(first posted 4/24/2018) Believe it or not, there was a time when the French automobile industry was the most technologically advanced in the world, the largest producer of automobiles in the world, and the largest exporter of cars to the United States. That of course, was circa-1900, and my, did things change in the ensuing years.
The American auto industry soon overtook the French in volume, mass-market production methods, and overall product value — critical areas which allowed the American automobile industry to grow and thrive, and areas the French were never able to quite master on a global scale. It wasn’t that French automakers were inferior per se, as in fact, in many ways through the years they were consistently building some of the most innovative and technologically-advanced vehicles in the world.
The problem was, heavy investment on costly, cutting-edge technology-laden cars took the focus away from improving and adding value to existing bread-and-butter models, doubling down on quality, and upgrading and streamlining their production capabilities while lowering production costs. The domestic French market and the European market are different stories for another time, but in North America, while French automakers had a few significant models over the years, they never found a stable, lasting foothold.
At least in the modern era, the most promising venture for a French automaker in North America came in the early 1980s, in the form of the Renault-AMC partnership. This partnership started in 1978, with a plan for the joint production and distribution of cars and trucks, and led to Renault investing in the struggling AMC’s operations, buying a 22.5% minority stake in AMC in 1979. Renault ultimately bailed out the near-bankrupt American Motors Corporation in 1980, gaining a controlling 47.5% interest in the American automaker.
This paved the way for a new wave of Renault-based passenger cars sold through AMC’s dealer networks, giving the American automaker much needed replacements for its aging and fragmented lineup of small vehicles. Arriving at a time when fuel prices were expected to skyrocket, Renault’s modern and efficient subcompacts and compacts seemed like the perfect opportunity for both Renault and AMC to find success, enabling Renault to eventually offer a full-line of cars in North America to complement AMC’s Jeep division of SUVs and trucks.
The first all-new products of this venture was a family of subcompact vehicles based on the Renault 9 and 11. Introduced in mid-1982 as 1983 models, the “Alliance” 2-door and 4-door sedans were joined the following year by the “Encore” 3-door and 5-door hatchbacks. Although engines, transmissions, and components of the vehicles’ novel-for-the-class four-wheel independent suspension came from France, the Alliance and Encore were assembled in AMC’s Kenosha, Wisconsin plant and comprised of 72% U.S. materials, allowing them to be classified as domestic automobiles in the U.S. Both were sold under the Renault brand in North America, which was perceived to have a higher brand equity, though press and marketing materials also included the American Motors name.
At the time of its launch, the Alliance received numerous acclaim and awards, including Motor Trend’s Car of the Year award for 1983. Heavy praise went to its low price of around $6,500, its fuel efficiency and light weight of around 2,000 lbs. (the lightest car produced in the U.S.). The Alliance was also applauded for its spacious and comfortable interior that featured superior materials to competitors, and innovative technologies such as a single-rail front seat track to enhance rear legroom.
Initial sales of Renault’s subcompact range were strong, resulting in AMC’s first profit since 1979. The future looked bright for both automakers, but this ray of light would quickly fade. By the mid-1980s, fuel prices had subsided to decade lows, prompting a decreased demand in small cars as more Americans began buying larger cars again. While still important and relevant, increased competition in the subcompact segment only highlighted the Alliance/Encore’s shortcomings, chiefly inconsistent build quality and anemic power, especially with the common option of air conditioning and/or automatic transmission.
Renault attempted to address the latter in 1985 by adding both a larger and more powerful 1.7-liter SOHC I4 with a 5-speed manual as available equipment. The bigger news for 1985, however, came in the form of the Alliance convertible, which was introduced in an attempt to bring new excitement and appeal to the lineup, with hopes of turning around declining sales.
Developed with the expertise of American Sunroof Corporation (ASC), the Alliance convertible was still fully-assembled in-house alongside regular Alliances in AMC’s Kenosha, WI plant — a rarity among convertibles in the 1980s, which were usually “converted” by outside companies, such as ASC. In lieu of a solid hardtop, and B- and C-pillars, some 232 lbs. of numerous structural reinforcement brackets and cross members were added to the body for increased torsional rigidity.
