(first posted 8/31/2013) Few car names are any better and carry more punch than “Charger”. You know its intended purpose and capabilities in one succinct word. Mustang? You know what horses leave for you. Camaro? That creates no mental image. No, Charger is one of the ultimate names for a car, something that won’t poke your eye out (Javelin), is not a blatant derivation of the maker (Chevelle), and isn’t some acronym (G.T.O.).
Carrying this further, is there anyone who hasn’t heard of the magic Carroll Shelby has performed? Just the mere mention of his name can almost bring a hush to noise filled rooms with everyone’s ear tuned to hear more. Even non-car people know of his vast and formidable talents. He could easily be the E.F. Hutton of the automotive world.
When you combine a great automotive talent such as Carroll Shelby with a nameplate dripping with presence, this is the end result. For 1984 standards, it was pretty darn good.
I must admit to being pretty juiced about finding this Dodge. A Shelby, I’m thinking, man, that little Charger should scoot down the road decently with its turbocharged 2.2 liter.
Little did I know. I suppose I had fallen prey to Sporadic Memory Syndrome, a condition where you tend to forget a few key elements of a larger story, elements that can render a false outcome due to missing key details (just don’t confuse this with Repetitive Baloney Disorder, a phenomenon which happens from hearing some piece of malarkey often enough you start to believe it). SMS tends to be more prevalent in men; those with RBD are usually found at car shows.
Upon his collaboration with Chrysler, Carroll Shelby massaged and transformed an otherwise sedate Dodge Charger into something he wouldn’t cringe to put his name on. The initial 1983 Dodge Shelby Charger was not the formidable, fire breathing, turbocharged beast you might think at first blush. Quite the opposite, actually; it had 107 horsepower for 1983 and grew to 110 for 1984. This seems quite appropriate.
Think about the history of the Charger nameplate, dating back to its 1966 introduction (1968 model shown). Always based on Chrysler’s B-body, the Charger’s ultimate example was performance based. Then, along about 1972, it began its quick descent into broughamanship.
By 1975, the Charger was nothing more than a Cordoba with a less inspired grille. It faded away after 1978.
Throughout its life, the Charger was always a decent barometer of the times. This little Charger does look fairly 1984, does it not?
For its first shot, the output of the Charger was enhanced (85 horses were the best a regular Charger could muster), as well as the steering, gear ratios, and suspension. The intent was a car that could handle, an idea that certainly runs counter to Charger executions of times past. It wasn’t until 1985 that a turbocharger was bolted to the Charger’s 2.2 liter four-banger.
By 1983, the Charger body was a bit seasoned in the marketplace as it started life as the Dodge Omni 024 in 1979 (a CC on the identical Plymouth TC3 can be found here). For 1984, the base Charger received a mild redesign to gain quad headlights and
minimize its frontal resemblance to the Ford Escort EXP. Or maybe that was the other way around; if imitation is the most sincere form of flattery, it certainly appears Ford was flattering the dickens out of Chrysler as the 024 beat the EXP to market by two years. When was the last time Ford used a Chrysler as a design inspiration? Maybe I’m all wet on the similarity of appearance, but it screams loudly to me.
Oddly, the Shelby Charger kept the old front end styling for 1984.
Despite its vast improvement over the original, Dodge was only able to sell 7,522 of these in 1984. In a twist that could be described as Orwellian, a three-speed automatic could be bolted to the Shelby Charger’s 2.2; almost 2,000 of them were produced as such.
The skeptics will accuse this Shelby Charger of being all body cladding and tape, all show and no go since it wasn’t turbocharged. Don’t fall victim to Repetitive Baloney Disorder – the naturally aspirated ’84 Shelby Charger could do the 1/4 mile in around sixteen seconds. This is not fast by contemporary standards, but this was 1984, a time when many cars were simply incapable of a similar feat. It was at this time Chrysler’s 318 cubic inch V8 was rated for only around 140 horsepower.
Part of why this car had me initially juiced was due to envisioning myself having a drag race with some little punk in a ricer, with my skill and prowess behind the wheel totally obliterating and demoralizing him. Even before I realized this example is not turbocharged, the fantasy quickly started to dissolve upon closer inspection.
