You’re looking at the car that American Motors hoped would bring it back from the brink. AMC’s tie-up with Renault in the late 1970s was a last-gasp effort at self-rescue. In the midst of the second energy crisis in five years, AMC’s 2% market share amounted to sales of fewer than 200,000 cars, while the Big Three were selling that many units of a single model. AMC was sinking fast. Renault saw an opportunity to expand its distribution to the US cheaply, so it stepped in with a loan, taking an equity share at the same time. In return, AMC would manufacture an Americanized version of the Renault 9 compact sedan and sell Renault’s other models in its US dealerships. The Alliance was launched in 1982 to benefit from a market still responsive to fuel-efficient cars. Here on Facebook Marketplace is a 1987 Alliance DL convertible with an asking price of $4,000, located in Washington, Iowa. Thanks to Zappenduster for finding this rarely seen Franco-American!
While the Alliance was made in Kenosha, Wisconsin, the car’s engine and gearbox came from France. The base model received Renault’s 1.4-liter four-cylinder – the same unit fitted to the Le Car. By 1985, a 1.7-liter fuel-injected four coupled with a five-speed gearbox was offered as an option. Neither was known for performance; instead, AMC touted the car’s excellent gas mileage. By the late 1980s, though, gas prices had declined, and buyers were moving on, seeking more luxurious finishes and better acceleration. This example has seen regular maintenance, but no mention is made of its running condition.
Before we move on, let’s give a nod to the car’s owners – who have kept this Renault in remarkable condition. Ok, the engine bay needs help, and I think I see rust peeking through the cracked undercoating beneath the car, but this interior and the sheet metal are nearly pristine. And thanks to the seller – for cleaning the car inside and out, and taking decent photographs. Now back to the cabin: the Alliance was offered in several trim levels, from the base L to the mid-range DL, on up to the Limited. The DL offers a few extra accessories, including a clock, rear ashtrays, and extra trim. The front bucket seats are set onto rocker-shaped sliders, allowing for a wide range of adjustment. The seller notes that the convertible top mechanism works, but the windows do not.
The Alliance didn’t save AMC. Early reviews of the car point to a weak gearbox, variable idle speed, and other faults. Quality control was a recurring issue at AMC in the 1970s and early 1980s – and Renault wasn’t much better. Price-wise, you could do worse than a quirky convertible for $4,000, but I wouldn’t bite until I saw the car in person. What do you think of this Franco-American affair?
I am going to admit. I didn’t pay much attention to these Renaults when I was a kid. But this one caught my eye. It even has the convertible top boot that appears its in great condition. The car, up top looks terrific, that interior looks very comfortable too. I like the color too. And its a stick. It seems like a fair price, but you’d have to really hook your peepers on that underside to make sure rust isn’t an issue. Hopefully it goes to a good new home.
I don’t know Michelle, antique Cat Crawler one day, Franco American drop top today!! Thanks Michelle.
Nice one, Michelle and Zappenduster! A convertible is always a fun option. I loved my ’87 GTA; it was trouble-free, and lots of maintenance parts were still available on RockAuto and other sources. It needed a turn signal cam (for canceling the turn signals after you make a turn) for the steering hub, and they actually had one. It was a super fun car to drive, the rocker-type adjusting seats were as comfortable as almost any car I’ve owned, and the shifter was solid.
I totally forgot you had one Scotty. That looked very clean. I’m guessing a lot of fun being a GTA with a stick.
Waiting on Howard to comment . I kind of liked these when they were new. Now one would make a fine first car for a teen or second or third car for a family. That rust is concerning but on the other hand that picture shows a stout looking frame rail. Should be possible to modify that engine for a little more horsepower.
Worked at an A/J/R store from ’86-’88. Had the ’85 doppelganger to this one on the showroom floor until 7/86. Never drove a 1.7, but we had several ’87 GTA’s with the 2.0 – sprightly performer for the day. The convertible tops on these were lined and sealed up well. This example with a little noodling on the price looks like some economical fun in the sun, although around here (MO) there are several ’80’s Mustang droptops for just a little more, and the parts situation would be much better with them. But you will never see yourself on the road with this one, the tin worm finished virtually all of them many years ago. Hopefully I am correct in spotting an A/C compressor in the engine shot . . .
