Classics dwarfed by moderns
Discussion
hah, good one, yes they are low/compact, in other show pictures you think, not so small, but then you spot one in person and think, ow, they are smaller then I thought they were.
the a310 is also reasonable light, if only the engine was more mid like a Lotus Europa S1/S2/S3 sorts, it good have been even more great.
the a310 is also reasonable light, if only the engine was more mid like a Lotus Europa S1/S2/S3 sorts, it good have been even more great.
GTRene said:
hah, good one, yes they are low/compact, in other show pictures you think, not so small, but then you spot one in person and think, ow, they are smaller then I thought they were.
the a310 is also reasonable light, if only the engine was more mid like a Lotus Europa S1/S2/S3 sorts, it good have been even more great.
Being a 'European' the a310 is also reasonable light, if only the engine was more mid like a Lotus Europa S1/S2/S3 sorts, it good have been even more great.
maybe you can help me. I bought the car because I wanted a classic 911 that weighs 200kgs less, doesn't experience crippling Porsche tax on everything, and with a body that doesn't rust. But since I've owned the car I've learned loads more, and one of the things I'm trying to grasp is why the car isn't universally loved by the French. Reading foreign language forums through an app loses some nuances but I think it comes down to these four factors:
1) It looked like it had landed from outer space when it was shown at Geneva in 1971. There was plenty of excitement about the car. Renault was only a minor shareholder at this point, the A110 had just secured a 1-2-3 on the Monte and it was the 2+2 answer to the pre impact bumper 911. But the building of a new factory combined with striking factory workers pressured Alpine into releasing the car before it was quite ready, and the early carb fed 4 cylinder A310 VE suffered some quite public issues.
2) The 4 cylinder cars shared the same engines as the A110 but of course being a 2+2 weighed more. Both were built with an eye on rally success, but the early A110 1.1 and 1.3 cylinder cars handle like a mk1 Escort - a tail out riot; while the later 1600 A110 and A310 are more Lotus like. So the car appealed a little less to the purist. Plus the V6 didn't arrive in 1973 as originally intended but in late 1976.
3) Because it was designed with rallying in mind, and because they didn't want to suffer the handling issues that the early 911 suffered (wheelbase and dimensions are virtually identical) they designed the car with highly adjustable double wishbone suspension all round. Period reviews suggest cars that handle beautifully. Even Colin Chapman was impressed by how long the factory took to ensure correct geometry. But you can imagine not every local garage being quite so competent and patient with the set up, and so the car gets unnecessarily tarred with that same wayward 911 handling brush 'because it's rear engined'.
4) By the time the V6 arrived and became the only car to consistently beat the Lancia Stratos in 1977, the reputation was already set. Renault spent its 1978 motorsport budget on winning Le Mans, and developing the first turbo F1 cars. So the money they had for rallying was put into Gr2 Renault 5s that got 2nd & 3rd on the Monte, and not winning the 1978 Rally Championship as they most likely would have done if properly supported. You can hear the frustration in Gerard Larousse's voice in this Motorsport interview
Is this how you see it?
Edited by sassthathoopie on Friday 22 September 08:26
CRA1G said:
Certainly not in terms of build quality...! Having owned a countless number of BMW's many of them ///M cars over my 46 years of driving i think the E30 was the last quality built BMW...
Different strokes for different folks, but I thinks that’s going a disservice to the E39s and how many leagues ahead they were of the comparable A6/E classes of the time tbh. 20+ year old BMWs are right up my street, but holding the E30 as the last bastion of BMW build quality I think misses the mark slightly. CKY said:
CRA1G said:
Certainly not in terms of build quality...! Having owned a countless number of BMW's many of them ///M cars over my 46 years of driving i think the E30 was the last quality built BMW...
Different strokes for different folks, but I thinks that’s going a disservice to the E39s and how many leagues ahead they were of the comparable A6/E classes of the time tbh. 20+ year old BMWs are right up my street, but holding the E30 as the last bastion of BMW build quality I think misses the mark slightly. sassthathoopie said:
GTRene said:
hah, good one, yes they are low/compact, in other show pictures you think, not so small, but then you spot one in person and think, ow, they are smaller then I thought they were.
the a310 is also reasonable light, if only the engine was more mid like a Lotus Europa S1/S2/S3 sorts, it good have been even more great.