Finding a car like this for sale does prompt me to exercise bit more scrutiny than usual. Habit, I suppose. However, when a person’s description of the car has an illegible description and model year, it doesn’t create feelings of warm fuzziness. The owner’s father, upon whose property this car sat, was as good as gold but totally unknowledgeable of the car. He did offer me an opportunity to drive it, but I passed for a variety of reasons. This car looks good at a distance, but a few tell-tale signs of a hard life start to become apparent upon closer examination.
This Shelby Charger certainly shows potential for greater things, much like the overall line of them did in 1984. With the advent of turbocharging in 1985, greater things did indeed happen. Let’s just hope this Shelby Charger goes to somebody who can make its potential fully emerge.
I once put a blower on a 1300 vw which gave it more go than the suspension was meant to handle. Makes me think I would prefer the non turbo charger to the hair dryer type. I took Ford out of contention for a new truck when they seemed to go mostly turbo. Think I prefer a larger engine that is normally aspirited. Of course I made a decision to get rid of my TV about 5 years ago so guess I shouldn’t be considered a bellweather of public opinion.
This is a nice looking car that I think I could enjoy.
Great find.
But the quarter mile in 16 seconds….the only source that I can find says 17.5, from one of the magazine tests at the time. Are we indulging in a wee bit of RBS? 😉
17.5 does sound more plausible; 16 and change was seeming generous, but that’s what I kept finding – maybe what I was finding was some plain old BS.
After a recent ’75 Thunderbird, I was in a serious sort of mood for this car, but I’m not sure how long that will last. 🙂
Just imagine what if they had gived this Charger more upgrades like the 2.2l Turbo II as a counterpart of the Omni GLH-S?…. However it would had grabbed some potential Laser/Daytona sales.
Stephane…Meet Charger GLHS
Looks like Chrysler had the same idea.
You mean Chrysler came down with a case of BLS offering their version of the the ‘Goes Like Heck’? BTW love this example. Rarely did I ever see one in black, even back in the day.
I saw one of these for sale recently for the incredibly reasonable sum of $2k. Is it the ‘poor man’s’ Shelby? I didn’t like these old Chargers when they were new, but I’m learning to appreciate them a bit more now that I’m older. Maybe it’s because these came from a time when nearly every manufacturer was building something sporty, which is sadly not the case anymore.
I think it was in memory of what had been offered fifteen years earlier.
This thing evoked the memories; but it was no musclecar.
Today the memories are buried that much deeper. Few who lived in the musclecar era actually want to have one today. Kids are not only not interested in performance cars; they’re scarcely interested in cars at all.
“Today the memories are buried that much deeper. Few who lived in the musclecar era actually want to have one today. Kids are not only not interested in performance cars; they’re scarcely interested in cars at all.”
Please tell me you’re talking about not wanting an 84 Charger.
I don’t know one car guy who wouldn’t kill for a muscle car from back in the day. Most can’t afford them that’s all.
I disagree with kids not being interested in performance cars or cars at all. Those who are have grown up around people like you who preach praticality over anything else (nothing wrong with that). I don’t think the world has really changed as much as you seem to think it has.
Agreed. There’s tons of young people interested in cars and performance. One look into a message board will show dozens upon dozens of 16/17 year olds with big BIG dreams of modifying their hand-me-down cars, in one day’s posts alone. Plus cruise nights have no shortage of really young kids drooling at the cars so obviously the seeds are still being planted.
I, at 25, only don’t own one right now because A. I could only afford something that would need a full restoration, which I have neither the space, time or money for. And B. I’m not financing a $100k+ frame off restored car that has no warranty. When their current inflated market values will eventually come down, you bet I’ll grab my piece of the pie.
I think the fact that one cannot find an old Integra, Civic, or Eclipse that hasn’t already had a bunch of cheap aftermarket performance goodies thrown at it is proof enough that kids still dig cars. I recently sold my old BMW 318i on CL and my phone was lighting up with kids looking for cheap speed (with a 4-banger BMW, LOL) . Unfortunately, there aren’t many enthusiasts who can dish out $20K-100K for a toy. I’d personally love an old muscle car (’69 Chevelle SS 396, please), but it’s either buy one or put money into the kids’ college fund. Decisions, decisions…lol
Actually I wasn’t.
