I sat down to write this on Groundhog Day, February 2nd, which fell on a Friday this year. I wouldn’t have noticed or paid attention to the occasion were it not for an unfailingly entertaining and informative online group chat at work. Aside from a brutal cold snap that hit Chicago six weeks ago (it hit -10 degrees Fahrenheit / -23 Celsius at O’Hare International Airport, before factoring in the wind chill), it has been yet another mild winter. Folklore has it that when the groundhog emerges from its hole in the ground on the second day of February, and if it sees its shadow, winter weather will continue as planned for another six weeks. If the groundhog doesn’t see its shadow, then spring-like temperatures can be expected in advance. It’s all so scientific.
I remain a huge fan of the Bill Murray and Andie MacDowell picture Groundhog Day and have seen it enough times that, at one point, I could run lines along with the film almost continuously. Apparently, the groundhog didn’t see its shadow on the first Friday of this month, so spring is supposed to come early. As a warm-weather guy, I think that’s great, but an early end to winter used to mean so much more in Chicago after trudging over and through salt-strewn sidewalks lined with dirty snowbanks on a daily basis. The Second City is supposed to be notoriously awful in winter. We basically got another freebie this year, so I’ll not look a gift horse in the mouth and will just rock myself back and forth to quell my sense of unease with what continues to look like significant, adversely impactful climate change.
The groundhog’s shadow was absent on the second day of February, much like the Dodge Shadow, once ubiquitous, has mostly disappeared. In all fairness, the newest and final Shadow is now thirty years old, so it would be expected that one would be rare in 2024. The last time I recall having seen one near where I live was in June of 2022, but these pictures predate that sighting by four years, being from February of 2018. According to a license plate search, this example in what appears to be factory Glamour Turquoise Metallic (I’m not making that up) appears to still be kicking it on these streets. In its final year of production, the Shadow came in just two body styles, a three- and five-door hatchback, and in two levels of trim, base and ES. The convertible, introduced for ’91, had bowed out after ’93, with just over 6,300 sold that year and with about 29,000 produced, all-up.
I was confused by what might be under the hood based on the license plate search, which indicated a 2.0-liter four cylinder, the mill that the new 1995 Neon got. According to my 2002-edition Encyclopedia Of American Cars from the editors of Consumer Guide, the ’94 Shadow was available with normally aspirated 2.2L and 2.5L fours (with 93 and 100 horsepower, respectively), as well as a turbo 2.5 with 142 hp. The latter would have provided a decent amount of scoot for the 2,600-pound five-door. The base 2.0L for ’95 had 132 horses, a figure that wasn’t far behind the turbo’s number.
Shadow production for ’94 ended that March, which overlapped the rollout of the Neon which was introduced that January as a ’95 model. Was there a shortage of 2.2s and/or 2.5s engines? Perhaps a surplus of initial 2.0s? It’s possible that the results of my license plate search weren’t bulletproof, but somehow I doubt that. Final-year sales of the Shadow weren’t horrible for a small, domestic car in its eighth year of production, just shy of the hundred-grand mark with about 97,900 sales. (The fellow P-platform Plymouth Sundance sold 70,400 units in ’94, a significant difference of about 28% from the Dodge, reflective of Plymouth’s continued slide into irrelevance.)
What I loved about rediscovering these pictures from six years ago is just how “Chicago in winter” they looked. There was the slush. The dirt. The bleak sky of nondescript gray. The hulking bridge for the elevated train tracks of the CTA, complete with added steel bracing underneath, made its presence known as if to say, “This is the way it is, yous guys, so just deal with it.” This is the kind of winter scene I remember from most of over two decades of living here. If Punxsutawney Phil, the most famous groundhog of all, had not seen his shadow in that Pennsylvania borough on the day I photographed this car near the Lake Shore campus of Loyola University, I’m sure I would have rejoiced. I don’t remember if spring came early in 2018, but I’m glad I had emerged just long enough and at the right time for me to catch a glimpse of this Shadow.
Rogers Park, Chicago, Illinois.
Sunday, February 11, 2018.
Brochure pages were as sourced from the internet.
This one looks to be in good shape considering 30+ years old. Some Walmart chafe, but no gaping tin worm holes. A very good example indeed.
As for 167k production in final year (Shadow + Sundance), some manufacturers would kill for such volume in such segments. And the CAFE credits generated allowed brawny, high dollar Dodge Ram trucks to roll off the line with no concern about dismal gas milage numbers.
This was back in the day when Chrysler had a plan, a vision, and market share. Today, I’m not so sure. Way too many vehicles slapped with a Jeep logo. Talk about diluting a brand and portfolio.
Let’s home this example sees many more Ground Hog days in the future.