Being a 'European' the a310 is also reasonable light, if only the engine was more mid like a Lotus Europa S1/S2/S3 sorts, it good have been even more great.
maybe you can help me. I bought the car because I wanted a classic 911 that weighs 200kgs less, doesn't experience crippling Porsche tax on everything, and with a body that doesn't rust. But since I've owned the car I've learned loads more, and one of the things I'm trying to grasp is why the car isn't universally loved by the French. Reading foreign language forums through an app loses some nuances but I think it comes down to these four factors:
1) It looked like it had landed from outer space when it was shown at Geneva in 1971. There was plenty of excitement about the car. Renault was only a minor shareholder at this point, the A110 had just secured a 1-2-3 on the Monte and it was the 2+2 answer to the pre impact bumper 911. But the building of a new factory combined with striking factory workers pressured Alpine into releasing the car before it was quite ready, and the early carb fed 4 cylinder A310 VE suffered some quite public issues.
2) The 4 cylinder cars shared the same engines as the A110 but of course being a 2+2 weighed more. Both were built with an eye on rally success, but the early A110 1.1 and 1.3 cylinder cars handle like a mk1 Escort - a tail out riot; while the later 1600 A110 and A310 are more Lotus like. So the car appealed a little less to the purist. Plus the V6 didn't arrive in 1973 as originally intended but in late 1976.
3) Because it was designed with rallying in mind, and because they didn't want to suffer the handling issues that the early 911 suffered (wheelbase and dimensions are virtually identical) they designed the car with highly adjustable double wishbone suspension all round. Period reviews suggest cars that handle beautifully. Even Colin Chapman was impressed by how long the factory took to ensure correct geometry. But you can imagine not every local garage being quite so competent and patient with the set up, and so the car gets unnecessarily tarred with that same wayward 911 handling brush 'because it's rear engined'.
4) By the time the V6 arrived and became the only car to consistently beat the Lancia Stratos in 1977, the reputation was already set. Renault spent its 1978 motorsport budget on winning Le Mans, and developing the first turbo F1 cars. So the money they had for rallying was put into Gr2 Renault 5s that got 2nd & 3rd on the Monte, and not winning the 1978 Rally Championship as they most likely would have done if properly supported. You can hear the frustration in Gerard Larousse's voice in this Motorsport interview
Is this how you see it?
I know that a lot a French are stubborn and or captured in their culture, at least around those times, also at those days no internet and not many dealers with Alpine cars, yes they looked 'strange' for them, most 'peasants' drove more cars when they had a function and could be used for more things and that were cheap :-) like the normal Renaults. Peugeots and Citroëns were.
But its all guessing, maybe almost the same for TVR, also rustfree body, sportscar but many did not even know them, although they had the engine in a good place :-) and they mostly did not look so strange, but stil.
sassthathoopie said:
Being a 'European' maybe you can help me.
I bought the car because I wanted a classic 911 that weighs 200kgs less, doesn't experience crippling Porsche tax on everything, and with a body that doesn't rust. But since I've owned the car I've learned loads more, and one of the things I'm trying to grasp is why the car isn't universally loved by the French. Reading foreign language forums through an app loses some nuances but I think it comes down to these four factors:
1) It looked like it had landed from outer space when it was shown at Geneva in 1971. There was plenty of excitement about the car. Renault was only a minor shareholder at this point, the A110 had just secured a 1-2-3 on the Monte and it was the 2+2 answer to the pre impact bumper 911. But the building of a new factory combined with striking factory workers pressured Alpine into releasing the car before it was quite ready, and the early carb fed 4 cylinder A310 VE suffered some quite public issues.
2) The 4 cylinder cars shared the same engines as the A110 but of course being a 2+2 weighed more. Both were built with an eye on rally success, but the early A110 1.1 and 1.3 cylinder cars handle like a mk1 Escort - a tail out riot; while the later 1600 A110 and A310 are more Lotus like. So the car appealed a little less to the purist. Plus the V6 didn't arrive in 1973 as originally intended but in late 1976.