Let’s take a guy of roughly my generation…make him, say, 18 in 1970. All around him are Camaro SMCs and hopped-up Tri-Fives; and Chargers that still have new-car stink inside.
Maybe he later got the coin to get one; maybe not.
But time moves on. He was 32 when this ersatz-Charger went out; doubtless he laughed like hell. Or wept, as the case may be…but he’s getting older.
How much older? He’d be 61 now.
He may enjoy his memories; or of recounting his youthful lust. But in his garage is a Toyota or Buick; maybe Acura or Cadillac. It’s got a V8, maybe; but also a slush-box. And no, the glasspacks are but a memory.
He’s just not there anymore. The musclecars were for a certain kind of person at a certain time in his life….and our former gearhead just isn’t there anymore. He’s moved on.
(cue up, Cat’s in the Cradle by Harry Chapin)
That would be you, not a real enthusiast.
My 66 year old father still drives a manual transmission V8, and is always talking about buying a Mustang GT convert.
He also loves to dream about buying a 67 GTX.
There is a Buick in the garage, but its my mother’s and its a turbo with all the performance options.
I understand you’ve given up on life and think its over, but that is just you. Go to a car show and see how many of the muscle cars are owned by people your age.
Real car guys never die inside like that. If they did, they were never really in it other than as an armchair enthusiast. If you don’t get that…well then you just don’t get it.
My parents are also of the generation that there has never been a foreign car in the driveway or garage. Their parents were in WWII, Korea and they were in Vietnam. The Germans were evil, the Japanese Bombed Pearl Harbor and the Koreans (North) are still a thorn in the side of the world. Has always been and will always be their view.
If it was JUST me, they’d be making those cars right now.
The public would demand them. Demand the laws be changed that they could be built.
But that’s not happening. So, no, I don’t think it’s just me. People change as they get older; and while a garage-queen Corvette is often driven by a white-haired old guy, most white-haired old guys drive something else. A car which delivers raw speed, and little else…appeals to a small segment of the auto-buying public.
EDIT: Given up on life? Not me. I just get my kicks a little differently…three years ago, I was working a temporary job in South Dakota. Middle of the state – and I went up there with my BMW R1200GS. So much road; so little traffic…I had to go to Sturgis for Bike Week; and on the way there I opened that BMW up. My nerve ends at about 122 mph, measured by my GPS.
I have a somewhat tamer bike now but last fall’s vacation had me on it, Wisconsin to Colorado. That’s not quite the same as watching game-shows from the Barcalounger.
I’m just a bit more pragmatic than I was; and a whole lot more jaded.
Not my dad JPT. He is 61. His daily driver? A 2001 911 Carrera with the six-speed. His fun car? A 1960 Porsche 356B. Before the 911, he had an Audi TT Quattro, and before that, a ’99 Volvo V70R wagon–with 247 hp!
The most boring car he had was his first company car in 1973–a bronze Gran Torino sedan. It was quickly replaced with a ’74 Capri V6 with a stick shift.
He is the anti-boring car guy.
And…my boss, Kathy, who is approximately the same age, drives a circa-2007 Charger Daytona in Rallye Red. She also has a black Challenger SRT-8 and a Moulin Rouge 1970 Challenger R/T-SE.
“I disagree with kids not being interested in performance cars or cars at all. Those who are have grown up around people like you who preach praticality over anything else (nothing wrong with that). I don’t think the world has really changed as much as you seem to think it has.”
I wasn’t commenting about what I WANTED kids to be like; and while today I value practicality, I had my moments, years back. I’m talking about reports, in the last two years, of how kids today are delaying getting their drivers’ licenses; that they don’t, in the main, even seem that terribly interested.
When we were kids, a car and a license represented freedom. Today’s kids…whether they’re jaded from the Internet; or just that they can escape the home with webcam and Skype…they are oriented otherwise. Many of them have come to view (however they got the idea) the car as a social problem and an ecological danger.
I’m not asking you to agree – gawd, I hope you don’t. But it is what it is.