I owned three of these cars. My favorite was the 1984. It was the Aztec gold color with matching interior and the DL trim. It was a pretty little car. It was a two door. I liked all three of these vehicles that I had. I never had mechanical issues, and they rode great!
These cars get bashed a lot these days on car forums, I often think unfairly. I rented one in IIRC around 1988 to drive to up to LA from the San Diego area. It ended up developing some kind of weird and concerning engine grinding noise during the trip and I suspect the motor was likely shot by the time I got the car back it the agency. I never found out what the issue was but I think it was some kind of internal part failure because other that that, it drove really well. Was peppy and handle well, seemed well put together In any case I think had these had better support in the US they would’ve been more successful.
I think it would be a fun little toy I would be a little concerned about maintenance parts but without researching it. On a lot of older cars like this it’s really hard to find available parts
I had an ’86 4-door sedan and it was a great economical work car. Sadly, an electrical fire under the hood ended it’s life.
If this was a GTA version, that’d be something really worth going after. The GTA’s are pretty scarce, and I can imagine a convertible one would be even tougher to find.
This is pretty clean looking car. People will walk up and smile at the local Cars and Coffee for this. A GTA would have some of them way more interested, if not almost shocked.
After my wife graduated from Chico State, in 1985, she said to me, “We have to get a new car. That ’64 Valiant is embarrassing…” Yes, we sold our ’64 Valiant that had served us faithfully for 5 years and bought a Renault Alliance- “The One To Watch!” The fuel pump failed on the way home and we had to pay 1/2 of the price for a replacement. Plastic window cranks broke off and the sun visor mounts made of plastic also failed and making them useless and an annoyance. And don’t ask for a warranty replacement- it’s not covered! Head gasket at about 10,000 miles and the engine failed at about 32,000 miles- Had to fight with Renault to get 1/2 assistance on a replacement there as well. We finally traded it in on a 1987 Honda Accord. When I brought it home I asked my wife, “Do you like the color?” She said, “I don’t care about the color, does it run?” “Quality control was a recurring issue at AMC in the 1970s and early 1980s – and Renault wasn’t much better.” NO- Renault was far worse than AMC at that time. These cars were junk then and they are junk now…
These sold quite well initially, at least by AMC standards. Then the word got around about the quality problems and mechanical issues as well as the flimsy construction and overall fragility of these cars.
It also didn’t help that equipped the way many Americans wanted them (with automatic transmission and air conditioning) the standard 1.4 engine was grievously underpowered. (As the gas crisis faded people were less willing to put up with this for the sake of gas mileage.)
These were also recalled for a severe problem with the heater core which could blow out, showering the passenger compartment with hot coolant. This could result in serious burns for driver and/or passenger requiring hospitalization. Whoever buys this thing might want to check that the original heater core has been replaced.
https://youtu.be/LIZBUBnfvG4
I had an Alliance as a rental back in the 1980s and it could barely get out of its own way, though the seats were comfortable and it otherwise rode well.
Haven’t seen an Alliance in ages. Most of them were gone decades ago.
These sold quite well initially, at least by AMC standards. Then the word got around about the quality problems and mechanical issues as well as the flimsy construction and overall fragility of these cars.
It also didn’t help that equipped the way many Americans wanted them (with automatic transmission and air conditioning) the standard 1.4 engine was grievously underpowered. (As the gas crisis faded people were less willing to put up with this for the sake of gas mileage.)
These were also recalled for a severe problem with the heater core which could blow out, showering the passenger compartment with hot coolant. This could result in serious burns for driver and/or passenger requiring hospitalization. Whoever buys this thing might want to check that the original heater core has been replaced.
https://youtu.be/LIZBUBnfvG4
I had an Alliance as a rental back in the 1980s and it could barely get out of its own way, though the seats were comfortable and it otherwise rode well.
