Rare Rides: A 1990 Renault Alpine GTA, Par Excellence
Interested in lots of cars and their various historical contexts. Started writing articles for TTAC in late 2016, when my first posts were QOTDs. From there I started a few new series like Rare Rides, Buy/Drive/Burn, Abandoned History, and most recently Rare Rides Icons. Operating from a home base in Cincinnati, Ohio, a relative auto journalist dead zone. Many of my articles are prompted by something I'll see on social media that sparks my interest and causes me to research. Finding articles and information from the early days of the internet and beyond that covers the little details lost to time: trim packages, color and wheel choices, interior fabrics. Beyond those, I'm fascinated by automotive industry experiments, both failures and successes. Lately I've taken an interest in AI, and generating "what if" type images for car models long dead. Reincarnating a modern Toyota Paseo, Lincoln Mark IX, or Isuzu Trooper through a text prompt is fun. Fun to post them on Twitter too, and watch people overreact. To that end, the social media I use most is Twitter, @CoreyLewis86. I also contribute pieces for Forbes Wheels and Forbes Home.
More by Corey Lewis
Latest Car Reviews
Read moreLatest Product Reviews
Read moreRecent Comments
- Arthur Dailey Agree with @Jeff, if you needed a cheap vehicle that was relatively robust and last a long time and you did not care about driving dynamics you could do worse than a J-Car. They as the saying go, drove badly, for a long time. They were less rust prone than many Japanese imports, and either more reliable or more robust than many (most) European or Korean autos. And parts were cheap and repairs relatively simple. As he writes, we complain about the lack of inexpensive, basic autos but then criticize autos that were inexpensive and basic. As the saying goes 'you can get cheap, fast or good, but you cannot get all 3 in the same product'.
- Bd2 Overpriced food, awful home furnishings, endless assortments of sugary candy and drinks which are mostly garbage and childish gimmicks galore. Indeed, the most "American" of traditions.
- SCE to AUX Some pretty big strikes:[list][*]Drivetrain - how can a straight-6 be thrashy? Shame on you, Mazda.[/*][*]Poor fuel economy.[/*][*]Tire noise.[/*][*]Poor user interface.[/*][*]That colored dash is a bit garish for me.[/*][*]High price.[/*][*]Indistinct look in the Mazda lineup. Their SUVs are Russian nesting dolls.[/*][*]Nothing compelling to lure a buyer away from the bigger brands.[/*][/list]I don't see this moving the needle for Mazda in the US market.
- Ash78 Dear unions, thank you for your service and for expressing interest in our automotive factories. Due to your many decades of pressuring employers to do better, the more adept companies have gotten your message and have implemented most of your demands preemptively in order to maintain a better employer-employee relationship than the manufacturing industry as a whole.We truly appreciate your feedback and interest, and all it has done to improve employer relations since the industrial revolution. We take your concerns seriously and will be glad to reach back out if our situation changes.We will keep your resume on file for three years, per company policy.Sincerely,Everyone
- Theflyersfan I'm having a tough time figuring out Mazda's recent lineup decisions. I've mentioned before how having the CX-5 and CX-50 makes no sense as it seems like they would steal each other's sales instead of conquest sales from other brands. And now here comes the CX-70 vs 90 decision. If Mazda wanted to position the 70 above the 90 with pricing, I think they should have gone the Audi Q7 vs Q8 route. The Q8 costs more, has one fewer row, and is smaller on the inside, but has the more aggressive styling and tries to position itself as the sportier alternative large CUV in their lineup. With Mazda, the 70 and 90 seem to be in the position, like the 5 vs 50, to steal each other's sales. There isn't anything compelling me to get a 70 if I get more for my money with a 90, except 100,000 miles down the road, I won't have a folded up third row seat rattling around loosely. Mazda should have brought over the CX-60 and position that where they wanted the 70. I understand it's a touch larger than the X3, Q5, and GLC CUVs, which is a sweet spot in that market. Make the CX-70 a sportier alternative 2-row instead of such a blatant cynical move of just ripping a seat out of the 90, calling it an all new model and price it in the same ballpark. I want Mazda to succeed and continue to be independent, but decisions like these make me wonder what their future plans are.
Comments
Join the conversation
The first ever "first ever" was the Pontiac G6; that phrase was roundly criticized here and other places. Amusingly, many other companies have used this phrase, the latest being Ford. Heh! Back in the 80's AMC/Renault made some noises about bringing this car here. I was interested, as it would have been an affordable exotic. I'd seen pics of these cars over the years and the angular 80's rendition fit the times perfectly. However the reputation of the pedestrian AMC assembled Renaults was becoming well known and their relationship was winding down. No Alpine for me! Bummer.
That styling is SO RIGHT. Mon Dieu, I want. I expect the performance is tepid with the camshaft-eating PRV V6 though. And wow...we have come a long way in interior materials quality since the 1980s, have we not? This was a seriously premium car at the time.