My nine year old daughter would beg to differ, as would my eleven year old nephew and his friends. Of course having an old school kind of shop in the family kind of helps, you know… the kind of place where people from the surrounding aera stop by and shoot the sh¡t and talk cars. I was involved in this as a kid and my kid will be and is involved as well, people shelter their spawn in fear of what may happen and what could be said, just let em hang around and youd be surprised at what they pick up about cars.
JPT: You’re indulging in generalities, based on your own morose outlook. Period.
Yes, the overall number of young kids interested in cars has gone down, but you can’t generalize that to all kids/young adults. A reduction of x% doesn’t equal 100%.
I meet young folks and kids very interested in old cars constantly, while shooting CCs (often theirs). And that’s in Eugene, about as “progressive” town as you can get. Old cars are cool. Obviously it’s not exactly in the same way as it was in 1969; the world has changed. But your sweeping generalizations as usual are totally off base.
Cheer up! 🙂
I agree kids would rather play a video game than turn wrenches its a damn shame in my opinion, cars are the perfect teaching tool for patience, a colorful vocabulary, and can make for some great bonding time with parents wish I could have done a few more builds with my grandpa before his time but its defiantly the knowledge and memories that will be cherished forever.
Was this a Mopar product or a re badged Colt/Mitsubishi?It looks like the Starion we had in the UK around the same time
This was all Mopar. The L body coupe went back to 1979, when it came out as the Plymouth Horizon TC3 and the Dodge Omni 024. Actually, the initial engine (or most of it) was a 1.7L four sourced from VW until the Chrysler 2.2 was available in quantity in 1981 or 82.
Thanks JP
What is the talbot conection to the omni? I know it exists but dont know what it ie.
I’m going to do an in-depth CC on the Horizon/Omni soon. In a nutshell, the Horizon was originally largely developed at Chrysler’s European ops, Simca (later renamed Talbot). It was based quite a bit on the Simca 1100, a very advanced little car for the times: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-european/un-curbside-classic-simca-1204-1971-small-car-comparison-no-2/
Chrysler US adapted it for domestic production, and in the process it got changed a fair amount. Not the body, which was fundamentally the same. But the American Horizon didn’t have the Simca’s long-travel torsion bar suspension. The US version had a cheaper set up.
Also, the US version wisely did not try to use the Simca engine, which was too small and somewhat fragile. Chrysler bought 1.7L VW engines in the rough, and added their own systems to it, and later used a 1.6 L Peugeot engine as the base mill. When Chrysler’s 2.2 came along, that was also available as a step-up engine.
Thanks, the nutshell version is informative, and more than I knew about the connection.
I threw up a little bit in my mouth when those cars came out.
Just got nauseous again.
I liked the L body coupes when they came out in 1979 and I liked this version of it as well. It may not have been a 72 Duster, but for its time period, I thought this was a nice little car.
I remember seeing one of these where the owner appeared to want to mimic the style of a real Charger with big fat tires on the rear, but stock size on the front. I couldn’t help but laugh the first time I saw it, and every time I saw it for the next couple of years.
A FWD 4-cylinder hatchback. I don’t care what it’s performance specs are, this is no Charger.
One could argue about the application of the hallowed Charger name to this car, but, to me, it’s a better fit than the Cordoba-clone 1975-77 Chargers (let alone slapping that name on all two-door Coronets in 1976).
These were decent performance cars for their time, and still look good today, in my opinion. And, unlike the pure muscle cars of the 1960s and early 1970s, these Chargers are well-suited to today’s driving conditions and fuel costs.
The 1966-74 Chargers have more “presence” and are obviously worth more, but if I had to pick a Charger as a fun daily driver, I’d go with one of these.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course, but I’d rather drive the Cordoba-based Charger.
I’ll put myself on a tighter budget and pick a 440 71
True, I don’t think them ol’ Duke boys would’ve been visiting the Dodge showrooms in ’84, but we are talking about a time when Camaros and Mustangs were offered with 4 cyl engines and sub 15 second quarter mile times was Ferrari territory. My wife’s ’09 Malibu is faster. Heck, even the contemporary Corvettes were shadows of their former selves by the late 70’s. I’m way too lazy to check the numbers, but I’d be willing to bet that these little Chargers could’ve smoked a BMW, Supra, or V6 Mustang of the same vintage.
