Talk:Renault 5

Wrong year of the death of Michel Boué
Monsieur Olivier Guin has requested information from city of Vendome, and the document shows that Michel Boué was born in 27 May 1932, and died the 26 December 1972.

Entry level model to 1984
The entry level model was not the 'L'. The entry level model was simply termed Renault 5 (with no letter) and was 782cc. It was not exported as the article says. The 'L' model had an engine around 850cc and was occasionally seen in GB at least. The saloon version was the Renault 7 (not exported to GB). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.48.80 (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion
I saw the template and there appears to be no Renault 13. Why?? Georgia guy 01:23, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Superstition, as there is no number 13 in car racing. Ericd 16:55, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Campus
"The Campus name was revived in 2005 with the Renault Clio II."

I once drove a mk1 Clio Campus. From the V5: RENAULT CLIO RL CAMPUS 3 Door Hatchback 01171 (cc) 28/02/1994 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.76.203.9 (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * ^ I'd back that up, as the "Campus" name has been used on all generations of small Renaults I've seen from the 5 onwards, but I think for it to be encyclopaedic you would at least need an anonymised photo of your reg certificate, or some promotional materials/brochures etc. 193.63.174.211 (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

V70 used as example of car with lights along entire C pillar
Why is the 1998 Volvo V70 used as an example of a 'much later' car with lights along the entire C pillar when it was done significantly before that? Off the top of my head, the Fiat Punto (1993) comes in earlier and I doubt it was the first. --Kiand 04:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * ...Probably because most anglophone wiki users are from North America, and whereas there are an awful lot of Volvos in North America, there are, as far as I know, vanishingly few Fiats there.  But from a European perspective you are right:  I've made the change since no one else seems to have reacted to your thought.   Regards Charles01 12:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this matter... Has anyone bothered to take a look at the SuperCinq's C pillar? Because, unless i'm seriously mistaken, the lights go way up there in that model, so there shouldn't be a need to point other latter cars.Southwestsoul (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A cursory look at the images in the article, or a google image search, would have answered that one: They don't. The S5's lights do rise a little higher than on the original car, but only enough to be roughly in line with the lower window swage. The rest of the pillar is covered with a plain plastic trim panel. 193.63.174.211 (talk) 13:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Why no mention of mileage? It seems this is important, car companies are peddaling vehicles with 35mpg as if it is something new and special? Le Car had 45 to 55mpg! Why is this left out of the all the information?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.175.51 (talk) 11:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Because they realise that most consumers a/ have short memories and/or are just plain stupid and gullible, b/ don't actually pay attention to that and won't do any research, c/ don't care. In a country where setting a pump price even half what most europeans accept as normal is tantamount to inciting riots, only those riding around in sub-20mpg vehicles really care very much about fuel costs, and nowadays that means you're either too loaded to care (Escalade, Viper) or too poor to do much about it or to need to go very far (old near-junk gas guzzlers). Witness the total failure of diesel to get a foothold.
 * It's happened the same over here as well, and worse so because of how our mileage rating system changed. To compare an old car's highway "steady speed" mileage to a current one, you have to go out and measure the modern car yourself, and dig out the old one's figures yourself. Thus I find, e.g., that a late 80s/early 90s "eco" Supercinq, or an early diesel VW Polo embarrasses my not-quite-an-eco-model-but-only-by-a-sliver Clio DCi (producing, officially, 110g CO2/km and therefore qualifying for the second-lowest tax band, after the sub-100s who don't pay any) - I've wrung around 65-68mpg out of it on a flat 56mph test run (and a peak of 78mpg cruising and coasting across a quiet town around 20-40mph) when the S5 managed an official 67 (on what is, around here, a 5% cheaper-per-litre fuel) and the Polo 74 at the same speed. OK, they had lower power outputs, and less weight, but I thought my turbocharger (= variable displacement engine, varying between a base of the Polo's 1450ish cc with less compression and a leaner burn, and a full-on effective 3500ish at full boost), much better aerodynamics, long-ratio gearbox and highly complex computer controlled fuelling system might have helped to nullify those advantages?
 * Thing is, the modern cars have a whole load of extra safety, luxury/comfort, and emissions control systems on board, not least of all much fatter tyres with greater rolling resistance to go with their improved grip (it takes a LOT to make my Clio skid...). And these things came in ahead of the current push for Ultimate Economy, so in the meantime typical everyday-car economy dropped pretty hard - mid thirties or even high twenties of miles per UK gallon (sub-30 US) was normal for a while even with low powered city cars. We're now clawing our way back. Compared to what we previously achieved, this is small beer (hey, the car's almost 40% faster, accelerates somewhat harder, is much more safe and comfortable, and it still only lost a couple of MPG at 56mph...), but it's far better than where we fell to. They're doing the speed camera lobbyist thing of only comparing the current situation to the most recent historical extreme outlier and conning us into doing the same.
 * Still, apart from a couple of very specialist, poorly driveable and not very popular models in the 80s (Metro HX, Civic HE(?), Citroen AX diesel), the latest crop of euro eco cars are setting a true high water mark. All the ones that score <100g/km, and therefore qualify for various tax breaks, also get 78mpg UK or better on the COMBINED test (city AND open-road driving, up to 75mph) - about 66 US - as the former is worked out from the latter. Some even push below 90g (and so 87mpg UK), with the current grail being either 83 or 78g - 94mpg (3L/100km) or 100mpg. Most of them retain good performance and driveability, certainly far better than the 80s cars because the gains have come from a myriad of subtle tweaks to engine, drivetrain, and the car as a whole. And there's nary a hybrid in sight, apart from the japanese-californian ones and the unaffordable Lexi. Except Smart's misnamed start-stop system, and the very interesting new 4wd diesel-electric Peugeot family car, which no-one's got road test figures for yet... 193.63.174.211 (talk) 13:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge
so why are there 2 pages?? --matador300 21:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep the popular culture in it. Many other auto pages have include pop culture references, making it more interesting.

