Talk:Renault Alliance

Proposed merger discussion

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I think that this article should merge with the Renault 9/11 page, simply because I think that since the Alliance was a rebadged 9, the Alliance info should be in the 9's page, not in its own separate page. I've already started a discussion on the 9/11's talk page if you want to talk about it. -Daniel Blanchette 16:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Do check out a proposed merged article @ User:Bravada/Renault_9,_11,_Alliance_and_Encore and take it into consideration!

• Oppose. Daniel- I'm really opposed to merging the two articles, for one good reason - in order to have a full representation of AMC products, the Alliance needs to stand alone. If its merged into the Renault article, the Alliance and its impact on AMC become secondary to the Renault angle. Again, I am opposed to the move because the facts about the Alliance get lost in the "9" article. So lets give this article a chance to at least grow before it gets swept aside. Stude62 01:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not going to get lost. Look at the Chevrolet Epica article, for instance. I'm thinking of something like that. To me, I think having separate pages for the Alliance, Encore, and the 9/11. Remember, back in the 1980s, except for a few models, AMC was pretty much Renaults and Jeeps. I think it would be wise to merge them together. In addition, in keeping with the "home market" naming scheme that we have seem to have adopted, the 9 and the 11 were the home market names for the Alliance and the Encore anyway. Of course there would be full representation (I think it would be possible to cut and paste the entire article into the Renault 9/11 article, then add the AMC template box below the Renault box), it's just logically not making sense. No, I'm not underscoring AMC's impact, it's just that I want to get facts straightened out in my head, and I don't the Alliance would get lost in the 9/11 article, so long as it's in a separate section of the article, like the Epica. -Daniel Blanchette 14:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Dan- I think that the matter needs to brought before the Wikipedia Auto project. I have issued an invitation for them to come and post their feelings on the matter. Stude62 16:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I am generally for having seperate articles following the "Wikipedia is not paper" guideline. I think since the Alliance was market by AMC and not under the Renault badge this article should exsits in its own right. (This is also why I favor a seperation of the Yukon and Tahoe article) AMC is not the same as Renault and if the story is indeed different for AMC as opposed to Renualt than the Alliance deserves its own article. One thing though, shouldn't this article be named the AMC Alliance, instead of Renault Alliance? Thanks. Regards, Signature^brendel 19:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. As a former Alliance convertible (and Encore hatchback, don't ask...) owner, I think these cars, even though based on the Renault 9, deserve to stand alone. I agree with Stude62 that the impact of this car on AMC was profound. It was much much larger proportionally than the impact of one rebadged Daewoo was on Chevrolet. So I'd oppose the merge. Now I have a todo, to go digging for some pictures of my old cars that I can scan in, because the article really needs an illustration or two. ++Lar: t/c 20:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I am against the merger of the two articles. Rebadged or not, the Alliance was well-recognized and important enough in its own right to merit its own article, not be buried in the article for an unknown (to me) model. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 22:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I usually prefer having different articles about different cars. But here I can't see that any of your argument follow any wikipedia convention about having separate articles. If it's the same car, then all info about the car should be in one article. --Boivie 00:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Just a note: the cars weren't even built on the same continent. According to the 9/11 article, they didn't even look the same on the outside (different silhouette.) By the logic expressed in proposing this merger, the Pontiac Firebird and Chevrolet Camaro articles should be merged as well. Right? --BRossow 01:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The VW Golf from Puebla and VW Golf from Wolfsburg haven't been built on the same continent either, but are still the same car. The same for a myriad of other "world cars". The "different silhouettes" sentence refers to the 9 and the 11 - the 9 was a sedan and the 11 a hatchback, therefore they had different silhouettes. The 9 and Alliance, as well as the 11 and Encore had identical silhouettes, in fact they are almost totally identical, the 9 and Alliance only have different fascias. --Bravada 03:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support These are the same cars (see above)! I could even agree that the 11 could be separated from the 9 (and thus the Alliance from the Encore), but why separate the Alliance from the 11? There is no separate article on Holden Vectra or Volkswagen Bora and it's OK that way. The beauty of Wikipedia not being "paper" is that you may not have separate articles on every topic imaginable, but rather a set of clever redrects, subsections etc. provides for coherent stories. Have a look at my proposition of the merged article. I know there are many people here who would like to honor the Alliance as an AMC vehicle, but I believe a section in the 9/11 article is not worse in any way.
  I wouldn't probably be so much against a separate Alliance article if the article in question wouldn't be deprived of any mention of or link to the Renault 9/11 whatsoever (while even the AMC template below links from Alliance and encore directly to Renault 9/11). --Bravada 03:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The 9/11 receives its due now in the Alliance article, as does Dick Teague for his design work on the car on behalf of AMC. Also the linkage is fixed in the template. Such is the ability of Wikipedia - being easy to edit and responsive to such changes. Stude62 03:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to my comments so quickly! I believe, however, that the sentence you added might be a little misleading - a casual reader might think that the Alliance/Encore had a totally different styling than the 9/11, as well as being significantly different in the technical department. Perhaps listing the actual differences might be more suitable, like here: [[1]]

