This horse is better than most 1970 cars (Nov, 1969)

This horse is better than most 1970 cars

We are not joking. The run-of-the-mill 1970 car is an affront to progress.

It’s too expensive to buy. And too expensive to run. It’s almost impossible to park and maneuvering it through city traffic would try the nerves of a saint.

You’d be better off with a horse.

Which is sure-footed, inexpensive, maneuverable and it eats hay. Nice, cheap, hay.

We, at Renault, are one of the few automakers to make a car that’s better than the horse.

The Renault 10.

Since it gets 35 miles to the gallon, it is cheap to run.

And since it has independent suspension and disc brakes, it is sure-footed and easy to stop.

And since it is maneuverable, it is easy to park. And since it costs $1,725, it is easy to buy.

And it is also more comfortable than the horse.

5 comments
  1. Jim Dunn says: August 21, 200711:01 am

    Wow. Talk about truth in advertising. Most 1970-model cars were indeed an affront to progress. (Not that the Renault 10 was necessarily the exception to the rule.)

  2. sweavo says: August 22, 20079:10 am

    I like that 35mpg figure. It’s the same number modern adverts tout around to prove the ecological friendliness of the brick-built SuV of today.

  3. Village Idiot says: August 27, 200712:02 pm

    …and 80′s cars, and 90′s cars, and todays too. Until they invent a car that can make copies of itself (maybe a Reprap/car combo?), runs on grass, and gets me home even if I pass out on the way (caused by the stop I made at the Saloon), then horses will continue to be superior. All this rushing around has done nothing for our overall happiness, slowing down might help.

    Either way, horses will be making a big comeback in the not-too-distant future…

  4. NikFromNYC says: January 12, 20084:22 pm

    Yes, yes, BUT…70s cars were the last ones you could literally grab a socket wrench kit and REMOVE all the pollution control crap from them, and then have the cylinders re-bored for higher compression, and then put a beefier drive shaft on it (or it would snap), and you had yourself a true black streak creating drag racing car on the budget of most high school kids. You wanted your car to go twice as fast? Twenty bucks let you replace your one or two-barrel carburetor with DUAL four-barrel ones! Then, if you spent all your X-mass money, you’d add a nitrous oxide tank to spray into the two carburetors. Super-chargers were way too expensive though. The main choice was between the huge (but heavy to debatably not actually faster) 454 “big block” or a 350 V8 engine, any parts you needed for them being standard issue stuff at any junkyard, sold by the pound for pennies.

    The real “junk” part of those cars though were their utterly non-sporty suspension systems and spongy shock absorbers, as well as the fact that good wide road gripping tires were out of a normal person’s budget. So? I got a Fiat X/19 instead. Four cylinder aluminum engine, with a little trap door, so the driver could manually advance the timing by rotating the distributor cap as he drove around! It wasn’t fast, but it was front wheel drive, which worked much better on the icy roads of Minnesota than back-wheel drive, and, during summer, the suspension and tight steering were so good on such a cheap Italian sports car that it was like flying. I could make 90 degree turns at 30 MPH, or even 60MPH if I screeched and oversteered, but that was kind of uh, dangerous, especially under bridges. I never felt so calm in my life though, since there was no distraction from the utter focus of keeping alive. No American car at the time that I could afford at least gave you a driving “experience” like modern relatively cheap sport cars do today.

  5. amie says: March 16, 200810:02 am

    wow, so realistic! was this published in the year 1969?

Submit comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.