Mid-Century Carrozzeria Ghia is a pretty fascinating coachbuilder. They’d been doing commissions for big companies throughout most of the 1950s – think the Volkswagen Karmann-Ghia as the most obvious example, but they’d worked with companies like Chrysler and Renault and Volvo and more – and, here’s a weird thing, in 1965 they were sold to the son of the Dictator of the Dominican Republic! Anyway, I just want to bring your attention to a show car Ghia designed in 1964, the Renault R8 Coupé Ghia.
Somehow, I’d never encountered this car before, but when I did, it really caught my attention, because I think it’s just lovely, in an interesting and understated way. It’s got some unusual traits, but at the same time it doesn’t feel overdone, which I think is an achievement.
I mean, look how lean and elegant this thing, based on the 47-ish horsepower R8 – it wasn’t even based on the much more potent Gordini version – is:
It feels lithe and sleek, and that character line coming from the front and dropping down just before the rear wheelarch feels just right. I think the most notable part about the design is the side window shape, though, of which designer Filippo Sapino allegedly got inspiration from old pre-war Bugattis.
It is a very teardrop-shaped design, and certainly does evoke the look of those dramatic pre-war Bugattis:
It manages to do so without actually blatantly copying or imitating, which is quite an achievement, I think, too.
The interior has the same graceful curves as the outside, and the same basic simplicity. I really like this thing!
Also notable is how different it was from the car it’s based on, the Renault R8, which was a celebration of boxiness:
Also, that’s a fantastic ad headline there.
The little R8 Coupé Ghia never really got any traction, with the Alpine A110 eventually taking the role of Renault’s rear-engined sports car, and I can’t feel badly about that, even if it meant this interesting little one-off never got past the show car stage.
Still, it’s a lovely thing to just look at and enjoy, and sometimes I suppose that’s enough.
I regularly drove a R8, they rolled very easily as my friend, the owner, found out.. The R10 was better and the R12 was a classic.
As pretty as a skin tag on bruised skin.
I think the wheelbase is what hurts it, honestly. Had it not been a requirement to reuse everything from the R8 underneath then the front axle could’ve been pushed forward and given the feeling of the body being pulled by the speed of the car more impact. The other minor nitpick is that pinching the hood makes some unflattering front viewing angles. It is distinctive, but giving it a smooth flow more like the Porsche 356 instead of a pinch would’ve helped so much.
I really like it, despite its Dr. Seuss-like qualities.
Never found the Karmann-Ghia attractive, and don’t see it in this car either.
The windows, headlights, lower body side profile, look good when taken separately, but don’t combine into a unified design. A case of the sum of the parts being more than the whole.
The Bugatti 57s on the other hand are classics.
Oddly I see some Morgan Plus 4 Plus in that greenhouse. Building a nice coupe on humble underpinnings was the norm, this would have replaced the Dauphine based Floride, and still had more oomph than a Citroën Bijou
I was about to say it definitely gave me type 57S Door vibes and it looks absolutely beautiful
I am convinced that Renault’s failure in the United States can be completely attributed to the lack of effort in picking a font. Volkswagen has their own font and look how they did.
Its weirdness makes it better. Approved!
Beautiful car.
0.28 Cd to go with a small frontal area.
Only two seats, of course, but this could have gone into production as a French equivalent of the then-upcoming Monte Carlo, a petite (and slower, but better handling) personal luxury coupe. Something for the budget boulevardier who can’t quite swing a Facel Vega. And for symmetry, it would be named after an American seaside resort – in a reference to the Bugatti that influenced its design, it would be the Renault Atlantic City.
Absurdly elegant.
A kick on the groins of complacency.
A bit too bulbous for me to consider beautiful, but undeniably cool.
Fast and Bulbous
I love that, I love those words
Fast and bulbous, that’s right, the mascara snake
Fast and bulbous
Bulbous, also tapered
Also, a tin teardrop
Fast and bulbous, that’s right, the mascara snake
Fast and bulbous, also a tin teardrop
Bulbous, also tapered, that’s right
Like a squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag.
I quite like this little car. It reminds me of what an AW11 MR2 would look like if they used French curves instead of a ruler on the drawing board.
I’m beginning to question the visual acuity of my fellow Autopians who can’t see the beauty of this vehicle and yet gushed over that bloated mess of a Cadillac earlier this week.
I of course respect their opinions even if I don’t share them.
Interesting, yes. Pretty? I’m not sure. From the beltline down, you have a sleek shape and nice details that could pair with any number of lovely greenhouses on top. This looks like it’s starting to birth some kind of amphibian or lizard, headfirst, out of its its midsection. Unsettling.
Well said. It looks like a hydrodynamic crocodile surfacing, but below the waterline it’s handsome enough.
I scrolled all the way through and didn’t see anything that resembled a pretty car, let alone a very pretty one.
Never knew this existed but greenhouse/side window reminds me of the Chrysler Atlantic Concept
Link
First thing I thought of as well!
It looks like it is out of a Dr. Seuss book
…or one of those animated 1950’s “Car of the future” film strips, sponsored by Ford.
Or a Pixar movie.
No way.
Kinda reminds me of Uncle Martin’s space ship on “My Favorite Martian.” In a good way, though.
Is it unusual? Yes!
Does it have a lot of character? Yes!
Is it beautiful? It has a great personality.
Did I mention it has a lot of character?
I wonder what it would cost a manufacturer to have a one off like that made
Italian hourly labor was cheap back then.
…but it took a lot of hours to get anything done.
That reminds me of Jay Leno talking about adjusting valves on one of his old cars for 1920-something with, like 12 cylinders. He said that back then technology was expensive but labor was cheap, so you could afford to have a mechanic spend all day adjusting the valves. But today technology is cheap and labor is expensive.
The labor may be expensive, but the wages typically paid to the workers are still cheap…