And I still believe the articles should be merged :D --Bravada 04:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Normally I would support merges like this, but there's plenty of info on this page already, and the Alliance is quite different than the R9/11 in several ways as people have already mentioned above. --ApolloBoy 20:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Support. I still stick by my idea of merging this page with the Renault 9/11 page. Again, I reiterate that since the Alliance was a rebadged 9, and the equivalent Encore was a rebadged 11, the Alliance info and the Encore info should be in the Renault 9/11 page. I think that Bravada had the right idea of what I was looking for. For those people who said that it was marketed by AMC, not Régie Renault - Renault controlled AMC in the 1980s; the only models that was distinctively marketed as AMCs were the AMC Eagle and the Jeeps (Renaults were sold as Renaults, and Renaults made up most of AMC's lineup in the 1980s), and since the Alliance/Encore was really no more than a rebadged 9/11, it would be pointless to have two separate articles. You don't see two separate articles for the JDM and USDM Toyota Corolla. Why? They are the same model. The Alliance/Encore and the 9/11, even with the modifications needed to suit the Feds' whims, are really the same model. Again, if we want to stick with the "home market" naming scheme that has produced such weird articles like the General Motors Astra, then the 9 and 11 are the home-market names (in this case, France and to an extent the EEA in general) of the Alliance and Encore. Even the Medallion part of the AMC template redirects to the home-market Renault (forget the number). Again, look at the Chevrolet Epica article, and I still stick by my original position. -Daniel Blanchette 20:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Dan, have you looked at the Chevrolet Epica article lately? It doesn't exist; instead its a redirect to Daewoo Magnus, so does the Suzuki Verona article. As for your arguments, I respect them because they are yours and your evidently feel very empassioned about this, but they don't make logical sense because comparing the Epica (a blip on General Motors radar screen) to Alliance (the make or break car for AMC) is like comparing apples to oranges. Stude62 23:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The final consensus was not to merge. This article has stood for six years after the above discussion (in which I did not participate). In summary, although originating from the same platform as the French Renault 9 and 11, the U.S.-made Alliance/Encore/GTA vehicles represent a unique history and development, as well as qualify for a separate article. CZmarlin (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Images

Not having too much luck finding free or fair use images of this little beastie. Here's one I found, but it's tiny. Still, better than nothing? It's from a US government site. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/photos/1985_AMC_Alliance_W.jpg (EPA fuel economy site) ++Lar: t/c 22:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Lar- I went to the vault today and found the image that I posted in the article. Everytime I go down to the basement I remind myself that I really do need to get the ads and brochures out of there. But there are so many, and they weigh so much...Stude62 03:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice image it is, too. I like how they had the model sit all skewed in the seat so that her head wasn't blocked by the pillar. We saved our brochures (the white convertible was bought new) for a long time, but not THIS long! Well done. ++Lar: t/c 03:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the magic of commercial art. And oh, those automobile ads are stored with three-hundred or so dealer promotional models from the 1950s-1970s, all in their own boxes. I'm hoping that they all pay for my retirement in 30 years. Stude62 04:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Copyvios gallore

This article is rife with quotations, rather than citations, from the editorial pieces listed as sources. The appropriateness of those as sources for some statements aside, this is rather plainly copyvio. I'd say the article needs a rewrite (and merger with 9/11, it's still the same car, no matter how long Dick Teague stared at it). Kind, PrinceGloria (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This article has been gone over carefully and there are no copy violations. As noted in the "Proposed merger discussion" above, there was no consensus to combine the articles, and there are valid reasons for this to be a separate article. CZmarlin (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Opinions 26 years after the fact

