American Magazine
Road & Track Magazine, ? year
AFTER SEVERAL YEARS of building and selling transportation cars, Renault
has come out with an attractive new coupe body, winner of critical and public
acclaim, all together a fine addition to the top of the line. To make the
most of that, therefore, Renault decided to make the coupe in two versions;
standard, with the normal sort of equipment for cars in the daily usage
class, and sporting, with extra performance and equipment and styling. For
the home market there are variations beyond that, but for the U.S. with
its emission laws and safety requirements the new Renault comes as the R15,
which the factory says is a coupe, and the R17, termed a sports coupe. They
have the same dimensions and share a drivetrain; both the 15 and the 17
arc in fact the Renault 12's 1565-cc block, 4-speed transmission and front-drive
transaxle beneath new sheet metal.
The 15, tested in the October issue, also has the 12's conventional cylinder
head and carburetor. The more sporting 17 comes with a Gordini-inspired
crossflow head, a more radical camshaft, a higher compression ratio (9:1
instead of 8.6:1) and Bosch electronic fuel injection. All this increases
the power from 68.5 bhp @ 5000 rpm to 107 bhp @ 6000 rpm.
The 17's brakes are also uprated by the use of discs in back where the 15
has drums. Both cars come with power assist and have a proportioning valve
intended to balance front/rear braking and compensate for variations in
loading.
For a sporting look the 17's rear side windows are shortened and the roof
pillars are sloped sharply up with a set of louvers placed between pillars
and the rear window. This is done entirely for looks, to give the close-coupled
appearance. Beneath the louvers is another set of windows, which open to
aid the ventilation system. So the styling changes are more a matter of
function disguised than of function lost or gained.
There is functional gain inside the 17,1hough, as the sporting model has
a revised instrument panel containing a tachometer and electric motors for
the windows.
There is a price for all this extra stuff. Some of the equipment, larger
tires for example, is standard on the 17 and optional on the 15 and some
of the 15's options. Like automatic transmission, aren't offered on the
17 at all. But the leap from coupe to sporting coupe costs $980. Which is
one big jump.
One cannot blame Renault for making the most of a good thing. One can wonder,
however, if the 17 is worth that much more than the 15. The advertised gain
in power really is there. Rather than force you to drag out the earlier
report we'll provide a comparison of the two models. The gearing and displacement
are unchanged while the 17 is heavier (2635 lb. vs. 2580 lb.) so the performance
figures show how the respective engines do:
Renault 15 |
Renault 17 | |
| 0-30 mph | 4.7 sec |
4.3 sec |
| 0-50mph | 11.1 |
9.3 |
| 0-70 mph | 22.4 |
16.7 |
| 0-90 mph | NA |
34.0 |
| Standing'/4-mi., sec | 20.2 |
18.9 |
| Speed at end, mph | 68 |
73.5 |
Very good. The 17 clearly has the legs on the 15; there is extra power for
the money. The power is gained more by shifting the torque peak higher in
the rev range than by adding torque, so while the 17's advantage increases
with speed, at lower engine speeds the 17 is a bit fussy, requiring extra
revs and extra care with clutch and throttle. Surprisingly, the fuel injection
does not alleviate this.
The 17 engine has two other gains, both unexpected. The increased compression
ratio and fuel injection make the 17 a more efficient power plant, so much
so the heavier, faster car uses less fuel, by a score of 28 mpg to 23.5
mpg for the 15.
(Cries of Bring Back High Compression!) And the emission levels of the 17
are markedly lower than those of the 15. Ergo, in one model we get more
speed with less fuel and less pollution. Neat.
But the 17 shares some of the 15's worse traits, like a deep and bothersome
boom from the engine around 4000 rpm and 70 mph, which would otherwise be
the car's normal cruising speed.
Also like the 15, the 17 suffered from poorly placed pedals, a grabby clutch,
an awkward throttle, a barely tolerable gear change and typical front-wheel
drive determination to point the front wheels straight when power is being
applied. Nor was cornering power notably greater than either the 15 or the
average car. Front-wheel drive requires a technique all its own but even
so conducting the 17 at a brisk pace took much concentration for not much
reward.
The brakes were in a similar situation. The rear discs did reduce fade as
compared to the 15 so there is an advantage in that area. But stopping distances
for both cars were on the long side and for the same reason: The front wheels
tend to lock under heavy application. Because both test models did this
we must conclude that the proportioning valve is not doing its job and in
consequence that the change from disc/drum to disc/disc is not of major
significance.
On the same vein for the controls and instruments. The 17 has the more useful
and attractive instrument panel, the tachometer comes in handy, etc. But
one still must cope with two tiny stalks set close to each other on the
same side of the steering column, with a parking brake snuggled out of sight
between the seats and with a gear lever that bumps the seat. Not one of
the testers cared for the driving position and there were rude remarks about
a belt system which, although comfortable to use, had the inertia reel on
the hip belt so the occupants could not lean forward to use the more distant
controls, like the radio or the window switches. The ventilation system
is the same on either model and does not move enough air or allow the air
to be aimed.
The louvered side windows are a hindrance. The louvers are slanted so as
not to block the view and they don't, provided there's time to focus one's
eyes past them. In normal driving situations, though, a quick glance or
a reliance on peripheral vision is the rule. In those conditions the view
to the rear quarters is blocked. (Subjectively, the 17 was judged to be
the more attractive car and drew more admiring looks than the 15 did.)
A good thing both models tested had in common was workmanship. The 15 and
the 17-Renaults in general in our recent experience - are properly put together
of good materials.
So. Thc Renault 17 is a more powerful, more expensive, more attractive and
more demanding version of the Renault 15 without really earning the label
of sporting coupe. If you like the 15 you'd probably like the 17 even better
even if you balk at the price. If you don't like the 15, chances are you'll
like the 17 even less.
Return to 15/17 Home Page.
15/17
American Magazine Review Page