Talk:Renault 5

message: 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)
thread_title:  Entry level model to 1984 

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

message: "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)
replies: text: ^ 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)
thread_title:  Campus 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Black rear-registration-plate-lights 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Years offered in North America 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Racing history 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Engine size(s) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  1.1L 44hp performance? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Production figures problem