After over a quarter of a century, Car and Driver magazine listed the 1983 Renault Alliance as one of the cars that they should have not nominated as one of its "10 Best" 1983 cars. This current (as of 2009) reference and unscientific list also criticized a competing magazine, Motor Trend, for naming the Alliance as its 1983 "Car of the Year". However, the facts do not change as to the actual automotive history and the exhaustive tests that were conducted 26 years ago for the Alliance to achieve these recognitions. Therefore, the "recanting" is not a reference because it will not affect the history. Moreover, according to Wikipedia automobile conventions, the widely accepted guideline for automotive subjects is that mention of such references should be limited to cases where the fact of that reference influenced the sales, design, operation, or other tangible aspect of the vehicle. In summary, the Car and Driver opinion in 2009 is not appropriate because it has noticeable impact on the car. CZmarlin (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the section containing this disputed text is entitled "Legacy". The Car and Driver article in question certainly speaks to the legacy, if not the defining legacy, of the Renault Alliance -- certainly a tangible aspect, noticeable impact, or whatever else you want to call it. In fact, the article itself contradicts your presumption: By the late ’80s, the sight of rusted Alliances abandoned alongside America’s roads was so common that their resale value had dropped to nearly zero. When Chrysler bought AMC in 1987, its first order of business was the mercy-killing of the Alliance. Jmathis555 (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be no data or credible sources (not just more random musings and sweeping generalizations) that support the opinions of the Car and Driver editors. In fact, I think they have confused the Alliance with the legacy of the 1975-1978 Honda Civics and Accords. These were the notorious vehicles to rust where was salt used in the winter. However, Hondas did not rot away in almost ten years (as is claimed of the Alliance in the article) but in less than three years from purchase.

The final Consent Order between the Federal Trade Commission and the automakers, provided owners of 1975-1978 Honda cars with rusted fenders the right to receive replacements or cash reimbursements.(Richard M. Goodman, Automobile design liability, Volume 1 Center for Auto Safety, Lawyers Co-operative Pub. Co., 1983, page 106.) American Honda Motor Co. Inc. notified almost 1 million owners of these cars that their fenders can be repaired or replaced at no charge. Within 180 days after a car’s inspection by a dealer, Honda had to remove and replace front fenders that first showed rust within the car’s first three years, as well as repair or replace any rusted support parts. (See: Jim Dunne "Detroit Report" Popular Science December 1981‬‬, Vol. 219, No. 6, Page 8)

These Hondas were so terrible in their for corrosion that NHTSA issued a safety recall campaign. It described that the lateral suspension arms, front crossbeam, and strut coil spring lower supports could weaken with exposure to salt. (See: NHTSA Campaign) Honda had to replace these components, and often bought back entire cars. No, it was not Alliances that were rust buckets, but the 936,774 Hondas built between 9-1-72 and 8-1-79.(Clarence Ditlow, Ray Gold Little secrets of the auto industry: hidden warranties cost billions of dollars Moyer Bell, 1994, isbn 9781559210850, page 84) Of course, none of this certainly tangible aspect and noticeable impact is even mentioned in the Honda Civic and Accord articles. Rather, it is easier to make snap associations about the Renault Alliance that are misleading.

Of course there is no point in commenting on the hyperbole of the cars' nearly zero value. There were other reasons why Chrysler stopped production of the Alliance. After purchasing AMC, Chrysler had too many automobile platforms including import branded vehicles produced by Diamond-Star Motors that it owned as well. In summary, the C&D article is heavy on irreverent humor, but the opinions expressed are not based on actual information. CZmarlin (talk) 03:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like you've made a 'snap association' regarding where the C&D editors talk about rust! The article doesn't actually state that rust in particular was the primary defect with the Alliance, as it seems you are implying; rather in the directly preceding sentence, the article specifically mentions weak engine power and awful manufacturing quality as reasons for the low resale value: "The standard 1.4-liter engine croaked along with only 60 hp. The Alliance proved that Wisconsin workers could assemble a Renault with the same indifference to quality that was a hallmark of the French automotive industry." The article continues with the sentence quoted in my first reply about abandoned vehicles & low resale value. I sincerely doubt the editors meant to imply that owners were abandoning their vehicles primarily because of rust! I quoted that sentence in my first reply because it shows the low resale issue was a tangible aspect. I think it's clear the editors were only implying a high degree of mechanical problems are the Alliance's legacy, a fact already mentioned in the WP article.

