talk about bashing us, anyway is this true??

 

lol, maybe in '84 or somethin.....

 

Not if it was faster, not bashing, telling the truth!

 

If it was a turbo it could very well beat an f body of the day. How many 84 chryslers do you still see on the road?Not many because the turbo motors led a short life. They required expensive repairs and most owners junked them instead of fixin them. So in the end the F bodies would pass them as they rusted in the junkyard.

 

you gotta admit though, that little dodge would make a pretty cool sleeper

Dave

 

Man that thing was ugly

 

my dad had one for a week and a half when they were new.

i was young at the time though, so i dont recall why he got rid of it so quickly...

but it was white with cool 80s graphics on it... lol..

 

Remember to race one to 60 and not 50.

What would really make a good sleeper though is an all wheel drive turbo laser/talon drivetrain stuffed into an Omni. I know they turbo'd the Omni's and Horizons as well, but something with that short of wheelbase needs some rear wheel power too.

 

i heard of a guy thru a friend of mine that has a turbo omni... he said he watched it run 12s, front wheels spinning for the first half of the track...

i havent really looked into thoes too much... if i was going to mess with high power mini cars, id do my SBC in a backhalved CRX idea.....

 

That ad car isn't a turbo. Its a 2.2 HO...aka pre turbo. And they did beat the LG4 and cross fire in both F-Body cars.

As for not seeing many turbo Dodge's, not exactly true. There are still more turbo Dodge's running around than any other make, probably combined. Those little engines were built like brick **** houses. Very strong and could take a pounding. The intercooled 2.2 versions were even stronger along with stronger transmissions.

They had to be made to last because of the warranty those cars came with. They were twice as long as any other make out there at the time.

 

0-50?? That's it?!

 

Yeah, those cars were wicked

"the biggest news in '85 was under hood: the carburettor engine was no longer offered; in its place was Chrysler's multi-point EFI turbo power plant. The compression ratio was lowered to 8.1:1 and max boost was set at 9psi. Power now jumped to 146 hp at 5200 rpm, while torque swelled to 168 lb-ft at 3600 rpm. In the transmission department, the final-drive ratio was returned to 3.56:1. This increased power allowed for 0-60 runs in 7.8 seconds with a quarter mile ET of 15.9 at 85 mph; top speed was up to 124 mph."

That was the turbo version, and notice how the torque SWELLED to 168 lb-ft! I also saw on another site that the non-turbo 2.2's ran 0-60 in 10.1 secs.

I'm just glad the test drivers are wearing helmets in those 16 sec cars. Safety first.

 

I saw a post wih a guy whp was tubroing vans and hs buddy had a daytona/omni site.these cars were pulling 12 and I think lower. He did mention that most of his parts came from the wrecking yard tho..

There was a K car, and another boxy looking thing in there.a 12 second dodge min van now thats a sleeper hehehe

 

I have never seen one of those hideous cars up here in Buffalo maybe snow mixed with salt killed them off.

 

None around here, turbo or non-turbo, thank goodness! Don't need the eye-pollution!

 

I should of made that clear in my original post, I have not seen one of thoise cars in Ontario for a very long time, except in the junkyards.

 

If I'm not mistaken, there's no way 1 of those would have beaten an L69 car, 0-50 or not. And not a G92 LB9 either.

 

It would have been close 0-60 with a turbo I vs. a L69 but after that the L69 would pull away.

The turbo II, IV cars would beat an L69 though. And make a good race for an LB9. The turbo III cars would match up to a L98 car.

I know I could knock off a LT1 from a 1st gear roll when they came out in 93. That was with my 92 Spirit R/T. 4 doors of fury From a stop, I couldn't make up the ground. Only had it at the track once. Completely stock ran a 14.4@100 on a 2.6. It was a little hard launching that thing....

 

Notice how the Firebird is beating the Camaro.

 

Keep in mind, that's the best I could get from my L03 three years ago.

 

Wasnt the cars with the turbos called GLSH? They came in omnis and chargers.....

 

GLH = Goes Like Hell (Dodge Omni)

 

Ok I found it!

Here's the loink to the dodge turbo garage!

http://www.thedodgegarage.com/

Don't forget to look at the turbo van page.. These cars don't really appeal to me, but they have some impressive results, and some very informational turbo info.

 

GLHS. They were made by Caroll Shelby in 86(OMNI) and 87(Charger). He also made Shadow CSX's from 87-89. These were not Dodge cars, made by Dodge originally but were Shelby. These were all intercooled 2.2.

The GLHS would run 14.6/14.7. The CSX in 87 and 89 were about 15.1 cars. 88 CSX were the Thrifty Rental cars and only came with Turbo I, non intercooled 2.2.

The 89 CSX had the VNT turbo that had no lag, first for a car with that turbo.

90 was to be a big year for the Shadow. The turbo III was going to be put in but he and Iococa had a falling out and didn't supply anymore cars. That engine was later put in the Spirit R/T and Daytona IROC R/T. 224hp in a 3100 pound car was a nice combo

Shelby also made the V8 Dakota. Shelby was always a year ahead of Dodge for engines.