Haven’t seen an Alliance in ages. Most of them were gone decades ago.
Never owned one of these, but back in the ’80s I was doing a lot of traveling for work and I frequently rented them (they were a cheap rental, kept the finance guys off my back)… thru Budget IIRC. I found them to be OK. Certainly no drag racer, but they seemed well built, were comfortable and handled well. Never remember having trouble with any I had… and I can’t say that about other cars I rented. I actually will occasionally see ones still on the road in my area… which I find amazing for an 80s economy car.
I have owned a trice of this car for 20 years. Really nice performing car and with 5 speed, I get 35 mpg. With a top that goes down, who needs A/C?
Only caution is the timing belt. Mine broke and the engine “went to hell”: interference engine. Bought another ,wrecked for its engine and installed it with new belt. Runs perfect. Need to change belt every 3 years or 30 K miles.
Also working on the roll up front windows. Probably breakdown of plastic wheels. I am working on it.
What’s worse than a Chevette?
This car. My opinion. (I used to sell them.)
These were and still are horrible cars, you knew you were never going to sell another vehicle to the person getting the head gasket replaced on a car you sold them 3 months before
The 1400 engine blew head gaskets the 1700 engine did not but was an interference engine quite common in 1980;s cars.
I rebuilt the cylinder head for a co-worker’s 2-door hardtop version after the timing belt snapped in the interference engine, bending a few valves.
That horizontally-mounted distributor cap had to be broken off – it was glued on and for some reason I couldn’t remove the entire assembly from the head. A new cap was something like $65 back in ’90, which was outrageous; The new cap & rotor came with glue.
Aside from the insane parts prices it seemed to run well, and he liked it well enough.
This one is in fabulous condition, but I’ve already satisfied my itch for quirky French vehicles with the ’68 Solex I got through this site.
Ok, a,whole new saga for these. In 1985 SCCA (Sports Care Club of America) Started a “spec” class. Meaning you bought the car (about $10,000 at the time) and and it was ready to race. The engine, carburetor, ignition and transmission was sealed. So the only thing you were allowed to “.monkey with” was the alignment settings. Since AMC sponsored the series. The cars used the 1.7 engine 67hp? and the stock 4 speed wide ratio gear box parked behind the driver. The suspension (for the time) was fairly high tech with cantilever (meaning the coil over shocks were actually inboard) reducing the unsprung weight by alot. All 4 suspension uprights, wheel bearings and brakes were standard issue front Alliance parts. The car weighed about 1,200 pounds and was like a large go kart. They very slippery fiberglass body made for a top speed of 130 mph with a very long straight away. But man did they handle. The SCCA didn’t want engines coming apart on the track and wanted to keep the racing inexpensive. So the pistons were flycut to allow for valve clearance incase of timing belt failure. Needless to say compression dropped affecting horsepower. So they installed a hotter camshaft to get about 75 horsepower out of that setup. It became the most competitive and popular class which still runs today. However, they are on Generation III cars with Genetation II & III using Ford engines and gear boxes. They now have approximately 130 horsepower with speeds at Daytona reacing 155 mph. They still use the front Renault uprights, and brakes. My buddy amd I bought a Gen I car and used it for track days. We eventually found a well worn GTA convertible and rebuilt the engine with more carburation and the close ratio gearbox from the GTA. What a difference! We ran the car for 15 years with never an engine brakedown except when I missed a,shift and it saw over 9,000 rpm. The clutch let go and sheared the flywheel bolts. The engine suffered no damage! I really miss that car and being on the track. We also improved the “original” brake cooling and never had any brake fading. In fact no one could out brake me! If you want to know more about the class Google Ford Spec Racer.
Wow! Look at how many comments good and bad this car has gotten, you would think it was an old muscle car. I love to see these types of cars show up they remind me that not everything was perfect and that there were people who would take care and appreciate something for what it was, not what the was just popular.