Please let's not merge Renault 5 with "Renault 5 Alpine" and "Renault 5 Alpine Turbo" pages...

I suppose "Renault 5 Alpine" and "Renault 5 Alpine Turbo" pages could be (and probably should be) merged into "Renault 5 Alpine".

The Renault 5 Alpine and Alpine Turbo were special cars that are not well known these days, but important in their contributions to modern hot-hatchbacks. Keeping them in their own article allows more detailed information and discussion, and more emphasis on these models, than would be possible with leaving everything on one page. R5gordini (talk) 13:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Black rear-registration-plate-lights
Can somebody write in the article why the rear lights that light up the number-plate are so unnecessarily huge on this car? It is a design point that always made me curious so I think would be worth mentioning if anybody knows why it is.... 78.16.155.27 (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm interesting. Maybe it's an aerodynamics thing? They found that two blocky ones at the sides had less detrimental effect than a single large central one? And as the handle was at the bottom rather than halfway up, there was nowhere to stow such a thing anyway? Note that the Supercinq styling changes deleted them in favour of now-conventional uplighters with no aerodynamic impact at all... 193.63.174.211 (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Years offered in North America
The Renault LeCar was offered in North America through the 1983 model year. It was canceled due to the debut of the AMC/Renault Encore for model year '84. I also took out the reference to the cost in North America, since it didn't specify Canada or the US, and because the price changed over the 8 model years it was offered in those markets. 7Inline6 (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Racing history
The results don't agree with the main Monte-carlo page - were they class wins? If so, it ought to be made clear. 80.229.251.193 (talk) 03:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Engine size(s)
I had a Renault 5 GTX & I'm sure it had a 1.9 engine - I distinctly remember it was somewhat larger engine capacity than the turbo that was popular at the same time. Gwladys24 (talk) 02:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've recently bought a 22 year old 5 GTX, it's a 1721cc, as standard, the first turbos were 1400cc, then later 1721 turbos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.162.8 (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * To complicate matters, Renault do tailor their vehicles quite a bit for different markets. EG in Britain where diesel is expensive and still seen as a bit of a beggar's choice, only the economic 68 and 80hp, 1461cc versions of the DCi engine were commonly offered on my Clio; the "warm hatch" 100hp, with a bigger intercooler, was a special option. And the 1.9L, 130+hp hot hatch variety was only available on the continent (beside the 45 and 55hp non-turbo 1.4L van-body models), with their cheaper Gazole and greater penetration of derv burners. Could very well be that you somehow got a "weird one" which was a grey/parallel import, once belonged to an enthusiast, etc. In fact, the idea of having a single master list of engines for a modern-ish Renault, as if any one part of the world had all of them on offer at once, is a bit kooky ;-) ... I think they even still produce some carburettor versions of their petrol engines, and indirect-injection & pumpe-duse versions of their diesels, for "certain markets" where highly advanced injector technology would just be a liability. 193.63.174.211 (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

1.1L 44hp performance?
Do we have any citations for this (incomplete) output and performance list? I'm having a lot of trouble believing that the same car which can only reach 84mph with a 44hp motor takes less than 14 seconds to sprint to 100km/h, especially when the 110hp turbo model still takes about 9s. It's 2.5x the power, the difference should be quite a bit more than that, and as I've put in the citation-needed edit note, I believe it's more likely that the 1.1 is slower than that the turbo is quicker - simply on the basis of its similarly-powerful contemporaries being in the 15-20s zone (probably 16-21 in fact), and although it's a light car, it couldn't be THAT light without having the interior stripped and all non-structural parts replaced or removed. Especially as it's poor aerodynamics (and gearing, on a 4-speed box) are betrayed by that low top speed when 87~89 should be more likely. 18.3s is a more realistic time, and a believable typo... as well as being a 33% longer period. The contemporaries I mentioned were in the 750-900kg range; if we assume 18.3 is slap in the middle of that at 825, then it'd have to be under 650kg to reach that level of performance, maybe under 600 as weight would count for less vs thrust against aero drag at higher speeds. Would the early 80s, 1100cc R5 be under 650kg? Perhaps, but given the more papery Citroen AX was just a kiss under 750, I doubt it.

In any case, we could do with the actual figures for all of those, if someone knows a reliable, citeable source we can get them from. 193.63.174.211 (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Production figures problem
The total number of Supercinq is given as something over 3 million, but the yearly production figures in the table are so low that you don't even get to a fraction of that. I think the yearly figures from 1984 onward are wrong - maybe they refer to just the R5 exluding the Supercinq? Eti erik (talk) 09:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)