached 50K, it leaked oil out of the rear main seal and burned oil as well (400 mi per quart).
That said I doubt a VW engine rebuild went much more than $500.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Wagons
Coupes and wagons
I wouldn't want my car shipped like this
also, I never realized how much an earliey vega kamback (wagon) looks, in profile (especially the rear 1/4 with the vents) like aVolvo 1800ES
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX
VW engines---the bad thing about them is that they disintegrated almost instantly and without any prior warning. One day----fine---the next----KABOOM! :surprise:
On the positive side, they were pretty easy to rebuild and are still just about the CHEAPEST rebuilt engine on the market.
Just don't count on one mile over 50-60K. I'd even offer the radical advice of rebuilding or replacing the engine at 50K as a preventative measure. It would cost no more than a BMW starter and alternator. :P
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
I have to admit I think the wagons are actually halfway decent looking cars...horrible to own and probably not much better to drive...but design-wise, it's not bad.
The ONLY Vega to ever achieve collector car status!
I've also seen V-8 transplants, but generally those are Franken-cars.