Safe and nice old car
Just normal service nothing broke up.
This car is safe. I Have been in 3 car-accident with it and I haven`t had any injuries.
Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes
Review Date: 24th September, 2003
Grandfather for all modern hatchback front wheel drives
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.
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
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.
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
Starter motor, rust in front wings, rear brakes.
A very comfortable car that was awarded European car of the year in 1965.
This was the first hatchback car ever made, and it has been the model for almost all modern cars.
Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes
Review Date: 7th March, 1999
The Renault 16 was NOT the first hatchback - The Renault 4 was, which predated the 16 by four years.
Hmm. Renault 4 looks more like a wagon than a hatchback. Am I being pedantic?
I agree with the above comment, I don't think the Renault 4 although is a good car in its own right, is a hatchback, its more like a van, The clue is in the word "hatch" something of which the Renault 4 is not. A hatchback car has a landing panel above the floor of the car, the 16 has, the 4 has not.
The Renault 16 (I owned one) was the first five-door hatchback (known as a sedan-wagon) with an unequal right/left wheelbase (forgot that one didn't you?). It was the model for ALL modern four-door hatchbacks. The Renault 4 had a wagon rear, without a fold-down interior (or fold-up in the R-16's case.
...and the Renault 16 design was allegedly nicked from Citroen!
The 16 was definitely the first hatchback - the 4 was called a fourgonette - wagonette - or wagon. The unequal wheelbase caused me a problem in Norway when the idiots at the vehicle inspection thought the car was twisted and took my plates so I couldn't drive it. Stole what from Citroen??? the 2CV could have been a hatch if they closed the top of the sardine can and hinged higher - but they didn't think of that.
Citoen did produce a hatchback like design well before the 16...the Citroen Traction Avant Commerciale.. launched in the 1930's. Plus the above comment was regarding Renault possibly taking the project F design from Citroen and copying it.. Renault 16!! Check out the supplied link. If you look at aspects of the Renault 16 design they are slightly Citoenesque... such as the lack of rear arches. Look at the outline of project F and compare it to the Renault.
Left rear wheel bearing changed.
Right driving shaft changed.
Very reliable, although the car is over 30 years old. Also very comfortable and nice looks.
Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes
Review Date: 7th March, 1999
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.