Renault's reputation in America was so bad, it ran this ad to introduce the R10

[Madman Of The People]

 

Yes, this was a real magazine ad.  The story was the Dauphine essentially disintegrated under American driving conditions, causing Renault's sales (and reputation) to collapse after just a few years.  As a result, the R8 was met with suspicion, so when Renault improved it to make the R10, Renault were determined to rehabilitate their tattered reputation in the US.  This ad was intended to address potential buyer's concerns.

 

 

 

I can't imagine any car maker would dare to run such an ad today!

 

[sierraman]

If that wasn’t bad enough they assaulted them with the Renault 9 a few years later. 😂

[goosey]

As appealing as the Renault is, I can’t understand why you would have one over a Chevrolet , Ford, Chrysler or AMC of the same era 

[ETCHY]

Thing is you could sort of say that about a beetle. European & rear engined.

Renault were probably hoping for some of that action. 

[Lacquer Peel]

4 hours ago, goosey said:

As appealing as the Renault is, I can’t understand why you would have one over a Chevrolet , Ford, Chrysler or AMC of the same era 

Probably as a cheap second or third car in the booming post war economy. 

[Bitzer]

Didn't VW run an advertising line like "Your ideal  second car... even if you don't have the first one" or similar?

[HMC]

“heavy foot with the clutch is normal”

possibly polite feedback in translation from the engineering dept that US drivers are not used to “stick shift”

[grogee]

3 hours ago, Madman Of The People said:

 

Yes, this was a real magazine ad.  The story was the Dauphine essentially disintegrated under American driving conditions, causing Renault's sales (and reputation) to collapse after just a few years.  As a result, the R8 was met with suspicion, so when Renault improved it to make the R10, Renault were determined to rehabilitate their tattered reputation in the US.  This ad was intended to address potential buyer's concerns.

 

 

 

I can't imagine any car maker would dare to run such an ad today!

 

That's horrific. I know we're in a different time and the wordiness dates it, but they're not even good words! 

"We added another 25% of fine inspectors..." 

What? You've employed another cigarette-smoking "quality associate" to shrug when another car drops off the line? 

I bet a lot of people were unaware of the failings but having read that were immediately on their guard about 'foreign cars' and even more unlikely to defect from Detroit. 

Amazing they lasted so long in America really with products that were usually completely unsuitable/uncompetitive. (See also: BL/Sterling/Range Rover). 

[egg]

I've had this assumption, based on no facts whatsoever, that there were always enough 1st generation immigrants to the States who bought European cars as a nostalgic nod to the old continent they came from. 

But I'd love to know the actual demographic who went 'against the grain'.

(obviously in the Malaise era the Japanese cars were just better than anything).

[Conrad D. Conelrad]

Interesting article from 1959 asking why Americans are buying foreign cars: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KdwDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA98&dq=popular mechanics foreign cars&pg=PA98#v=onepage&q&f=false

also, lol

[D.E]

27 minutes ago, Conrad D. Conelrad said:

Interesting article from 1959 asking why Americans are buying foreign cars: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KdwDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA98&dq=popular mechanics foreign cars&pg=PA98#v=onepage&q&f=false

also, lol

Most of the reasons listed here for buying "an import", as the Americans call them, could probably have been adressed by taking the development of compact models more seriously. 

I find this bit of 1970s propaganda rather exemplary in that regard, lots of talk about working hard and good workmanship, and what does it show? The Vega, a model well known for not exactly being on par with the Toyotas and Datsuns...

 

[PhilA]

Renault had the wrong kind of attitude for the USA.

They brought overly complex engineering, compared to any contemporary American machinery; stressed engines which couldn't be abused. Lightweight suspension designed to be nimble which broke when subjected to American concrete highways. 

Bodywork unsuited to the wild and harsh climate changes that exist. Roads with raw brine on them for three months straight in winter. Plastics that would disintegrate in the sun. Cloth that fell apart in the sun. 

America was ok with utilitarian, but they wanted tough utility, not fragile. The car manufacturers needed to provide a vehicle that the hardcore homegrown mechanics would accept.

Instead, they did none of that. They provided "fast" vehicles that would lose at the traffic light GP. They had clever designs that broke. They had mechanical components that needed tender loving care. America likes a car that can be driven, given an oil change every 3000 miles and that be the extent of the required maintenance for 60,000 miles. 

After 50,000 miles the car should still be able to climb a steady 1:25 gradient that lasts 8 miles, in 40 degree weather with the aircon on at 65 mph, without boiling over or running out of power at 8000' above sea level.