Although it probably wasn't your intention, indirectly you make a great point regarding the Honda WP articles -- as rust issues were most certainly a defining aspect of that model generation, why is there no mention whatsoever of the rust issue in the Civic & Accord articles? Conversely, both the Toyota Tundra and Tacoma WP articles mention the very similar rust defect present in those models. Why not for Honda? I think the lack of information in the Honda articles is the root problem, & so obviously it wouldn't be logical to use flawed articles as a basis to continue the mistake. Jmathis555 (talk) 16:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The facts also show that indifference to quality was not just a hallmark of the French automotive industry, but also at Detroit! I will try to refrain also making a snap judgement about Honda's quality at that time as well! Perceptions often carry more weight than reality. Consumers in the U.S. at that time were moving in large numbers to anything smaller and more economical. The domestic automakers did not make these type of cars. Thanks for your suggestions. CZmarlin (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Ha! I think it's safe to say poor quality has at one time or another been a "hallmark" of many manufacturers, but it's only been a major factor in the noteworthy demise of a relatively short list of models. Regarding your point about perceptions vs reality, very true! The Ford Pinto comes to mind: a very tangible effect on the Pinto's reputation from generally misinformed public perception. Jmathis555 (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

So very true. However, sweeping generalizations are everywhere and they influence buyers and their decisions. For example, snap judgements have to made when an expensive repair has to done on a car. The manager of a multi-brand dealership company with numerous outlets explained it to me best by repeating what he often hears customers reaction to similar major repairs. The car is up in the air on a lift, parts have to be ordered, and the owner is anxious to get their wheels back. If their car is a "domestic" brand their owners will often respond: don't do it, its just junk, if their vehicle has an "import" brand then the owners often say: ohh ... well ... go ahead, its maintenance. At this point, it makes no difference to try to "educate" them to the facts that some imports may not be imports or the actual origin of some badge engineered vehicles may sometimes be the same, etc. The perceptions then also feed on themselves. Any vehicle that does not receive proper and regular service, will not perform as well and last as long as one that does - regardless of the brand name or manufacturer. The owner's reasoning comes from the dark corner of the brain used to make snap associations. It is full of cells marked "P" for prejudice that rely on misinformed generalizations. Needless to say, you can figure out which shops in that chain dealership make the most money! In the fields of marketing and advertising, its all in the consumer's head .... CZmarlin (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

After all this discussion, why does the article still make any reference to sophomoric attempts at humor by some naive blogger on Car and Driver′s payroll? Has anyone provided any reason to retain this nonsense? The passage quoted (apparently in defense of the stupid CD blog post) only goes to prove my point: "The standard 1.4-liter engine croaked along with only 60 hp. The Alliance proved that Wisconsin workers could assemble a Renault with the same indifference to quality that was a hallmark of the French automotive industry." 60 hp was hardly inadequate nor atypical for a 2000 lb, $5000 economy car in 1983! And is there any objective data suggesting that indifferent build quality was a "hallmark of the French automotive industry?" Of course not; that's just another example of a talentless blogger trying to be "timely, amusing, and authoritative" (to borrow his/her own words). Wisconsin-built Renaults did suffer from quality control problems that no doubt affected their reputation, so this section of the article is important, except as it is now there's hardly any content that isn't complete rubbish. As the original comment here so aptly stated, "the facts do not change as to the actual automotive history and the exhaustive tests that were conducted 26 years ago for the Alliance to achieve these recognitions. Therefore, the 'recanting' is not a reference because it will not affect the history." There's a big difference between adressing a car's legacy in a Wikipedia article, and citing a recent blog post to substantiate rewriting the well-documented history of a quarter-century ago. (Read the rest of the CD blog post if you're not convinced of its complete unsuitability as a reference on Wikipedia; they even have the gall to suggest that the excellent Merkur XR4Ti/Ford Sierra XR4i didn't deserve its contemporary honors just because of its unconventional styling, and that the objective superiority of the Ford Contour/Mercury Mystique is somehow invalidated in hindsight by the fact that it didn't conform to traditional American assumptions about the size of a 4-door car in that price range. Utterly laughable.) Jelliott4 (talk) 03:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The article now contains specific quotations from automotive writers that road tested the cars. There is no need to include the sophomoric attempts at humor that seem to be repeated by current pundits. They have more than likely never experienced the car itself, nor the contemporary models that sold against the Alliance. These include such "exemplary" vehicles as the primitive rear-wheel drive Chevrolet Chevette and Toyota Corolla. Even the "advanced" boxy Dodge Omni was not yet introduced, as well as the Mazda GLC (hardly a "Great Little Car"), the early Ford Escort and Honda Civic were also "throw-away" econoboxes. Most forget that the Alliance sold over 600,000 units during its short production life, a very respectable number from the smallest U.S. automaker. Of course, some bloggers find it easy to compare the quality of Mercedes-Benz or Cadillac to the Alliance and make misinformed generalizations about this car, AMC vehicles in general, and even the entire French nation and its people. Their puerile comments are not needed in an encyclopedia. CZmarlin (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for resurrecting this old discussion, but I've found additional reliable sources attesting to the long-term build quality/reliability problems of the Alliance series. Apparently the Car and Driver blog post isn't considered appropriate (I tend to agree), however I've found other, better articles, by the Chicago Tribune [2], the Lakeland Ledger (discussing a Consumer Reports survey on the car's reliability) [3], books [4], [5], and Edmund's 100 worst cars of all time list [6]. I don't feel the article currently addresses what was an issue with this vehicle. Kindzmarauli (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Please note that this is an encyclopedia and information should cover the article's subject in its time. In other words, WP articles do not serve as a discussion forum to voice opinions. Nor are WP articles to serve as a used car buying guide (such as your "reference" describing opinions about the Alliance in the "The Canadian Car Buyer's Survival Guide" that was published in 1991, or over eight years after the car's introduction). The mention of the Alliance (along with several other popular 1980s - and highly rated - models) in the Lemon-Aid New Cars and Trucks 2013 book is also hardly a reliable reference. It does not indicate any information about these so-called "COTY classics" is backed by any real research and objective evaluations. Likewise, the regurgitated content (such as your example from the Lakeland Ledger that has no author identified) is another questionable source. The Chicago Tribune link you provided is not unbiased reporting, but rather the author's opinions and second-guessing about COTY "losers" and includes a list of the writer's own favorite cars that did not win. Rather than any facts, the lists are accompanied by sophomoric attempts at slapstick humor that include slamming rural mailmen, owners of British cars, purchasers of personal luxury cars as the "Mustang for the middle-aged", and dispensing with historical reality, such as describing four-seat Thunderbirds as "cynical" (although mentioning that their sales dramatically increased over the two-seat versions). The guideline for WP content is maintaining a neutral point of view and not a discussion of opinions after the fact. Cheers - CZmarlin (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