Its cloth top was power operated, though it first required manual release of its locking latches, as well as manual unzipping of its plastic rear window midway through the lowering, and manual installation of the boot cover once lowered, making the process somewhat cumbersome.
As with other Alliances, power even with the 1.7-liter was lacking, with meager acceleration and achievable speeds. On the other hand, ride quality was praised as being at the top of the class, yet it came at the expense of handling due to its soft suspension and small wheels. Although it was the least expensive convertible on the market at the time of its launch, the Alliance convertible, unsurprisingly, did little to turn around falling sales and profits for AMC and Renault in the North American market. The story would be similar for the high-performance version of the Alliance introduced for 1987, the GTA.
Generally a competitive entry in most respects, the Alliance was at its core, a subcompact economy car, offering little visual flair or driving excitement (with the exception of the GTA). With low fuel prices and a fairly stable economy, this simply was not the type of vehicle Americans were lining up to buy.
Larger models in the form of the midsize Medallion and full size Premier (both above) were being readied by Renault, but the automaker was in a state of financial and political turmoil in its home country. Following massive layoffs and plant closures, its chairman, Georges Besse, was assassinated by a military extremist group. Faced with the ever-mounting cost and the uncertainty of its return-on-investment of the AMC venture, Renault sought to focus on its domestic operations and divest itself of AMC.
The highly equitable Jeep brand made finding a buyer relatively easy, and on March 9, 1987, Renault officially sold its 46.1% of AMC’s outstanding shares to Chrysler for roughly $1.5 Billion, with Chrysler proceeding to purchase remaining shares. As the ownership of Jeep and acquisition of AMC’s state-of-the-art Bramalea Assembly plant in Brampton, Ontario were the primary motives in this purchase, Chrysler saw little benefit in the continued production and sale of Renault’s line of passenger cars, especially as the automaker was already selling more cars under more brands than it needed to. Contractual obligations as part of the purchase and sales agreement bound Chrysler to producing Renault’s all-new Premier sedan, but the Alliance and every other non-Jeep vehicle of the former American Motors Corporation were hastily put out to pasture, and not given Encore performances under Chrysler.
Featured car photographed in Hingham, Massachusetts – February 2018
Top-down CC images by Robadr from the CC Cohort
Related Reading:
Camembert? More like Limburger!
Would that top have been considered cumbersome at the time? I know today’s convertibles are pretty automatic, but I don’t know when that happened. The Alliance is pretty much the same as my ’65 Chrysler.
The only thing I really remember about the Alliance convertible is that the local dealer provided a couple for the July 4th parade in 1987 and a friend from high school got to drive one.
Not a bad looking car with the top down.
The process sounds pretty normal for convertible tops at the time. About the only thing that really sounds retro ids having to unzip the back window. I think by that time, most convertibles had gotten away from that step.
My ’53 Chrysler was designed the same way as the Alliance (but the top’s electric motor did not work) . My sister’s ’60 Impala and ’64 Catalina convertibles worked the same way (but those top motors did work).
My current ’99 NB Miata still works with manual latches, but the rear window is fixed glass, so thank goodness for modern technology. But, the whole top is manual, so in a way the Alliance is a bit more convenient than my Mazda. Earlier NA Miatas had zippered rear windows.
I haven’t crossed paths yet with those convertibles that do everything automatically. And I do not miss those awful plastic rear windows that became cloudy like a shower curtain after a few years.
The window in my Miata is plastic. I was told by the seller to use Lemon Pledge to clean it periodically. The top and window are about 18 years old now and the window remains clear. Parking the car indoors most of the time undoubtedly helps.
If you ever need to replace the top, the NB (1999 and up version) top with fixed glass fits exactly and has a glass rear window. I did that to mine when I replaced the top.
As to the convertible tops, yes, this was pretty standard for the day, especially in a lower priced convertible. Today’s full power tops are usually one touch automatic affairs, but then there are more parts that can fail. It all comes down to what you find convenient and what you don’t. I know my brothers C6 convertible was all automatic, with one touch completing the entire process in about 30 seconds. Even with unzipping the window, this version would take less than 1 minute to complete. Most folks don’t even use the boot unless they know that the top will be down for quite a while, as you have to remove it to raise the roof (when it rains or gets too hot for top-down motoring).
