Diamond celebrations
In 1965, Renault launched a new car which was thoroughly remarkable in two respects.
First, its layout, though very familiar today, was so unusual for the period that people found it almost impossible to describe in simple terms.
Second, it marked the debut of what would become one of Renault’s most famous engines, fitted in some cases to cars which otherwise bore no resemblance whatsoever to the 16.
Now, 60 years later, we’re going to take a look at both.
The background
After its post-war nationalisation, Renault became known principally for its small, inexpensive vehicles.
Nothing like the mighty 40CV or Reinastella of bygone years was on the company’s price list now – instead, from 1947 on, Renault introduced the 4CV, the Dauphine, the 4, the 8 and the little Estafette van, and for a while even persevered with the Juvaquatre, which had first appeared in the 1930s.
The Frégate (pictured) and Colorale were larger than any of these, but neither of them is regarded today as Renault’s finest work, and public enthusiasm for them was limited even while they were being built.
Project 114, put forward in 1961 as a conventional grand tourer to replace the Frégate, never got past the design-study stage, and after it had been abandoned, Renault, following a policy summed up by CEO Pierre Dreyfus as ‘we have to do things differently’, turned its attention to what would become the 16.
The inspiration
Of all previous Renaults, the 16 most closely resembled one which occupied a completely different market position.
The 4, launched in 1961, was cheap and utilitarian, and an enormous success, saving the company from almost certain financial collapse and remaining in production for three decades.
It was the first small Renault since the Second World War with its engine at the front, and the first passenger model – and the second Renault of any sort after the Estafette – with front-wheel drive.
These features, and the fact that the 4 was a two-box saloon whose luggage compartment was accessed through a top-hinged door, would be carried over to the new model.
Renault 16 debut
Production of the 16, and its first showing to the press, took place in the first week of January 1965, and examples began to appear in Renault showrooms three months later.
Perhaps its outstanding feature was its tailgate, inspired by but not quite the same as the 4’s rear door, which made the 16, if not exactly the world’s first hatchback, then at least the first car of that type in the modern sense.
The word ‘hatchback’ didn’t exist at the time, which made it difficult to explain what the car was.
This attempt, by French journalist Jean-Francis Held, illustrates the problem: ‘It is a synthesis of a station wagon with a saloon, relying on the former’s advantages to overcome other saloons, yet retaining the advantages of a saloon sufficiently to outsmart other station wagons’.
Renault 16 interior
Like the hatchback body, the interior of the Renault 16 seems conventional enough today, but was a curiosity for 1965.
In its normal configuration, there was room for four adults, but the rear seat was adjustable in many ways, allowing the 16 to become a two-seater with an enormous amount of luggage space, or a three-seater capable of carrying long objects such as skis.
Depending on which arrangement you chose, the load volume could be anything from a modest 346 litres to an altogether more impressive 1200 litres.
Mounting the gearlever not on the floor but on the steering column created extra passenger space up front, though there was also, as we’ll see, a technical reason for that.
Renault 16 mechanical layout
Like the Estafette and the 4, the Renault 16’s engine was mounted longitudinally, rather than transversely as in modern front-wheel-drive cars, and sat, like that of the 4 (but not the Estafette), behind the gearbox.
This helped the weight distribution no end, leading to benefits in the ride and handling, but it made finding a route from the gearlever to the transmission problematic, hence the steering-column change mentioned earlier.
Also like the 4, the 16 had torsion bars rather than coil springs, and those at the rear were mounted one in front of the other.
The wheels at that end were therefore not directly opposite each other, so the car had different wheelbases depending on which side you were measuring.
The Cléon-Alu engine
The Renault 16’s engine, making the first of many appearances, is known as the Cléon-Alu.
Cléon refers to the factory near Rouen (opened in 1958 and still operating today) where it was manufactured, and Alu to the fact that its block and cylinder head were made of aluminium.
In its long career, the engine would be available in several capacities, but in the early days it was at its smallest, measuring 1470cc and producing 54bhp.
Car of the Year
The Renault 16 became eligible for the European Car of the Year award in 1966, its first full year on sale.
The award had been established in 1964, and the first winners – the Rover 2000 and the Austin 1800 – were both British.
Renault’s ingenious new model became the first French, and first non-British, car to take the title, demoting two utterly different models (both of them powered by V8 engines more than four times the capacity of the Cléon-Alu) to the lower podium positions.
The Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow was placed second, while third went to the Oldsmobile Toronado, whose closest resemblance to the 16 was that both had front-wheel drive.
Lotus Europa
Along with the Rolls-Royce and the Oldsmobile, the Europa was about as far removed from the Renault 16 as anything else produced in the 1960s, yet it used the same engine.
