mr396

Check out this dodge ad in the july Hot Rod mag.

BigBadGTA

Yeah right, maybe the non TPI T/As and maros.

//<86TA>\\

iTrader: (14)

it doesnt have the little 4 banger turbo motors the omni's had does it? they were pretty nasty

campin1983

iTrader: (4)

The story under the ad is for the 1982 model. At that point, the highest hp our 3rd gens put out was a pathetic 165 hp. These are very heavy cars for that hp rating.

However, a little research says the 2.2's in these Chargers were generating a massive 92 hp. The "blow the doors off" claims are with a 0-50 time of 6.02 for the Charger and 6.47 for a Z28. So this little Dodge was faster to 50.

But at the same time, is a faster to 50 time, standing alone much of a claim to fame? Which was better to 60? 100? Quarter mile? Skidpad? Which car did better on the track?

The ad found a single weakness of the early 3rd gen and exploited it. Typical advertising from anyone.

Dante93GTZ

iTrader: (5)

Did you see the fine print? 0-50 in 6 seconds?!! Thats not faster than a Camaro!

Transmetal

Even if it is/was faster than an f-body that car looks like poop.

Gumby

The fine fine print say based on tesh done by the NHRA

2.2 6.02
Z 6.47
TA 6.67

The Shelby version were a hit, but that was early on in the CV joint FWD world and they went like candy n cost a bunch, which killed the fad.

Now CVs last forever.

TTA 1387

They were quick but like the ad says, 0-50. Shelby's came in 86.

My Aunt had a 2.2HO Charger. It pulled nicely for a 4cyl. Torque steer was terrible but would light up the tires at will in first gear. But you had better be going straight and holding on to the steering wheel or you were going into a curb...

navy02ws6

Like everyone else said, who actually uses 0-50 figures? More than that...I don't care if it's even LEGITIMATELY faster than 3rd gens, that Dodge is one of the UGLIEST production cars to ever leave Detroit! I'd rather push my 91 T/A than be caught dead driving that ugly pos.

Drew

iTrader: (58)

Dodge/Chrysler had several FWD cars that were considered competition for the Mustang and Camaro. It didn't really fly then, and it really doesn't fly now. The cars aren't even in the same class. Think about how often you see those Chargers, Daytonas, etc and how often you see Camaros or Mustangs. They were really common up until they were about 10 years old, then they all went to the junkyards because they were built so poorly. Chrysler has had the market on garbage cornered for as long as I can remember. It seems like they can't build anything that holds together very long.

Stangski09

iTrader: (10)

^ Agreed.

And after 1970, the Dodge Charger died in my eyes. It's shameful to even say that you have a Dodge Charger with a 4 cylinder; when back in the late 60s early 70s it could be optioned with one of the greatest American Engines ever built: the 426 Hemi.
Even though the Dodge Charger is a very honored car, i'd say that little 4 cylinder piece of **** is garbage, and she ain't got nothing on my GTA.

edpontiac91

iTrader: (2)

I had a new 1983 Dodge 2.2 Charger with the sport suspension/ aluminum wheels/ 2 tone gold and brown with a 5-speed. I installed the computer from the Shelby model and the exhaust system with a K & N filter. I REALLY could pull away from the Camaros and Firebirds and surprise a lot of other makes. Don't forget that there was NO real horsepower during that time and that Shelby was the tip of the iceburg for Dodge.

Oelmuvun

Please try to actually push your Firebird then get back to us on that. :P
hehe

With some 'glass work on the nose and RWD conversion it might be a fun little car.

campin1983

iTrader: (4)

These Dodge's had two problems:

1) Quality control was awful. My cousin had one of the little Dodge 4 bangers, and even just a few years old, it was in a terrible state of disrepair.

2) This is the exact same platform they ran their super cheap and economical platform on. Its hard to market something as running with the muscle cars, and cheaper than the imports.

okfoz

Dodge was playing with Turbos, much like Chevrolet, Buick and Pontiac back in the day... Buick obviously had the V6 3.8L Turbo, and Pontiac's 4.9L Turbo died in 1981 with the 2nd Gen... Chevrolet considerd a 4.3L Turbo for the Camaro, but I imagine price and performance was a problem, as it would have probably been very easy to out perform the Corvette.

In the mid 80's Doge had the Doge Omni GLH, which literally stood for "Goes Like Hell" According to one article, a stock GLH would beat a stock Grand National...

The more interesting car was a Shelby creation IIRC which was called the GLHS which meant "Goes Like Hell Some-more"

These were not 80's cars to be messed with by any means... Granted, they were pretty rare, and the Omni was quite Homely IMHO... The Charger I thought was ok looking, but still not the style of the Camaro or Firebird... I drove a 2.2 5 speed once, it was kinda cheap inside....

