Talk:Renault 9 and 11

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Renault 9 and 11 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Automobiles Mid‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brands

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I agree, Norm. 9/11 refers to a terrorist attack, not a pair of automobiles. People will type in 9/11 to research the former. (And if you use 9/11 to refer to a pair of French automobiles, you start down the slippery slope of "freedom fries." :-O ) Captain Caveman

This article should be split into Renault 9 and Renault 11. Norman Rogers 16:03, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why does Renault Medallion redirect to this page? Everything I've heard suggests that the Medallion is a rebadged Renault 21, not a 9/11. I'm hesitant to change the redirect myself, as I don't know enough about the Medallion to be sure, so I'm mentioning this here instead of editing it myself. Jgp 09:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it's a mistake. I'll fix it. --Jamieli 12:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking of merging pages[edit]

I think that the Renault Alliance article should merge with the Renault 9/11 page, considering that the Alliance was a rebadged 9 and the Encore was a rebadged 11, so I do not see the reason why there should be two separate articles on them. Yes, I know, the Alliance was an Americanized Renault, but I think it's not a good excuse for keeping two separate articles on the Alliance and the 9/11. -Daniel Blanchette 16:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this opinion for the following reasons

- I broke the Alliance information out from teh the "(" information because it allows each article to focus on their respective markets.
- The effects of the 9 on Renault were far different than the Alliance on AMC.
- Prior to being seperated, the Alliance information was buried within the 9's conent.
- There is simply no pressing need to remerge the two articles.

I have asked the Auto project members to provide their opinion on the matter. Stude62 16:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Daniel - there is no denying that the Alliance (and the Encore too, btw) deserve proper recognition, but still they are the same car as the 9 and the 11. There are no separate articles for VW Rabbit, VW Vento or VW Bora, even though Vento's and Bora's role and fortunes were quite different than corresponding Jettas'. The information on the Alliance and Encore that are not repeated in the Renault 9/11 article can be put in a separate section.Bravada 16:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that this is comparing apples to oranges. The Rabbit is an internally developed vehicle, by and for VW; the company's survival does not hinge on its success. The difference between its names is the difference between white, winter white and off white. The Alliance was a make or break vehicle for AMC - the Alliance wasn't just a car, it was a business strategy of survival based on badge engineered vehicles. Stude62 19:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the middle of writing a lenghty answer, but I thought I'll just show you an example of how a merged article might look like. I think this article might still use some editorial revision and NPOV check, so I posted it in my User's area: [[1]]
I also cannot overlook the fact that although you haven't even mentioned (!) the 9 and the 11 in your Alliance article, your very own AMC template directly links to the 9/11 article! BTW, the Renault timelines might require some editing, it's very clumsy having to have both in case of so many models due to the 80s overlap...
One last thought - if you believe that the strategy these models were part of is so important, why don't you create an article on the STRATEGY itself and link from the AMC and 9/11/Alliance/Encore pages?--Bravada 23:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sample page looks quite good. But I still believe that seperate is better, however. If I didn't, I would never have created the Reanualt Alliance page to begin with. By the way, the discussion has gone to the talk:Renault Alliance talk page, you may wish to join the conversation there. Stude62 02:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the merger discussion on the Talk:Renault Alliance page. The final consensus was not to merge. The Renault Alliance article has stood for over six years after the above discussion and has significantly more detail and referenced information compared to the this one about Renault's 9 and 11 models. In summary, although originating from the same platform as the French-made Renault 9 and 11, the modified and U.S.-manufactured Alliance/Encore/GTA vehicles represent a unique history and development. They qualify for a separate article. CZmarlin (talk) 03:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

11 Turbo[edit]

Anyone have a nice photo of an 11 Turbo they can add? It was quite a nice looking car, especially from the rear - which was the view most other drivers had of mine! ;-) --kingboyk 22:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I miss my 9![edit]

I miss my 1986 Renault Alliance (Renault 9). I was able to get excellent fuel economy with it. It was fast off the line but past 30 mph wouldn't be able to keep up. But I was more concerned with operating well in city traffic as opposed to drag racing. I found the car to have a good engine, but bad electrical system and poor plastic parts (levers and knobs would break. I suspect this was the use of plastic which was not adequately resistant to the damage of UV light). However the steel on the car was exceptional. It survived many New England winters which ate up Japanese cars. Long distance driving in the car was more tiring than other cars, I believe this is due to poor aerodynamics at 50+ MPH, and also vibration through the steering column. A spoiler might have been useful. Perhaps if I had used driving gloves I could have solved the vibration problem.

My biggest complaints with the car with the fragility of the suspension. I seemed to be constantly replacing ball joints. Of course, this could be due to the incompetence or corruption of the dealer / repair shop at which I had the car serviced.

If AMC/Renault had fixed a few issues with this car, it could have been a real champion. In spite of my complaints, I still miss the car.

Article moved[edit]

This page has been moved to Renault 9 & 11, per the discussion above. --SunStar Net^talk 13:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Language[edit]

"All the versions R-11 and R-9 manufactured in Argentina, as well as in Colombia and Turkey, they suffered the problem as the material with which the torpedo (iron board) is made is degraded with ultraviolet rays, and ends cracking (especially on the right side, since you don't have the steering column that supports it)."

I'd rewrite the above if only I had the slightest idea what the original author was trying to convey! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.208.39 (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]