| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Renault 25 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
I drive a 1985 Renault 25 GTS (1995cc petrol carburetor engine) with almost 100.000 miles on the clock, bought new by my father.
We NEVER had any major reliability problem with this car. I do not know if plusher versions with fuel injection and more electronics have more "gremlins" as the article says.
The TS version had better aerodynamics because it had not right side mirror (or left side mirror in the UK), had thinner tyres and had no wiper in the rear window.
This was a common thing in the 80´s: The cheapest versions of a car always had slightly better aerodinamics than the more upmarket versions.
¿What about crashworthiness?. The Renault 25 was, more or less, at the same level that the much-touted and much heavier (and much earlier, must be said, to be honest) Volvo 200 (reference Road accident statistics on a model-by-model basis).
I put all this information here because perhaps some fluent english speaker would like to integrate it into the article. Thanks.
Randroide 11:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Randroide
- Personal experiences with a car is not relevant. Then NO car could be said to be unreliable or badly built, as there always would be someone who disagrees (Even if a particular type of car is known for a lot of problems, there are always someone who never experienced serious problems). The truth is that the 25 was EXTREMELY badly built, and the body was not even strong enough, so sometimes the windscreen even cracked while jacking the car up, or the doors wouldn't fit properly. The 25 doesn't stand out much from the rest of the cars made by renault, though. They have a history of making bad cars that few car manufacturers can match. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.213.252.152 (talk) 07:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Renault TXE25 Versailles.
I drive a 1993 model with the 2 litre 8 valve fuel injected motor. It has now completed 202,000 km and has given no trouble except for front engine oil seals and a worn out distributor. The centre contact had worn to the point that the arcing taking place was causing the onboard computer to give false alarm indications. Since that was replaced there have been no futher problems.
The automatic transmission was recently inspected and the fluid replaced. There were no apparent problems. In my view this auto transmission is no better or worse than others of its vintage. It has two modes of operation: a normal and presumably most economical mode and the EXC mode where the engine stays in lower gears for longer thus enabling maximum acceleration. It is unfortunate that this model was not fitted with disc brakes on the rear wheels as the braking would have been more satisfactory and the handbrake would have better holding.
I have since bought a 2004 model Scenic and this has all the modern technology and is a huge improvement on the 25 in many departments.
JohnC202.180.86.134 08:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Infobox picture
editI would suggest changing said image, the picture is of low quality and the cars parked around it together with the wall and plants make the photo look cluttered, and in my opinion not suitable for the infobox. Barleria (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- There's no reason why you should not change it. Though none of the ones included (till now...) here is - in my very briefly considered judgment - a real showstopper. Still, one or two may be a bit more "suitable for the infobox" than the one that's there at the moment. Success Charles01 (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)