The Cléon-Alu appealed to Lotus founder Colin Chapman partly because it was light, and partly because, along with its gearbox, it suited the Europa’s mid-engined layout perfectly, if the two units were rotated through 180 degrees in plan view.
The fact that the rotation on its own would mean the car had one forward gear and four reverse gears was problematic, but easily fixed.
Series 1 and 2 Europas both had this drivetrain (the engine being uprated for the purpose), and it wasn’t until the early 1970s that the Cléon-Alu was replaced by the Ford Kent-based Lotus Twin Cam, which was actually several years older than the French unit.
Alpine A110
In its early days, Alpine was an independent sports-car manufacturer whose cars relied heavily on technology bought in from Renault.
The A110 initially had the little iron-block Cléon-Fonte engine, introduced in 1962 as a replacement for the earlier Billancourt unit in the Estafette and Floride/Caravelle and fitted from launch to the 8 saloon, which was never powered by anything else.
As soon as the Cléon-Alu became available, Alpine adopted it for the A110, as Lotus had done for the Europa, though in this case it was mounted behind the gearbox, as it was in the 16, and therefore at the extreme rear.
Even in its original 1470cc form, the Cléon-Alu had a greater capacity than the Cléon-Fonte ever did, and was largely responsible for the A110 becoming the greatest of all the early Alpines.
More power
The first major change to the Renault 16 and its engine came in 1968.
The new range-topping TS (for Tourisme Sportif) of that year featured a new version of the Cléon-Alu, with a capacity of 1565cc and a power output of 83bhp, a full 30bhp higher than that of the 1470cc version.
This was also the best-equipped 16 so far, boasting a rear-window demister, two-speed windscreen wipers and four windscreen washer jets, as well as an interior mirror with day and night settings.
Renault 16 in the USA
Also in 1968, Renault began exporting the 16 to the US, where – addressing the usual problem of trying to describe exactly what it was to people who had never seen anything like it – it was known as the Sedan-Wagon.
This enterprise was not a great success. Renault had suffered badly from the catastrophic decline in Dauphine sales on the other side of the Atlantic in 1960, and during the lifetime of the 16 it was rare for more than 20,000 Renaults of any kind to be sold in the US in a single year.
The Sedan-Wagon, however, is of some interest to Renault 16 completists because it looks different from versions seen in Europe.
The 16’s usual rectangular headlights were illegal in the US at the time, so the Sedan-Wagon had two circular headlights on each side of the radiator grille instead.
Renault 16 automatic
The four-speed manual was the only gearbox available in the Renault 16 until 1969, the year the car at last faced a conceptually similar rival in the form of the Austin Maxi.
A new model with a three-speed automatic was displayed at the Geneva motor show, and was offered to the public shortly afterwards.
Initially fitted only in this particular car, known as the TA, the automatic would later become available elsewhere in the range.
Other developments in the same year included the addition of reversing lights, electric front windows, an electric sunroof and leather upholstery.
Renault 12
The 12 was another in the increasingly long list of front-wheel-drive Renaults, though it differed from all previous ones (apart from the Estafette) in having its engine mounted ahead of the gearbox, rather than behind it.
In most cases, that engine was the Cléon-Fonte, which produced enough power for what was generally a practical car with no need for spectacular performance.
For the Renault 12 Gordini, however, the Cléon-Fonte wasn’t enough, so the larger Cléon-Alu was brought over from the 16.
The Gordini made its public debut in a huge event at Le Castellet race track in July 1970, and the following year it set a new record by being driven from Cape Town to Algiers (a journey of more than 6500 miles, often involving treacherous roads) in just under nine days.
Formula Renault
As its name suggests, Formula Renault was a class for single-seat racing cars powered exclusively by Renault engines.
In the long history of the class, many engines were used (though never in the same season), and for most of the 1970s the obvious choice was the Cléon-Alu.
The series was open to any manufacturer wanting to take part, and one that did was Martini, which stayed loyal to the formula for many years.
The car shown here is a Martini MK15, pictured taking part in a hillclimb event in 2023.
Renault 15 and 17
Renault’s 15 and 17 were coupés which didn’t look much like the 12 but were closely based on it, and differed from each other mostly in minor aspects such as equipment levels and headlight arrangements (single rectangular on each side for the 15, twin round for the 17).
Their engine ranges were not identical – some 15s had the Cléon-Fonte engine, but others, and all 17s, used the Cléon-Alu.
Two 17 Gordinis were placed first and third in the US-based Press On Regardless rally, a round of the 1974 world championship, against severe opposition which included, among the top finishers, a Fiat Abarth 124 Rallye, a Porsche 911 and three Alpine A110s.
