1972 Renault 16 ts petrol

Summary:

The best car I've ever owned

Faults:

Not a lot really, replaced front tyres. rear ones will go on forever.

General Comments:

The 16 is has to be one of the most comfy cars on the road.

I did the trip Melbourne to Perth twice and it was brilliant.

I got around 30mpg overall which is not bad for an auto car.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 19th December, 2004

22nd Dec 2004, 14:22

So in 27 years nothing you've owned since measures up to the Renault 16TS?

That doesn't say much for the cars you had since then.

I owned a US-market '71 R16 for a while back in the early '80's and while it was in the vanguard of fwd cars in the US, it was hardly a stellar example of construction quality. It did have a lot of features that were unusual for the time. It was hard to find anyone who wanted to work on it, and even back then, parts were hard to find, too. I think the few actually sold here have long since vanished from the roads.

In reply to 22nd Dec 2004, 14:22

18th May 2015, 12:57

This is an irrational comment. The person posting doesn't say that he had owned the car from new. One hardly suspects that cars that are 30+ years old may be without fault.

In reply to 18th May 2015, 12:57

18th May 2015, 20:07

Well that was a 2004 comment, didn't even have mileage information on the original review of a car bought at 3 years old and owned for two years. I guess if the owner was genuinely happy with the car for whatever reason - seat comfort, suspension, whatever, then that's how they feel, regardless of whatever car they've had since. Reliability isn't the only measure of satisfaction, though it certainly does help. The car was in AU/NZ - not America, and one of the previous commenters said something about owning a R16 in America, but we all know that all cars during that era had to get smog control equipment, which made cars far more unreliable.

In reply to 18th May 2015, 12:57

18th May 2015, 21:54

Try reading the review and comment again, and this time, pay attention to the dates and when they were written.

Neither one is referring to a "30+ years old" vehicle.

The reviewer's car was purchased at three years old.

What is "irrational" about it?

1975 Renault 16 TL 1.6

Summary:

Grandfather for all modern hatchback front wheel drives

Faults:

One CV joint failed.

Head gasket blew at 189,000 kilometres.

Two front tyres used in whole time I have had the car.

New brake pads at 189,000.

General Comments:

Possibly the most comfortable car I have ever driven / been driven in.

Always gets strange looks from people who do not understand what it is - but admiration from those who know and have been in it. Fantastic. Also very versatile, being a large hatchback.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 10th July, 2001

1973 Renault 16 TS 1.6

Faults:

Very little. It was purchased for $250 and used on a daily basis around Sydney. It was driven to the Snowy Mountains and the Byron hinterland a number of times, 800km and 1700km round trips respectively. It was regularly driven on harsh dirt roads in country NSW. The cooling system glass tank blew on a trip to the Snowy Mountains. A rear shock absorber snapped in the outback. In both cases, the car was still driveable. I changed the gearbox as it jumped out of 1st gear. This was not a difficult job.

General Comments:

It was my first car, a fabulous car. A wierd looking thing, but a lovely design and fantastic to drive. They are very comfortable and are happy cruising about the city or the country. At the time of ownership, a Renault 16 (or 12) was possibly the cheapest car to buy and since the people who owned one were generally cash strapped, the mechanics were very reasonable when it came to the cost of spare parts. I bought two wrecks for spares for $50 each. One was pillaged, the other was registered and given to a friend. I eventually sold it after 3 years of ownership to a guy in Coogee who needed a car to fit his drum kit in. I wonder what happened to it? Following this 16, I bought a Citroen CX, which was a truly marvelous car, but much less faithful than my 16. Find a good 16 and keep it, you will not regret it.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 20th January, 2000

31st Jul 2001, 03:41

Why call the R16 a "poor man's car"? In its day it was the top (most expensive) Renault as is the Safrane today in their product line. As a matter of fact, the R16 was meant to be bought by a very large audience, hence all its features. Long legged for the country, comfortable suspension for all purposes, luggage features non-plus-ultra! Reliability and safety were all incorporated. Even the repair fee's were clearly stated in the owners brochure addendum. Does not have to do with a poor man's signature.

The car was cheap to buy as a used car simply because so many were around by its popularity. Repairing a previously owned car with even a large mileage was also marketed by Renault.

Unfortunately parts are rarely available from Renault today, which is a pity. Citroen does a better job here for their Ds/ID series.

It is unbelievable the R16 is less popular as an oldtimer here then the ID/DS's. I own 4 R16's today and threw out the R25 with its nasty engine and suspension habits. Rate the 16 higher please!

Greetings,

Mario.

View 5 more comments