Hmmm … perhaps a RWD conversion using an Art Morrison chassis and a Hellcat engine could take care of that?
I wonder if any of these were ever painted orange with “01” on the doors?
It’s a pretty safe bet that somebody has done it.
I don’t think there’s a car in the world that hasn’t had the general treatment. These would be a given.
…along with snowmobiles, lawn tractors, etc. etc.
One has to keep in mind the state of the economy, as well as dire predictions of even-higher fuel prices, when this car was designed. It was certainly more show than go, but I still wouldn’t mind having one if it was in really nice condition.
I had the pleasure of working on troubleshooting the base model of this car in 1984, in both the state and national Plymouth Troubleshooting Contest. It wasn’t a bad car for its time, and was certainly FAR simpler to troubleshoot than any CVCC Honda of the same vintage.
Not ‘around 1972’, but 1975 was the Charger turned into “broughamanship”
The 71-74 models were mid sized coupes, comparable to Torinos and LeManses. The 73-74 SE’s were still sporty IMHO, just with vinyl top and window louvers. Even some Hemi Cudas have vinyl tops.
Enough of calling anything not a Muscle/Supercar a ‘Brougham’. Same as calling all old RWD 2 doors a ‘muscle car’
Please note I said “descent into”; there is a difference. I agree the ’75 version was a whole different animal than the ’71 to ’74. The point I was making with the statement of “around 1972, it began its quick descent into” is that raw performance was no longer as much of a focal point and the concept of personal luxury was rapidly gaining ground.
It did start in ’72, when the Special Edition got a gigantic blind-spot C-pillar: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cohort-capsule-1972-dodge-charger-se-blind-spot-what-blind-spot/
It reminds me a lot of a mini-Continental Mark IV.
There was a Charger SE in the holy model year of 1969. Not all were “Hemi powered” drag racers.
Was Chysler competing with itself? They had the new Daytona/Laser models in 1984. Weren’t they pretty much the same car underneath?
I think these were L body cars…not K cars. They were based on the Omni platform which predates the K cars by a couple of years. I think only the engine/trans interchanged, other than that it was a cruder (is that possible) k-car like platform.
Have to agree Chargers here were V8 or Hemi 6 and the quick 6 remained the worlds quickest 6 until BMW went mad in the 90s and built something faster, this is not a performance car far from it, Sad to see what happened at Chrysler but this is it.
I like these cars okay, but I think using the Charger name for them was a big mistake.
I love how Mopar guys bitch and complain about the modern LX Chargers having 4 doors. Its a V8/RWD car capable of running 13 second quarter mile times, 150+ mph, gets 30 mpg and is under $30K. And thats just the base R/T model, it just gets better from there.
But few complain that a wheezing little 4 cylinder/FWD hatchback made out of tin is also called a Charger. I dont get it.
Sorry fellow Mopar fans but if I had a drivers license in 1984, Id be in a new Grand National or 5.0 Mustang, maybe even a 307 Cutlass but never one of those things and look at my avatar.
LT Dan, when you jump in your time machine, you’d better go with your Grand National choice, because a GLHS will run circles around the other two.
This car came out as I finished high school and started college, so I fit the demographic for it to some degree. But, I was pretty happy with my ’76 Cutlass Supreme Brougham coupe, and was never attracted to this rather busy little body that saw infinite bolt on panels at the c pillar and various doo dads, decals and front and rear treatments trying to create new and improved models from a 1979 econo car.
I had nearly forgotten the Escort EXP. I always thought it looked like a cleaned up and sleeker 8/10th scale Fox Mustang. The EXP front end shares something with the subject Shelby Charger, but thankfully the rest of the EXP appears to share nothing with the busy lines and doo dads on the Shelby.
While the Omni 024 might not have been the best application for the Charger nameplate, it was still better than the Volare Road Runner or Mustang II Cobra II, and a case could be made that an Omni 024 Charger is better than the current 4-door-only Charger.
Was the 2.2 a head gasket eating monster like wome of the other chry co four cylinders of the time?