John

TTA 1387

Never liked the 86 GLHS Omni but the 87 GLHS Charger was a much better looking car. The Shelby's I liked were the 87 CSX and 89 CSX Shadow's. Those were both intercooled. The 88 CSX were all rental cars and had the normal Turbo I, non intercooled. Almost pulled the trigger on a 87 CSX but they wouldn't come off any money.

Real Shelby stuff ran very well. The Dodge R/T stuff ran extremely well but that was early 90's.

hardon85

Yes it was called the K-car, this chassis literally saved Chrysler as I think every Chrysler car (not trucks) was based on this chassis even the mini vans. This was designed by Lee Iacoca or however you spell his last name, he is the guy who designed the mustang also. I don't think competing with an F-body was a real goal but more of a bonus however as it's been pointed out after 50 I don't think this car would be much fun.

As it has been pointed out the quality sucked but I think these things were thought more as a throw away car than anything else. These cars were before my time but my mom told me the big appeal with these was anyone could afford a brand new car.

I know it's not 3rd gen related but still kind of cool that 1 chassis could save a car company. Actually the part that I was most impressed with was that it got 41 MPG on the highway, they can't do that today unless it's some ridiculous looking thing (smart car, Priuss) that part I have never been able to figure out.

TTA 1387

I think they were after that the F-Body and Mustang market, even though they were still pushing MPG. Mini Mopars won showroom stock racing throughout the '80's. They were factory backed whereas the Camaro/Firebird and Mustang guys were on their own.

I saw a race in Pocono back in '85 and a Dodge Shelby Charger beat the pants of everything around. Go back to the pits and they had a spare everything. The rest of the racers had trucks and trailers, maybe an extra set of tires and that was it.

Dodge boys were heavily financed back then. Nobody wanted them but they definitely could stay with the HO V8's of the day.

Dante93GTZ

iTrader: (5)

Unless my sources are mistaken, the GLHS was still only good for 6.5 seconds 0-60, so I'd mess with 'em all damn day. Nothing to be scared of. For the day, sure, that was reasonably fast, but today, a stock one would get walked just as bad as an L98 would versus something modern.

I think Dodge has captured the essence of "Build it as cheap as you can, DAMNIT!" My '04 SRT-4, while very quick, is beginning to show signs of issues, and its got less than 60k! My sunroof isn't working currently (haven't gotten into it yet) and my driver's seat is just cracking EVERYWHERE. The armrest has a nice dent in it from my elbow and the panels that you touch on a regular basis are getting a nice glaze/sheen to 'em. My door panel, near the window controls is rubbed by my knee so much that it has almost rubbed the texture smooth in that one spot. Don't get me wrong, I'm not fat and therefore causing any undo stress on anything, but damnit, the car only has like 57k on it! As much as I like my SRT, I don't think I'll ever buy another Dodge, save except for maybe a 2005 Ram diesel.

IROC212

iTrader: (1)

Those things had torque steer for days, and the build quality was terrible. Don't see too many left on the road.

87WS6

iTrader: (1)

The later Dodge turbo cars were a little better looking but still uglier than the Camaro/Firebird and even the Fox Body Mustang's and Capri. As for being fast, at one point they were but like many Dodge vehicles they didn't have the aftermarket that Ford and GM did for their respective pony cars. A friend of mine had one on its last leg that he drove for about 5 months or so. It was **** brown and we called it the fecal mobile. Granted this is one of the few examples of one of these cars still running that I've ever seen in person so it may not be representative of the whole line but it didn't seem to have held up as well as the average third gen or Fox bodies typically do.

Mark in Maine

The thing that I find most irksome about that era was "0 to 50" in Chrysler's advertising - Maybe everyone else was doing it then, as well, but in a time when all we'd ever heard growing up was zero to sixty, I always thought that 0 to 50 campaign seemed a little underhanded - sort of like the 85 mph speedos that were designed to keep us all from speeding . . .

87WS6

iTrader: (1)

They did that to make the cars sound better. The 0-60MPH times were pathetic at the time.

Salvo

Man reading all this i miss my old Dodge Daytona... That thing was a quick little car. I used to quite often beat the mustangs/camaro's in the uptown street races . With the weight of those cars being so light they went like a rocket off the line.. They were a fun little car. Didn't do much in performance mods on mine except for some wider/better tires and shocks and springs. That thing stuck to the ground pretty good

robertfrank

iTrader: (27)

I used to have an 88 2.5 5 speed Daytona and that car was one of the best little cars I have owned. Granted it couldn't get out of it's own way and was ugly has hell, but that little bastard REFUSED to die. Plus parts were cheap as hell for that thing. I wish I never would have sold it.

windowrattler

iTrader: (3)

Kind of odd this convo about the omni's has come up. On wednesday I was heading to work doing 55-60 and one pulled out about 75 ft in front of me. I hit my brakes and ended up rear ending the omni. The omni's bumper was messed up pretty good and it's quarter panel was into the tire making it undriveable . My damage? Well....just paint on my bumper cover no cracks or nothing. Shows the differences in build quality between the cars I think.