The plastic rear windows were particularly annoying in winter. You couldn’t use a scraper on them, so even if they weren’t cloudy you still could not see.
Dan, I like that you qualified for hat the convertibles looked good “with the top down”. I agree. With the top up, that big, airy greenhouse of the regular, two-door sedans looked less than great.
“Less than great”, Joseph?
With the top up, it looks just as sensible as any small and thrifty French workman ever did when wearing an extravagant, beige and outsized top-hat.
Hahaha! I’ll be the first to admit that my attempts at diplomacy backfire from time to time.
I will echo the others. Sheesh, kids today – life was *hard* back then. 🙂 My 67 Ford Galaxie worked just like this too, except that it had a glass window that did not need to be unzipped.
I follow this exact procedure in my Miata, except that I do not have the top boot for it. My guess is that the top would fold with the plastic window in place but that the creasing and scratching would shorten its life. I unzip my window when the top goes down just to keep it nice and flat.
A friend’s Volvo C-70 did the full automatic thing, complete with a built in boot cover, so I know what Brendan is getting at.
With regards to the convertible top, apart from quick manual unlatching attainable from sitting within the vehicle, I’ve always known power/automatic convertible tops to be fully power-operated. I know the Alliance was an entry-level car, but fully-automatic tops were around at the time, on cars such as the Chrysler LeBaron and BMW 3 Series. The process of the Alliance’s “automatic” top doesn’t seem all that more convenient than if it were fully manual.
Design wise they weren’t bad cars. Unfortunately, the Kenosha staff decided French cars meant mandatory French build quality (translation: it made a Morris/Austin Marina look reliable) which gave the line an immediate bad reputation. Which immediately negated twenty plus years of apologizing for the Dauphine.
The top worked like most convertibles in its day. The plastic rear window was a throwback as Ford offered a glass rear window in their Galaxie rag tops starting in 1964.
Great piece about an oft forgotten car, Brendan.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again – my family loved our ’85 Encore hatchback, that gave us years of reliable service until it met it’s demise in the mid-’90s. It was a stripper, with nothing but an automatic transmission and a rear window defogger (it even had manual steering with no power assist!), but it was peppy, economical, reasonably roomy for a subcompact, and it stayed out of the repair shop unlike our ’84 Ford Tempo GL.
One niggle: the dealer we bought the car from tried to sell us the car with a slightly warped Alliance grille, thinking none of us would notice the defect or the different placement of the Renault diamond. I saw both. We got a proper, unwarped Encore grille put on the car before we drive it off the lot.
Thanks Joe. It’s cool that your family owned one of these 1980 U.S.-spec Renaults… I can’t say I know anyone else who did 🙂
Funny about your grille story. My dealer was a shyster too. Before delivery, they sold me a cruise control that was a Dana brand, rather than the OEM accessory They charged me the full price as with the real one too. I did not know any better at the time though. Years later I had some minor problems with something on the car. The service writer asked me, obviously looking for an excuse because they did not know how to fix my car, who installed my cruise control. I said “you guys did”. The guy got real quiet. Like I said, incompetent shysters. I loved that “85 Encore LS 3 door. The dealer was the by far the worst thing about my experience.
While I am generally not a fan of the Appliance, there was always something about this convertible that appealed to me. I remember sitting in one at the auto show the year it came out. The Chrysler LeBaron/Dodge 400 was becoming popular and I thought that this car had better proportions than those early Konvertibles.
There was always something about the stubby upright shape and market position of this car that reminded me of the 1960 Studebaker Lark convertible – a nicely done convertible by a perennial underdog. I liked it just because of that mental association, if for no other reason.
Hello JPC,
I had the same thoughts regarding the overall feeling of the Alliance convertible with the Lark – and by extension – the 1960-ish Rambler American convertibles.
These cars (Studebaker and Rambler) appealed to the prudent and conservative part of my brain. A friend had a ’60 Lark VI convertible and it was much more modern and efficient and weather tight and rust free than my ’53 Windsor. And it has a real three on the tree stick shift rather than the [hard to describe quickly] 4 speed/2lo/2hi fluid drive with safety clutch Presto-matic.