 

Because they overlooked a lot of that, they failed. Same as Fiat, same reasons, Citroen and Peugeot also.

VW managed not because they were good, but because they designed the underpinnings for a long tirade of abuse. Simple but sturdy engineering.

Fiat are back. They've been doing okay in the commercial vehicle market, and with sales of the 500 series. The 124 was a failure despite being a good car. The reason? The fastest model could barely keep up with a Civic.

They might learn. 

 

Phil

[Dobloseven]

My father bought a new Renault 10 in 1969.to replace a Morris 1100 he wasn't too happy with.Wasn't actually a bad thing.Replaced it with a Renault 12 in 1973.Tended to change cars regularly so if he kept it for four years,he must have been happy with it.They seemed to sell quite well over here.The dealer in Leicester was Bob Gerard ,a former racing driver of some note who later ran his own team as well.

[RayMK]

I remember Renault 8s in the UK - quite a rare sight, but the R10 was a lot more popular.  I've never seen a Renault or Peugeot in my numerous visits to the 'states from 1991 until the early 2000s but did see a broken down Citroen DS somewhere around Santa Fe in the mid 1990s 😀.

[sierraman]

Didn’t Peugeot try selling the 405? I know Citroen had a stab with the XM. 

[Dobloseven]

I suppose it harks back to when cars were built to suit a national market and export sales were a bonus.French cars for France, American cars for America etc.etc.Local cars for local people.......Nowadays they're pretty well the same the world over,a few basic designs with different takes on them.Small hatch back ,small SUV,medium SUV.A respected Shiter once said to me,"modern cars are so boring". He's right really.I like my old Renault 25 because it's a bit different.The engine's in the wrong place,the wheels are too far back, bonnet's too long,a hatchback that tries to look like a saloon.But that was replaced by the Safrane which was a big Laguna,which was a French Mondeo/Vectra.The Frenchness had gone.

[Madman Of The People]

4 hours ago, sierraman said:

Didn’t Peugeot try selling the 405? I know Citroen had a stab with the XM. 

 

Yes, they did.  I had one.  Peugeot were already circling the drain when they launched the 405 in America and the car couldn't change that.  The biggest complaints were that it was overpriced, underpowered, with tinny build quality and reliability that had no hope of matching the Japanese.  Add to that a sparse dealer network that left large parts of the country inaccessible to anyone needing spares or service.  Imagine having a breakdown in your 405, only to discover the nearest Peugeot dealer is 400 miles away!

Peugeot's mainstay model in the US up until that point had been the 505 and a lot of Peugeot's American customers rejected the 405 because it was a smaller car that didn't offer the space, power, or the more substantial feel of the 505.  Being smaller than the 505, these customers viewed the 405 as a downgrade.  Peugeot never offered its smaller models in North America.  It tried to market itself as a "Premium" brand in the US, more in line with BMW, Audi, or Saab.

When it became all too clear the 405 wasn't going to reverse Peugeot's fortunes in America, they called it quits.  The axe fell in August, 1991.  Peugeot Motors of America, at the time based in New Jersey, were notified of the decision by a fax sent from Peugeot H.Q. in Paris.

 

[D.E]

8 minutes ago, Madman Of The People said:

When it became all too clear the 405 wasn't going to reverse Peugeot's fortunes in America, they called it quits.  The axe fell in August, 1991.  Peugeot Motors of America, at the time based in New Jersey, were notified of the decision by a fax sent from Peugeot H.Q. in Paris.

 

... and the US-spec 405s that didn't make it across the ocean due to Peugeot leaving the market, were then sold to European buyers:

[Madman Of The People]

25 minutes ago, D.E said:

... and the US-spec 405s that didn't make it across the ocean due to Peugeot leaving the market, were then sold to European buyers:

 

Interesting...  US bumpers, but European headlamps and side repeaters.

I wasn't aware Peugeot had sold leftover US-spec cars in Europe after they pulled out of America.  The first 1992-spec models were in already in transit to America when Peugeot announced they were leaving.  PMA slapped $6,000 rebates on all remaining cars to clear the existing inventories.

I was once told by a former Canadian Peugeot owner that a batch of unsold Canadian-spec Peugeots were discovered parked in a storage lot outside the Sochaux factory sometime in 1993, which they had somehow forgotten about.  Peugeot contacted their former dealer in Toronto, which had been the largest Peugeot dealer in Canada, and worked out a deal whereby the dealer agreed to buy the cars (heavily discounted, I'm sure) and they were sold with full factory warranty.  These were the last new Peugeots sold in North America.