3) Because it was designed with rallying in mind, and because they didn't want to suffer the handling issues that the early 911 suffered (wheelbase and dimensions are virtually identical) they designed the car with highly adjustable double wishbone suspension all round. Period reviews suggest cars that handle beautifully. Even Colin Chapman was impressed by how long the factory took to ensure correct geometry. But you can imagine not every local garage being quite so competent and patient with the set up, and so the car gets unnecessarily tarred with that same wayward 911 handling brush 'because it's rear engined'.
4) By the time the V6 arrived and became the only car to consistently beat the Lancia Stratos in 1977, the reputation was already set. Renault spent its 1978 motorsport budget on winning Le Mans, and developing the first turbo F1 cars. So the money they had for rallying was put into Gr2 Renault 5s that got 2nd & 3rd on the Monte, and not winning the 1978 Rally Championship as they most likely would have done if properly supported. You can hear the frustration in Gerard Larousse's voice in this Motorsport interview
Is this how you see it?
No idea. I just wanted to say thank for an interesting insight into Alpine in the '70s. maybe you can help me. I bought the car because I wanted a classic 911 that weighs 200kgs less, doesn't experience crippling Porsche tax on everything, and with a body that doesn't rust. But since I've owned the car I've learned loads more, and one of the things I'm trying to grasp is why the car isn't universally loved by the French. Reading foreign language forums through an app loses some nuances but I think it comes down to these four factors:
1) It looked like it had landed from outer space when it was shown at Geneva in 1971. There was plenty of excitement about the car. Renault was only a minor shareholder at this point, the A110 had just secured a 1-2-3 on the Monte and it was the 2+2 answer to the pre impact bumper 911. But the building of a new factory combined with striking factory workers pressured Alpine into releasing the car before it was quite ready, and the early carb fed 4 cylinder A310 VE suffered some quite public issues.
2) The 4 cylinder cars shared the same engines as the A110 but of course being a 2+2 weighed more. Both were built with an eye on rally success, but the early A110 1.1 and 1.3 cylinder cars handle like a mk1 Escort - a tail out riot; while the later 1600 A110 and A310 are more Lotus like. So the car appealed a little less to the purist. Plus the V6 didn't arrive in 1973 as originally intended but in late 1976.
3) Because it was designed with rallying in mind, and because they didn't want to suffer the handling issues that the early 911 suffered (wheelbase and dimensions are virtually identical) they designed the car with highly adjustable double wishbone suspension all round. Period reviews suggest cars that handle beautifully. Even Colin Chapman was impressed by how long the factory took to ensure correct geometry. But you can imagine not every local garage being quite so competent and patient with the set up, and so the car gets unnecessarily tarred with that same wayward 911 handling brush 'because it's rear engined'.
4) By the time the V6 arrived and became the only car to consistently beat the Lancia Stratos in 1977, the reputation was already set. Renault spent its 1978 motorsport budget on winning Le Mans, and developing the first turbo F1 cars. So the money they had for rallying was put into Gr2 Renault 5s that got 2nd & 3rd on the Monte, and not winning the 1978 Rally Championship as they most likely would have done if properly supported. You can hear the frustration in Gerard Larousse's voice in this Motorsport interview
Is this how you see it?
Edited by sassthathoopie on Friday 22 September 08:26
loughran said:
Also moderns dwarfed by moderns! Those Defenders make the Model Ys look like 3/4 scale cars, which is quite a shocking achievement!And before anybody goes all Fathers Ted and Dougal on me; see for yourselves.
SpudLink said:
No idea. I just wanted to say thank for an interesting insight into Alpine in the '70s.
No worries. It's taken me months of trying to get to the bottom of it all! I have a ridiculously geeky spreadsheet that assesses all the times the Stratos was pitched against a properly supported V6 A310 in either Group IV or Group V spec. Bernard Darniche in his Stratos was untouchable on continental rallies during that era (European Champion 1976 & 1977, French Champion 1976 & 1978)
Yet in the five times he raced Guy Fréquelin's A310 in late '76 and 1977 he only came out on top once; which according to Jaques Delaval was a driver error during a stage. He was beaten by the Group V car twice, and by the Group IV car twice.
Group V:
Group IV:
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff