GTP Cool Wall: 1990-1996 Renault 19 16V

[Leggy1]

I know that was pretty average for the time, but that doesn't make it any cooler. I can still get a newer car with more power instead.

Not average at all. Quite a lot of power in a family saloon, it is a sports model after all. As mentioned above, it's light, so it can be quick for it's time with the amount of power it has. Of course, compared to todays cars it doesn't have a great deal of power.

 

[Liquid]

Also, it doesn't need that much powarrrrr in order to be fun.

 

[AudiMan2011]

Modestly fast, yet faceless 90's French saloon. Meh.

 

[Legro]

I don't get what's wrong in French cars (and basically in all small, lightweight European and Asian cars) for some people.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

I can still get a newer car with more power instead.

Still a positive well of logic, I see.

Good looks, a sprinkling of racing heritage, and Frenchness. Solid Cool by me.

 

[GTPorsche]

French. Powerless. FWD. Idiotic offset hood intake.

Seriously Uncool. Just another boring 90's sedan.

Yeah, I'll probably catch some flak for that.

To put it in perspective, the American cars of similar size of the time were not getting 135hp out of larger 4-cyl. engines. Hell, the Z/24 Cavalier, with a V6, was only 5hp above that...

 

[Legro]

To put it in perspective, the American cars of similar size of the time were not getting 135hp out of larger 4-cyl. engines. Hell, the Z/24 Cavalier, with a V6, was only 5hp above that...

Obviously Renault could have just made it with 8 liter V8 and RWD.

 

[JMoney]

Not average at all. Quite a lot of power in a family saloon, it is a sports model after all. As mentioned above, it's light, so it can be quick for it's time with the amount of power it has. Of course, compared to todays cars it doesn't have a great deal of power.

Wikipedia said

The XV10, at its most basic level, offered a 2.2 liter 5S-FE four-cylinder engine, up from 2.0 liters in the V20 and V30 Camrys. This unit produced 97 kilowatts (130 hp) of power and 197 newton metres (145 ft·lbf) of torque, although the exact figures varied slightly depending on the market.[6] Power and displacement increases were also received for the V6 engine. The 3.0 litre 3VZ-FE unit was rated at 138 kilowatts (185 hp) and 264 newton metres (195 ft·lbf).[

If I could get a base Camry with about the same power or a sports V6 Camry with 50 more horsepower, the Renault 19 16V doesn't have lot of power at all.

 

[GTPorsche]

The Camry is also a bigger car...

Your logic is just the best...

 

[Leggy1]

If I could get a base Camry with about the same power or a sports V6 Camry with 50 more horsepower, the Renault 19 16V doesn't have lot of power at all.

Toyota Camry XV10 3.0 V6 (185 bhp) 0-100kph: 9.0 seconds

http://en.autogidas.lt/auto/toyota/camry/xv10-3.0-v6-gx-aut-1991-1996-k5541.html

Renault 19 16V (Phase 1 137 bhp) 0-100kph: 8.1 seconds

http://www.autosnout.com/Car-Performance-Statistics.php?EditionID=494

You could have more power in a Camry, but you would have less speed. As mentioned several times already, it's light, so it's quick.

 

[JMoney]

The Camry is also a bigger car...

Your logic is just the best...

I'm responding to an argument that said the Renault has good power for it's time, not good power-to-weight for it's time. Understand my position before you challenge it.

 

[Bopop4]

Camry has more power than a 70s Ferrari.

Therefore the Camry is a sports car. Logic.

 

[Cano]

That thing in the OP pic looks pretty good.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Understand my position before you challenge it.

Unfortunately, a lot of us can't bend like that.

 

[Dennisch]

Unfortunately, a lot of us can't bend like that.

You should try putting it in your back pocket.

 

[JMoney]

Camry has more power than a 70s Ferrari.

Therefore the Camry is a sports car. Logic.

You're in the wrong decade. That isn't even close to what my argument was.

 

[Liquid]

You're in the wrong decade.

But you're still comparing a 2010s car with a 1990s car at least one class smaller than the modern 2010a car, aren't you?

That's still two decades apart.

 

[Wiegert]

I'm responding to an argument that said the Renault has good power for it's time, not good power-to-weight for it's time. Understand my position before you challenge it.

All you did was prove that the 19 16v had more power than a base model XV10. From an engine that had a 400cc disadvantage at a time when hot hatches were regularly producing in the region of 130-150bhp. And not always with the aid of a turbocharger either.

It may seem like a puny amount today. But in a car that size that weighed just over a ton, you didn't need more to have a fun B-road blaster.

View attachment 232141

You're in the wrong decade. That isn't even close to what my argument was.

Of course. You're arguing that a medium-sized range-topping saloon with a V6 from the same period has more power than a car in a completely different class.

A truly gob-smacking revelation there. Now, tell us why it even matters in this case?

 

[JMoney]

But you're still comparing a 2010s car with a 1990s car at least one class smaller than the modern 2010a car, aren't you?

That's still two decades apart.

No, the XV10 Camry was made in the early 90's.

Of course. You're arguing that a medium-sized range-topping saloon with a V6 has more power than a car in a completely different class.

Yes, but the Camry still has more power. It still exists. We have to take it into consideration when judging the coolness of other cars.

If the Renault was still faster to 60 than a Camry with 50 more horses, when didn't they just put a bigger, more powerful engine in the Renault so it could be both light and powerful? The fact that they didn't makes it uncool.

 

[Jet Badger]

Renault 19 16V doesn't have lot of power at all.

Define "a lot of power".

 

[Liquid]

No, the XV10 Camry was made in the early 90's.

My mistake.

You're still comparing two different classes though. As Wiegert points out, a V6 range-topping Camry and the option spec Renault 19 are two different machines entirely. Like a Dodge Stratus, or Intrepid, vs a Ford Escort.

 

[JMoney]

Define "a lot of power".

"A lot of power" is more than 500hp.

"A lot of power" for a FWD sedan is more than 200.

 

[Liquid]

"A lot of power" is more than 500hp.

"A lot of power" for a FWD sedan is more than 200.

According to whom? The NHRA?

No. There are several factors which define "a lot of power". Pure numerical horsepower is not the only factor.

 

[JMoney]

According to whom? The NHRA?

No. There are several factors which define "a lot of power". Pure numerical horsepower is not the only factor.

If you want to be technical, there isn't any clear-cut definition of "a lot of power", it's all opinion.

 

[Bopop4]

According to whom? The NHRA?

No. There are several factors which define "a lot of power". Pure numerical horsepower is not the only factor.

According to people who have never driven a sports car.

 

[Liquid]

If you want to be technical, there isn't any clear-cut definition of "a lot of power"

Exactly

Which is why you saying "x doesn't have much power" or "y has too little power" or "I can get z with more power" is non-binding, subjective and can come across as ignorant depending on the context. As happens so often in the cool wall threads on (especially older) European cars, the small horsepower figure is too often disregarded, by some forum members, without looking at other factors to determine the car's performance value.

 

[JMoney]

According to people who have never driven a sports car.

That statement was so bad I'm not even going to respond to it.

Exactly

Which is why you saying "x doesn't have much power" or "y has too little power" or "I can get z with more power" is non-binding, subjective and can come across as ignorant depending on the context. As happens so often in the cool wall threads on European cars, the small horsepower figure is too often disregarded, by some forum members, without looking at other factors to determine the car's performance value.

Exactly; that's why 10 of us have voted uncool. It's all opinion. There is no 'right' or 'wrong' in regards to coolness.

 

[Jet Badger]

"A lot of power" is more than 500hp.

"A lot of power" for a FWD sedan is more than 200.

As Liquid said - according to who?

500 horsepower isn't "a lot of power" for a commercial airliner. Nor for a tanker ship.

If you want to be technical, there isn't any clear-cut definition of "a lot of power", it's all opinion.

Aahhh, well there you go. Almost like having an opinion does not make that a fact. Crazy, right?

 

[Liquid]

It's all opinion.

But one must be able to back up opinions. You will notice I eliminated the snippet on opinion when I said 'exactly' to your admission that what qualifies as a lot of horsepower is subjective. 'Opinion' and/or 'free speech' are not blankets for 'say what I want and nobody can challenge it'. One must be able to stand by the consequences of what one says; it is not acceptable to say something, have it challenged and simply go "Yeah well... it's all opinion anyway".

@Roo and @Clark also voted this car uncool, I suspect it was not because of the poor horsepower figure and would be interested in seeing what the reason is.

 

[INEEDNAWZZZ]

If the Renault was still faster to 60 than a Camry with 50 more horses, when didn't they just put a bigger, more powerful engine in the Renault so it could be both light and powerful? The fact that they didn't makes it uncool.

The problem is that you don't appear to qualify real world factors such as running costs, insurance, fuel economy or even how much the car would cost to produce and sell for. More over, there are also just the dynamics of the whole thing, like weight distribution and so on.

'Light and powerful' is good up to a point. Too much power and its more terrifying to drive instead of exhilarating or exciting. These cars aren't huge, so there aren't many more powerful engines from their parts bin that could fit, unless they resorted to building a whole new engine - ergo, not a cost effective measure, and it would massively inflate the buying cost of the car and put off its projected consumer base. This was designed to be a brisk version of an otherwise vanilla sedan/saloon for the family man. Not a straight-line sleeper.

Plus, a bigger engine doesn't necessarily equate a better driving and therefore a better, cooler car. This is still FWD after all, so all a bigger, more powerful and more torquey engine would do is spoil the weight distribution, give mountains of torque steer as well as understeer. That would make it a terrible car in terms of driving dynamics and thus it wouldn't sell. Unless you're suggesting they should've made it RWD too, but again - its not cost effective in this application.