Mom had a 2.2 in a ’87 Horizon. I don’t recall any issues with that engine at all, except for some kind of computer issue with tiny little two-barrel carburetor that kept it from running right–until it was disconnected altogether.
That car (the “Hor”) took some serious abuse, and never had any serious problems I recall.
The C-pillars on these cars were enormous! Must have created some pretty bad blind spots.
Chrysler had a few different internal attempts to clean up the c-pillar. One of those was a (drum roll, please) opera window.
The similarly positioned Dodge Daytona didn’t do much better in the buff book reviews but seemed to be a much better selling car.
I could be wrong, but I vaguely remember the Daytona being called the best handling car compared to (Camaro, Mustang, Supra….) way back in 84/85. I want to say it was Motor Trend that ran the comparison.
The last Daytona Iroc R/T was quite the rocket, just kind of crude and well…crude.
I always had a soft spot for both the Omnirizon and the 024/TC3. Both more nicely styled than any other American subcompact (or most Japanese for that matter). And to compare this Charger to the Ford EXP is a sacrilege!
I’m kind of partial to this early style of Charger. I think it looks better with this rear quarter glass.
This would be a fun car to bomb around in
I bought a Charger Shelby brand new in 85. I still have it and I love it. For a 35 year old car it is really a little bomber. It has great handling, good gas milage and hardly any maintenance. I did have it restored (original) about ten years ago and it still looks great. I don’t drive it in the winter which really helps. This car is not for everyone but it certainly gets noticed.
Evolution is the word that comes to mind. The Omni 024 morphed into the Charger which then received the Shelby treatment. And over time we got the Shelby Daytona Turbo Z followed by the Neon SRT4, the Caliber SRT4 and further up the chain, the return of the Charger as a 4 door and the Challenger. Circle complete.
These were the years where Shelby came in from the wilderness and hooked up with old pal Lee Iacocca at the New Chrysler Corporation. The lowly K cars, the Omni and Horizon had to come on line in order to save the company, so they served their purpose well. Car guys returned to Chrysler in the form of Iacocca, Shelby, Bob Lutz, Bob Gale and Francois Castaing. But none of this wouldn’t have happened had it not been for these early fwd cars that once saved a company from oblivion.
Great find and a nice write up, Jason. I remember well these cars when they came out and never considered the styling similarities between the Ford EXP and Dodge Charger until now!
+1
I agree. My brother proudly bought an EXP when he couldn’t afford the insurance on a Mustang GT. What a POS. We still joke about it today….
My GF at the time had one of these things in Turbocharged form. A crude beast with massive torque steer when the turbo got spooled up. Once you got used to it it was fun to drive. I remember 2 or 3 turbo meltdowns (under warranty fortunately) and she got fed up with it and traded it in on a Chevy pickup. I had a Fiat 124 sport coupe that handled much better, was put together better, but couldn’t keep up with the Turbo Shelbys fierce acceleration.
Let’s take an econobox and throw a turbo on it’s underpowered, poorly engineered 4 cylinder motor until it thrashes itself to death then lets add a turbo to almost every car we offer!! AHHHH! Nothing like the smell of Detroit in the 1980s!
My girlfriend (now wife) bought an 86 Shelby Charger new-her first new car. It was an automatic without the turbo but still got a lot of attention in our small town. She loved it-the car was very good for bringing stuff home–first car we ever owned with cup holders. We owned it for 8 years and the only thing that ever went wrong was a burst heater hose–the car was very well serviced from day one. I really have got nothing but good memories about the car-it was very cheap to maintain and got decent fuel economy for the day. My wife and I own Mustangs now but if she sees an L-body Charger she says “I miss my Shelby”
“Few car names are any better and carry more punch than “Charger”. You know its intended purpose and capabilities in one succinct word. Mustang? You know what horses leave for you. Camaro? That creates no mental image.”
I have to disagree with you. In ’84, there was a very specific image for these cars. The ‘Stang GT was for the Yuppie that didn’t want a Bimmer and wore Polo shirts with the collar ‘popped’, the Camaro was for the Mullet/Metal crowd and girls named Donna, 300Z’s were for Dentists, Supras were for tech-heads, and sadly the Charger was for rubes who got themselfs a poor-mans sports car.