Note regarding Syke’s dead on comment “… twenty plus years of apologizing for the Dauphine”. Every time I see a picture of a Dauphine I smile and shake my head a bit; in my mind the saddest example of a new car that I have ever driven. I recall that the shift lever was so thin and bendy that one was never quite sure what gear it was in, until of course when you let up the clutch.
Unfortunately the only Dauphine I ever drove (at age 12) was a push button automatic. What I best remember was the two tone horn, and the steering felt like it was a chain drive between the steering column and the steering box.
Now Mr Cavanaugh, Esq, without meaning any disrespect and with admiration for your fealty to South Bend and the products therefrom, I don’t think it is entirely out of order for me to make the passing observation that I do believe it is possible that you could find a reminder of a Studebaker product in anything from the Space Shuttle to a tomato.
I do not say this is a bad thing. I do say that it is singular.
Hahaha, I suppose you are right. That piece I put up for April Fools started out as a gag, but the truth is that since that time I cannot avoid seeing an early Lark every time I see a Nissan Juke.
These seem to have come out around the same time as the second generation BMW 318 and the Maserati Biturbo convertibles. All of them gave off the same sort of tight compact convertible vibe, and which one you got was entirely dependent on how fat your wallet.
Fine article about a terrible car. However, a minor point – the Renault 9 was first introduced in October 1981, while the 11 was introduced in the beginning of 1983. The 9 won the 1982 European Car of the Year, an honor which the UK magazine Car slammed because they felt the 9 was hopelessly dull.
…the 9 wasn´t just boring to look at, driving was so oppressively dull and forgettable that unless you parked right it outside the front door there was a very real chance that you´d get up in the morning and catch the bus to work work before wondering why it was you´d found the journey unusally enjoyable for once…
from Crap Cars by Richard Porter
I never drove one, but the ride/handling balance got good reviews here in the US. I think any (retroactive, perhaps slightly exaggerated) European characterization of these cars as “crap” overlooks just how bad most American cars still were at this tail-end of malaise.
In the summer of 1985, I carpooled with a man who owned an Alliance D/L four-door sedan. The ride was terrific for a small car, and the seats were very comfortable. But he experienced serious reliability problems with that car – as did everyone else I knew who had bought one.
If I recall correctly, in its first year on the market, the Alliance outsold every competitive small car except for the Ford Escort. Initially, it was a success. After two good years, sales began dropping, as the bad word-of-mouth about these cars spread (shades of the GM X-cars.).
A Ford Escort was less refined in its ride and handling than the Alliance, but much more reliable – particularly by the time Ford had worked out the initial bugs.
In the back of my mind is the question of how much of the Alliance’s vile reputation was a function of the dealer mechanics not being that familiar with the cars, which were so different from what they were used to. I am sure they had the TSBs and “factory training” but it isn’t the same has having worked on Renaults for 10 years. The AMC dealer in Kalamazoo had a scummy reputation, tried to sell me a new set of calipers that were unneeded, so I started taking my R5 to an independent import specialist. Had overheating issues because the “import specialist” did not bleed the cooling system the way it was designed to be bled.
When PSA took over Opel, Tavares said, in effect “many people simply refuse to buy a Peugeot because it’s French, so I’m buying a German name to stick on my French cars to fool them”. We will see how that scheme turns out.
Oh, just great! With that attitude, I’ll look forward to the cost-cut PSA parts inventory for my Opel – which I got to replace my lovely but utterly rubbish Renault.
Viva la France.
Sigh.
Oh, just great! With that attitude, I’ll look forward to the cost-cut PSA parts inventory for my Opel
Under the terms of the sale, GM gave PSA some very significant incentives to completely divorce Opel models from the GM owned platforms and technology they use. iirc, the plan is to be completely away from GM intellectual property by 2020.
This article from January references Tavares’ comment from which I infer the plan is to hoodwink people into thinking they are buying a German car, when it is completely a product of the PSA parts bin.