 

doesn't look like it's blowing the doors of them to me, does it to you?

 

hahahah
If there driving on a cirlce track which it looks like the Trans Am is going faster, because the Dodge is on the inside therefore going a shorter distance and the TA is the most outside car. That Charger looks like a Nissan.

:hail: :hail: GM

 

yeah I like how they say blowing the doors off and it looks like a door to door race..... hah

 

The driver in the camaro just taking a break and lighting up a smoke. He's about to blow the doors off the other two !

 

Not likely. LOL

 

Very likely.

 

id like to think so, but they're all wearing full face helmets.


and the two cars are just in the pic for the effect....

if someone here gets bored, they should find the 0-60 times for all 3 cars...... and rolling start times if they can too...

 

My mom used to have 2.2 Charger just like the one in the pic. I forgot all about it until I saw the ad. LMAO!!!

 

an 84 H.O. would tear a 2.2 charger a new one, high 14s vs. mid 15s... in slow land that's a LOT of car lengths...

 

I have a friend of mine with a 2.2 Turbo Shelby Lancer. Pretty sweet car if you ask me. We re-built the engine with all "performance parts". It can keep up with my T/A which is ~14.0.

My other friend has a Shelby CSX, another sweet car. 5 Speed. It runs around the same speed. The same friend also has a fugly Dodge Spirit, but that thing blows the doors off of my T/A. DOHC Turbo.

 

So Dodge is the reason that all those Japanese b*stards decided to use 4 cylinder engines with turbos to try and beat the American muscle. Thanks for nothing Mopar. And by the way:

0-60mph-
83 Z28: L69- 7.9 secs hp:150
83 T/A: L69- 7.9 secs hp:150
83 Charger: 2.2L HO- 8.7 secs hp:107

And as a result of my findings, the pic has to be from 83, because in 84 the Charger dropped the hood scoop and graphics. Also 83 was the first year for the 2.2L HO.
You learn something new everyday

~Matt

 

LMFAO

 

Looks like a pinto on crack

 

I too, had a Spirit R/T. The look on people's faces as you going by was priceless

Buddy of mine as a 87 GLHS that would give my GN fits after we started playing with it.

Intercooled turbo Dodge's are nice running cars. Surprise lots of people.

 

I can't remember but I think the ad was based on base engine F-Body's. So it would have been LG4 vs. 2.2 HO. And L69 had 190 HP.

 

The Camaro must still be idleing...lol...

I saw that VERY same little dodge the other day...only white... I wanted to race him (thing sounded like it had a fart-can on it) but when I pulled up to it there was like a 120 year old guy in it. Ya know, those die-hard mopar fans?

I agree on the japanese market taking after american 4 bangers....slap a turbo on something and they own the world. Damn fast as hell 16 second cars...

Bruce (90RS305)

 

Yea, I thought the L69 had a lot more hp, but that is what that site said Anyway, the track times for your LO3 are really nice Bruce. 15.3 is awesome for TBI with just a muffler. I assume it's your godly shifting skills...

~Matt

 

LG4 if the 150 HP 7.9 second camaro, L69 is 0-60 in the 6s with a 14 second 1/4. they were definitely NOT 190 HP that they were rated. and that dodge might beat the LG4 to 50 but not to 60 hahaha

 

Heh, well, ya know...

Yeah, I don't think I'll ever forget that run. I think my car was actually GIGGLING the whole way down the track. I've never felt my car run faster... Funny thing is, I lost that run....to a low 14 F-350 Diesel....

Bruce (90RS305)

 

Compare that "Charger" to an '84 Corvette and see what happens... the L69 was substantially faster than the 205hp '84 Corvette.

(PS: Charger in quotes because its not a real Charger, a real one would have a 440ci engine, not a 440cc engine, )

 

Nah man. The 84 Vette and 84 Z28 were just about the same. http://corvetteactioncenter.com/specs/1984/84perf.html Those are the same trap speeds/times that a L69 would run as well.

 

you cant quote times from that site... they think my stock 89 L98 Vette would only pull a mid - high 14. it actually did 13.9 at 99mph... way off from their posted performance figures

alot of those guys simply cannot drive. they have stall converters in their sigs, but their launching techniques are "just flooring it off idle". believe me, ive talked to these guys

 

The 84 brochure said for the L69(from memory)
0-60 7.5
1/4 15.2

I know mine was right around there when I first bought it back in '87. It didn't have any mods at all.

No way would a L69 car hit 0-60 in 6.x seconds stock. 5spd or automatic.

 

Well I was just trying to find some times to back up my argument.

All I'm trying to say is that the 84 Vette and L69 Camaros were equal in performance.

 

Yeah, now that I remember, I have a video on my PC of when they reviewed the "Brand New" 1987 IROC-Z that, with its TPI 350, ran a 14.5. And yeah, I wish they did 0-60 in the 6 sec. catagory...

Bruce (90RS305)

 

I think they are both off. I know someone with a catchfire vette that got it to run a 14.4 bone stock and an L69 to run a 14.8
both were manuals and both hadthe **** driven out of them.