Great piece….but the earliest definition of “Charger” is also a horse.
My best friend lusted, dreamed, drooled over one of these until he finally bought one (his was maroon though). Having come from owning a 1979 Plymouth Fire Arrow (and I had a 1978 Arrow GT), he saw this as kind of a natural progression of the type. That is until it burned completely down to the ground! While we still long to find a nice Fire Arrow (with the appopriate 2.6 Liter), the Shelby?? Not so much…
in 1990 my first car was a 1984 shelby charger…with 100K hard miles on it. I put another 80K on in it 3 years and went through 2 motors, 1 gear box and plenty of second hand low profile tires (because the new ones were really beyond my earning capability at the local Office Depot as a cashier). I screwed every one of my high school girlfriends in the very small backseat. I had so much fun in that car you cannot imagine. if you saw a punk kid driving around your town in one of these, dropping the clutch at every stop light in a cloud of smoke with a loud stereo and a big grin on his face…that was me.
i’d pay good money to have that car back!
I’ve owned a lot of Mopars. The one that I’ll never part with? My 1987 Shelby GLHS. It provides the most fun that I’ve ever had behind the wheel of a car.
I remember how bad Chrysler’s shifter was. Always had a problem finding several gears. One time in 84 some guy was trying to impress his girlfriend in a new Daytona and locked up the gear shift. While he was trying to get it into ANY gear, my friend and I in my 71 Maverick with a 170 and Hurst floor shift conversion were laughing our asses off. My friends step dad had a Rampage with a five speed and it was a pain to find reverse or third. And that’s when it was new. Chryslers shift linkage was the reason most people bought automatics.
The l bodys had a mechanical linkage, all other cars got a cable shifter, that would shift quite nicely. Miles ahead of the vw mechanical linkages.
And all you guys are bashing on the l-body charger, and the daytona. I happen to know of a charger that still uses its original 8v motor and runs sub 10 second quarter miles. All from a fwd platform to boot.
How many people here have a 10 second car that was less than 10k to build, includong the purchase price of the car?
Ive yet to see any v8 or v6 car run as fast as these did for the same price. Power to weight, stock for stock, the chrysler line of turbo cars was always better.
Ive owned all three from the 80s era. Not one car, mustang, camaro, firebird, was built “great”. For the time they were excellent. The only car, that I have seen run stock for stock for the era was the GNX or the Regal Type-T. Those gave the dodge boys a run for their money.
And straight from Carroll’s mouth, he helped design these cars to see just what he could do with an economical car, with performance, fuel efficiency, and quality at a reduced price. Shelby did a lot more forthese cars than slap some stickers on it and call it good.
Is this car for sale if so call me 4044418228
A friend’s little brother had a GLHS for a while, until he wrecked it. He replaced it with Charger that he had a long time. Eventually, it was replaced with a bright red AWD Eagle Talon which a local place worked on a lot and it became scary fast. The trans didn’t last too long with the power it made, but it was fun. I drove it a couple of times and it wasn’t a rocket off the line, even if you spooled up the turbo, but once it got rolling, wow. He had it a long time, it was pretty rotted out by the time he sold it to the place that did all the work on it as a parts car. He had a 2002 Trans Am WS6 for a while, but in 2015, he bought his present car a 2015 392 Challenger, it’s bright red too. So far, two+ years and 46,000 miles later, it’s had one issue. A sensor failed about 6 months after he got it. And he hit a pothole and killed a tire.
Never seen this before, quite surprised, what happened to the styling department, were they on holiday when this came out?
I know aesthetics are subjective but it must be one of the ugliest cars I have seen to come form a major manufacturer. The proportions , the fussy detail none of it works for me
The European Ford Escort XR3i looks very elegant in comparison
The Pontiac Aztec was uglier
Did the Dodge Daytona use the same engine or a different one? I’d think a Daytona Turbo Z engine in this, or a more modern powerplant, might make a difference. BTW, the wheels on the Ford EXP in the ad shown above look like an optional wheel Fiat offered on some models of the 131 Mirafiori and 132 in the late ’70s.
Dang that’s quite a nasal protuberance.