One of your justifications for acquiring Opel is that there are many people who don’t want to buy a French car, and so you wanted to have a German car company within PSA. How will you make sure your customers know they are buying a German car?
http://europe.autonews.com/article/20180102/ANE/171219762/psa-ceo-tavares-eager-to-get-started-with-opel-turnaround
It seemed like such a good idea at the time…and in many ways it was. But the times change quickly.
If the Alliance had come with the 1.7 l engine to start with, that would have helped, along with dealers that really knew how to work on these cars instead of sneering at them.
If the Alliance had come with the 1.7 l engine to start with, that would have helped,
The 18i was originally available only with the old pushrod 1.6. I drove one with the 1.6 and automatic when it was new. What a slug! Very attractive car, wonderfully comfortable, but unbelievably slow. By the time they finally offered the 2.2 in the 18i and Fuego, the train had already left the station on being viable in the US.
The 1.7L F-series used in the Alliance was not available when the Alliance debuted. The 2.2 had been available in Europe from 77, Why, oh why, did they hobble the 18 and the Fuego in the US?
As small cars go, I didn’t think the Alliance looked all that bad, the Encore? Not so great, mostly the rear wheel well “treatment”.
What kept these out of consideration for me was the small engines. Really? A 1.4 liter engine? The 1.7 should have been the standard engine from the beginning. And the 2 liter?
Almost ironic that with the top up, these look a bit like a Chrysler convertible of nearly the same time period. Ironic, because Chrysler would eventually buy AMC.
Wouldn’t mind having a GTA convertible.
So Renault had “higher brand equity” than AMC? Hmm …
So Renault had “higher brand equity” than AMC? Hmm …
Like Fiat, a lot of people in the US don’t realize that, outside of the Americas, Renault is a very substantial company. If you are sitting on the BoD of Renault, your worldview will be very different than if you are standing on a streetcorner in the US.
Here’s a publicity piece Renault put together a few years ago.
Renault was a European brand, therefor could command an varying degree more premium vibe than AMC.
I actually test drove one of these and was impressed by its ride and quietness. Fortunately, sanity prevailed and I bought a Honda.
AMC took too long to replace the Concord, which they quickly dropped after 1983, since Alliances were selling well. But, the Medallion and Premier were a long way to come, and gas prices stabilized or declined during 1984-86 era.
With just the 18i as a move up car, buyers went elsewhere.
Local industrial yard had a lot of unsold Alliances in spring/summer ’87, after the Mopar buyout announced. Were just not selling, and dropped when deal closed.
By 1989, one could get a used 1983/84 Alliance/Encore for $900-1200, about same price for a late 70’s “beater”.
Really, what world did you live in? Used car prices of the Alliance and Encore in the upper Midwest were still around $2500 – $3000. The GTA at least $5500.
“Alliance production at the Kenosha plant closed out as of Friday, June 5, 1987.”
From Wiki, and cited from Chicago Tribune, 1987 article. Mopar already had the Omni and Shadow small cars and didn’t need Alliance. Plug pulled.
“The final year saw about 35,000 Alliances sold in 1987.” High point was 200,000 sales in 1984.
These seemed like a great idea at the time. I carpooled with someone who had a D/L four-door sedan, and the ride was superb for a small car. The pedestal-mounted front bucket seats were a clever idea, and really did free up foot room under the front seats for rear-seat passengers.
The convertibles were handsome in a practical, square-cut sort of way – somewhat like a 1964-67 Rambler American convertible.
A very interesting – and revealing – book about AMC’s final years with Renault is The Last American CEO by Jason Vines. It chronicles Joe Cappy’s years as head of American Motors, as he tried to bridge the cultural gap between AMC’s “home team” and its French owners.
Given the shenanigans by Renault’s leadership (the highlight was the high-level Renault boss who skipped a key meeting with increasingly restive American dealers in order to spend time with his new girlfriend), it’s no wonder that AMC ended up as part of Chrysler.
I remember my Dad commenting after some friends bought an Alliance and he had checked it out that it reminded him of the British cars sold here in Canada in the fifties.
Fundamentally good cars that were not going to stand up to Canadian driving habits and ignoring normal maintenance as so many people still do.
I rented an Alliance for a weekend, in 1984, and it was slow! Was the 1.7L engine a pushrod engine?
