...or at least it would be if it had survived.
Never a car I fancied, but according to the Telegraph article linked below it was Renault's best ever seller. The handling must have been "interesting" with one wheelbase 3" shorter than the other, and is it an illusion in that picture or are the rear wheels smaller than the front?
www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/classiccars/8311624/50-years-of-the-Renault-4.html
Last edited by: Robin Regal on Wed 16 Feb 11 at 12:08
|
|
I owned a couple of them in past, all the wheels on mine were the same size but not equally spaced around the body. Good fun to drive, remember to keep the door handles off the road when cornering. :-)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Wed 16 Feb 11 at 12:14
|
Great comment to that article about the Renault 6: "It was a dreadful car and I absolutely loved it."
A comment I could make about most of the cars I've owned.
I was a regular user of a 4 in sanctions era Yugoslavia and it never let us down. It was an ancient shed of the highest order, but 7 hour journies up the mountains, 5 people on board? No problem.
|
R4s were a fixture in my parental household until 1988 but I had no idea about the uneven wheelbase. (Wikipedia tells me this permitted fore-and-aft nesting of the rear torsion bars.) I dimly remember the first one, a three-speed de Luxe from 1964, with basketwork decoration along the sides and seats made of canvas suspended on steel-tube frames. I can barely imagine what features the base model had to do without.
By contrast the final 1981 GTL felt like a proper car. I actually drove that one; the gear linkage was an aluminium tube that reached over the engine and down to the gearbox, and felt much more positive than the cables and pulleys of the conventional fwd cars I'd learned in.
|
It was originally a sort of slightly up market 'me too' ripoff of the 2CV. It lacked the 2CV's minimalist perfection of design but was without doubt preferable as a car, and a bit faster too.
I always liked the fact that the wheelbase was longer on one side than the other. It can't have been perceptible to drivers in handling or roadholding terms. The thing was a gutless trolley, not a BTCC racer for god's sake. The difference was to accommodate the two rear torsion bars, as long as the car was wide. French logic said, damn symmetry, it won't make any difference, just put the torsion bars one in front of the other, job done. Chapeau!
Many years ago I illegally murdered a roe deer in a field near here where I had no right to shoot anything. One of my wife's cousins insisted on loading the beast onto the roof of his R4 and parading it triumphantly round several neighbouring roads, in the dark fortunately. The weight up there made the car lean over even more than usual, but the meat supply for 100 meals didn't fall off.
I did feel sorry for the deer and a bit guilty, but got a lot of credit for supplying it.
|
I loved 'em all. 4/5/6...basically the same floor pan and mechanics .
I was a white van man 'til a couple of years ago. My van went to a guy in Lincolnshire who had another one.
s479.photobucket.com/albums/rr152/1400ted/R4/?action=view¤t=S8300261.jpg
Damn useful bit of kit while I had it. Opening roof flap such a good idea for ladders, etc.
1100cc Sierra engine and umbrella gearchange. Went OK and cornered on rails.
All wheels were same size...I think the one in the photo has a bigger tyre on the front. I ran on 145/13 Colways....£15 each.
Needed more restoration so had to go !
Ted
|
>>I was a white van man 'til a couple of years ago.
>>
I did like its name on the back.
|
|
wasn't there van rouge as well?
|
>> wasn't there van rouge as well?
>>
He nicked the idea from Citroen. The first Visa/C15 vans they sold here in either red or white had labels 'Van blanc' or 'Van rouge'.
|
I ran one for work in the early '70s. SWY 606F was a white 6-volt example. Comfy with plenty of room and ridiculously economical. Mine had an unexplained appetite for clutch cables. Sold it in the middle of the petrol crisis for a small profit and bought a Jag S-type. Although I am partial to Citroens, the R4 was a much more civilised vehicle than the 2CV and Dyane IMO.
The unequal wheelbase transverse torsion bar rear suspension also featured on the Renault 16.
|
Renaults were ones for uneven wheelbases. I seem to recall the 21 had different wheelbases depending on whether the engine was a transverse petrol or in-line diesel.
Our neighbours had an R4 and I spent many a day squashed into it in the school run with 4 other bods. Very smooth suspension, but not 'left-field' enough to have affection bestowed on it like the 2CV.
|
A month or so back I started a thread suggesting if there was a market for a 'Tesco value car' on sale today. Something mechanically simple, cheap, for no frills motoring for those on a tight budget. A modern equivalent of the R4 would fit the bill perfeclty with its simple suspension, hermetically sealed engine and basic interior.
I guess though the airbags and other safety gizmo's we all need and expect would weigh it down and bulk it out.
|
That looks a nice one...Ventoux engine at that age, gearchange has a different gate.
Had a 6 like that...great little car.
How about a modern replica 4, well 20 yrs old now.
s479.photobucket.com/albums/rr152/1400ted/4rep/?action=view¤t=rep4.jpg
Ted
|
|
Nice. A 2CV of that age/standard would be much more money.
|
|
In 1972/3 I worked on the construction of part of the M62. The site foreman had an R4 van that was abused mercilessly, never broke as far as I know, and seemed less prone to getting bogged down in mud than the resident engineer's Land Rover.
|
Renault 4, 50 today - Old Navy