"Information should cover the article's subject in its time". To say that articles on historical subjects can only use contemporaneous references and information is patent nonsense. I recommend that we begin an RfC. Kindzmarauli (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Why you are changing my statement to "articles on historical subjects can only use contemporaneous references and information"? I was trying to explain that this article presents cited information and tangible evidence from the time of the subject. This includes references from extensive road tests and other independent reliable sources to affirm the facts and statements in the article. In short, this article covers the subject in its time. Exactly what is wrong with that? On the other hand, the "references" that you had provided (in the links above) do not indicate any degree of research or independent study to support their statements. One is a newspaper article that seems to plagiarize a magazine. There is a book about buying used cars, but it does not provide any data to support the statements. There is also what can be called two "revisionist" pieces that are simple attempts at humor, and do not represent a neutral point of view. The statement that "owners of British cars already knew that" in the piece authored by Paul Duchene, does not have evidence of a careful comparison of the Alliance to the experience of British car owners. The list of 100 worst cars has terrible "loosely defined as a car that shaped current American automotive culture around its bad example" - in other words a random collection of one author's perceptions. The criteria used to compile this list of 100 cars by by John Pearley Huffman only reinforces its "entertainment" pop-culture nature, and WP guidelines do not support such additions. It is disingenuous to characterize my critical review of your contemporary sources, that "only" information from the time of the subject can be included. Encyclopedia articles should contain information that is factual, not unsubstantiated claims nor original thoughts. The main pillars of WP are neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research. Please let me know if something has changed in WP's policies because I have interpreted that to mean no musings, opinions, perceptions, or sweeping generalizations - even if they are verifiable. Thanks! CZmarlin (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I recommend that we begin an RfC. Kindzmarauli (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.caroftheyear.org/previous-winners/1982_1/coty http://www.caranddriver.com/features/dishonorable-mention-the-10-most-embarrassing-award-winners-in-automotive-history. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. /wiae /tlk 05:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the violation. Does the template need to remain after your edit? CZmarlin (talk) 04:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@CZmarlin: The template alerts administrators that there are revisions in the history that need to be hidden via revision deletion. Once an administrator has done so, they will remove the template! Thanks, /wiae /tlk 12:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@CZmarlin: The template has now been removed by an administrator. /wiae /tlk 20:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)