The 1.7 was OHC. The smaller 1.4 was a pushrod.
I saw the Alliance at a new car show back in 1982 or 83. It was an early production car and I was impressed. The price was right, it looked well built, it was comfortable, I still think it was a stand out design of the 80’s. I’d have bought one, but I didn’t need a car. By the time I did, it was out of production. I still think they were a very attractive cheap car. Although they didn’t get AMC badging, they did get an AMC decal in the back window. A very good article with one minor nitpick, not every AMC vehicle was hastily put out to pasture. The Grand Wagoneer lived until 1991.
Also the XJ Cherokee (originally built by AMC) was produced through the 2001 model year by Chrysler, and went on through 2012 in China.
Late to this party, but seeing that Alliance interior shot brought back memories. That’s of the Alliance MT, Motor Trend Car of the Year Edition. The plaque on the right of the dashboard says so and is numbered.
My dad owned one; ours was number 1200. Those seats were wonderful, by the way. Here’s a photo of my mom sitting in it. This would have been about 1985.
I drove an “85 Renault Encore GS, it was a fairly decent car, but my vehicle suffered from lots of problems, some with the electrical issues, brakes, and other components. The 1.7 liter engine gave adequate performance, but it certainly wasn’t overpowered. I think AMC held up their half of the bargain better than Renault. Compared with Japanese vehicles, it’s reliability was really lacking. After driving it I never wanted another French car again.
Most of the negative comments are from those who never drove one.
It was a cute car that was remarkably well done for the times.
There was a feeling back then that gas prices would be high forever.
So, there were more than a few vehicle manufacturers unprepared for the renewed demands for larger cars during the mid-1980s. Both Ford and GM planned on phasing out their large cars. Pontiac had already. So replacements for the 1977 GM full sized vehicles and the 1979 Panther Fords were long in arriving. The demand for larger cars kept the old beasts in production far longer than originally expected.
I had a Renault Alliance. I had it a year. So, during that year – nothing bad happened. You can say that was because it was only one year. Yet – before that car, I had other brand new cars that utterly failed during their first year. So, considering the times, I was extremely impressed with the Renault.
These were handsome cars. Cute. Attractive. Look at the competition and you will agree. The interiors were superior to the competition. The ride was the best small car ride I had ever experienced – only 2000 pounds? AMAZING ride for a car like that.
Once again, US demands wrecked things – automatic transmissions did not compliment the original design and engineering. Manuals! That is how the car was meant to be driven. A/C? The car was not designed to be driven by an automatic with an A/C blasting. Remember – it was only a 2000 pound car – in the same weight class as a Festiva, a Yugo, and other minicars. Larding on the weight was not in the original design.
I wrote about my experience here at CC regarding this car:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/auto-biography/my-alliance-with-the-franco-american-motors-alliance/
Glad to read that someone had a happy Alliance ownership experience. Just another one of those ‘what might have been’ cars that deserved a better life.
I wonder if there were others, mainly those who had a non-A/C, non-automatic Alliance that was bought and serviced by a decent AMC dealer (if there were any left by that time). I get the impression that, unless you were buying a higher-profit, Jeep-branded product, the dealerships cared as little as possible about the Renault-sourced vehicles, not only in sales, but service.
A real shame because the four-headlight, 2-door Alliance sedans were quite attractive.
I agree these were attractive cars and the interiors look above grade for class. But, then, I’m a fan of the broughamy hardtops the Japanese reserved for the JDM market. I’d have had an entirely different attitude regarding Japanese cars in the early ’80s if they had sent over my definition of the good stuff.
The 4 was a rugged little third world tractor and could have gotten a following.
The 5, heavily subsidized to spread French culture, almost outsold the Corrolla until they started falling apart.
They tore up SCCA Showroom Stock but among the issues was that the early ones absolutely had to have the head bolts retorqued after the first 1,000 miles. Dealers all lied and that jewel of an engine, with superhard cylinders that could never wear out in a ductile iron block clamped to the aluminum head with bolts that went to the bottom, simply came untogether.
The 1.4 had stretch bolts but there were other issues.
The Alliance was too good for the US consumer to understand.
Their intelligence should be obvious at this point.