Impressive though this was, however, it was not the high point of the Cléon-Alu’s motorsport career.
Alpine A310
Alpine expanded its range in 1971 with the A310.
Although it looked very different from the A110, the new model was based on very similar principles, with a steel chassis, a glassfibre body and a rear-mounted Cléon-Alu engine.
This time, unusually, the engine did not match the car, giving only moderate performance to a vehicle which looked as if it should have had much more.
Alpine addressed that in 1976 by dropping the Cléon-Alu and fitting the much more powerful, 2.7-litre PRV (Peugeot-Renault-Volvo) V6 instead, while also taking the opportunity to ask Robert Opron to work his magic on the styling.
The world championship engine
With the Cléon-Alu mounted in the back, the Alpine A110 was extraordinarily successful in rallying in the early 1970s.
The World Rally Championship, for which points were awarded only to manufacturers and not to drivers or co-drivers at the time, began in 1973, and the A110 absolutely blitzed it, winning six rounds (no other marque won more than two) and finishing second and third on two other occasions.
Alpine-Renault (as it was known after the smaller company was taken over by the larger) scored 147 points, well ahead of Fiat’s 84 and Ford’s 76.
To put this into context, a car with the same engine as the Renault 16 was beaten on only one WRC event that season by the Ford Escort RS 1600 which, though admittedly much heavier, was powered by a Cosworth BDA.
Renault 16 TX
In the same year that the Alpine A110 was proving to be the most successful rally car on the planet, the Renault 16, whose engine played such an important role in its success, reached its ultimate form.
The TX, introduced in 1973, had the largest Cléon-Alu of them all, measuring 1647cc.
With motorways becoming an increasingly common part of motoring life, the ability to cruise at higher speeds than before was significant, and it was backed up by the fitment of a new five-speed manual gearbox which allowed this pace to be maintained without excessively high engine speeds and the fuel consumption that would lead to.
The TX also looked far more modern than the original Renault 16 launched just eight years earlier, thanks to its four square headlights.
Renault 20
The Renault 20 of 1976 was structurally the same car as the flagship 30 introduced the previous year, and most easily distinguishable from it by having two rectangular headlights rather than four round ones.
The 20 was also considerably the cheaper of the two, partly because of its lower level of equipment and partly because it didn’t have the 30’s V6 engine.
Of the four-cylinder units Renault was producing at the time, the Cléon-Alu was the only one powerful enough for this car, so in it went.
This turned out to be a stopgap measure, though, since the 20 soon became available with the new and larger Douvrin ‘four’, co-developed by Renault, Citroën and Peugeot, and produced in both petrol and diesel forms.
The end of the Renault 16
Even the most radical mainstream cars become old news sooner or later, and by the late 1970s it was clear that the Renault 16 wouldn’t be around for much longer.
It was certainly more luxurious and powerful than it had been in 1965, and changes to the front and rear lights had help to keep it looking reasonably fresh, but the overall shape was the same as it always had been, and there were now other hatchbacks to choose from.
Production finally came to an end after 1,851,502 units had been built, most of them at Sandouville on the Normandy coast.
For the remarkable Cléon-Alu engine which the Renault 16 had introduced to the world, however, the story was not yet over.
Renault 18
Mechanically similar in some respects to the 12, which it replaced, the 18 was only ever available as a four-door saloon or a five-door estate, even though Renault had essentially created the modern mid-sized hatchback in the form of the much older 16.
The only technical link between the 16 and the 18 was the Cléon-Alu engine (now mounted ahead of the front axle rather than behind it), which sat in the middle of a range of three, above the Cléon-Fonte and below the Douvrin.
For this application, and for one other which we’ll be coming to shortly, the Cléon-Alu was in some cases turbocharged, giving what Autocar described as ‘a lovely feeling of vigorous power’.
Renault Fuego
Launched in 1980, the year the Renault 16 was discontinued, the Fuego was largely based on the 18 but had a very aerodynamic liftback body.
The range of engines was the same as in the 18, and once again the Cléon-Alu, though smaller than the Douvrin, was the most powerful, if and only if it was turbocharged.
When production of the 18 and the Fuego finally came to an end, so did that of the Cléon-Alu, but that engine, and the amazing car it was first fitted to, will always be important parts of Renault’s long history.
The Renault 16s that weren’t
Renault never deviated from the hatchback body style for production 16s, but it did investigate two other options.
One was a conventional three-box saloon, while the other was the rather more elegant coupé-cabriolet pictured here.
Regardless of its styling, the car’s reduced practicality would have made it of only minor interest to potential buyers.
By Renault’s own account, however, the real problem was that most of the body panels were different from the hatch, making the potential manufacturing costs too high to contemplate.