Great points with which I agree, all of them. When I was drafting this essay and checking a few things in my encyclopedia, it jumped out at me just how full a lineup Dodge had in the early ’90s. None of them may have been absolute class leaders, but they all had their merits. To see this economy-minded Shadow in such great condition was inspiring.
Thank you Joe. Groundhog Day is one of my favorite movies. Such an excellent story on so many levels. It seems that the Shadow was kind of the end of the line for boxy little cars so popular up until the mid-1990s. Maybe like Phil and Rita, the Shadow eventually got it right and transformed into something else. (albeit given that was a Neon, further transformation was called for)
Thanks, Jeff! Great minds. After reading your comment, I’m thinking how fun it might have been to take the movie metaphor even further. And maybe even tie in that Sonny & Cher song. Haha!
Great analogy, Joseph. As someone who over 40 years has acclimated to the heat and humidity of Texas, I am not looking forward to snow in the winter as I plan my relocation back to the mid-Atlantic area in the near future to be closer to family.
In Spring of ’93 I flew to Miami for a conference, and once it ended I rented a Shadow convertible for the requisite drive down to the Keys. It was perfectly functional if not anodyne.
That Mopar has pretty much disappeared around here (except Jeep & Ram) is telling of the old adage that you can’t rest on your laurels. But truthfully they didn’t field a truly competitive car since the late ’80s in my opinion.
Dave, you mention the relative disappearance of Mopar, and I’ll leave you with the depressing tidbit that Stellantis was completely missing from the Chicago Auto Show just over a week ago.
I have wondered before how people enjoyed driving the Shadow convertibles, and how they compared with other open-air cars in their class, like the Chevy Cavalier.
And I hope / know you’ll be just fine after a year in your new surroundings after you get there.
The Cleveland Auto Show is going on right now. I heard on the news that they did the same thing there. The dealers got together and did it all on their own.
Stellanis (and their big Jeep/Ram inside terrain-driving track) were missing at the Houston Auto Show in late January too. If you’re skipping truck-laden Texas, you’re in trouble….
But a quick spin around CarGurus show just about any Jeep or Ram at $5k+ off minimum….
This reminded me of my recent post on Facebook.
That’s right – Tell ’em, groundhog! And carry on.
Here in Ontario, we had the late Wiarton (Ontario) Willie. Honoured with his own statue.
Still easier to spell than “Punxsutawney Phil”!
Here’s my then 11 year old Shadow in 2001. Still looked great, bought new in December 1990. Always looked nearly new, as long as I owned it. Forgive, the cheesy Canadian Tire ‘wheel covers’. My nephew helped pick them. Usually used for ‘beautifying’ steel wheels shod with winter tires, during the winter months. I still have the original wheel covers in storage. This electric blue paint was popular on Dodge products in the early ’90s.
Mine was very reliable and robust, if not especially refined. I used it for 350,000+ kms of work commuting right up to 2012.
These really were nice-looking little cars in four-door form. As I remember from earlier discussions on the faux-trunk, that look gave them a more premium look over other hatchbacks. And there’s some styling continuity with these and other Chrysler Corp. offerings of the time.
It’s so great to read of your positive ownership experience, and pride of ownership always comes through, no matter what the car is. What I like about the aftermarket wheel covers is that the centers almost look like they have a pentagonal shape that almost echoes the Pentastar. Good choice.
Thanks Joseph! Yes, the resemblance of the central design element to the Chrysler Pentastar was a definite influence in choosing this unusual cover design!
One of my late-1980s bandmates had a Sundance coupe, dark red inside and out. It felt simultaneously upscale and cheap in a way that’s hard to find words for. Surprisingly plush seats, everything color-keyed, nice steering wheel and gauges. But the dashboard looked like it was cobbled together from 15 flat panels and the back seat was low and short of legroom. The door pull handle at the end of the armrest was right where your hand wanted to be. The hatchback should have been practical, but the sharply notched hatch and high liftover height made it less so. Some of these offered a V6 and four-speed automatic, rare for this class, which gave it a smooth demeanor some of its four-banger competition lacked (the follow-up Neon would have no hatch, no V6, and an antiquated 3-speed automatic).
Never saw Groundhog Day.
“Simultaneously upscale and cheap” made me chuckle. And that’s a great point about the utility of the hatchback, which had the high leftover. I’ll bet that car was still easier to load things into than at least a few other cars of its day.
This came from the era of “Peak Modern Mopar.” The K car derivatives were many, but as you stated, not always class leading. I liked both this Dodge and It’s Plymouth sibling, especially in convertible form. The Daytona, Spirit ,the GLH sedan, the Lazer. So many turbo charged and even intercooled fours. The same engines available in everything from racy little sports coupes, to minivans, to fake Mercedes looking Dodge 600s.
I really thought that Mopar was on to something, their engines powerful, there vehicles flyweight. Maybe they were just too far ahead of their time. How many expensive cars today are powered by turbo fours? Plenty!
Jose, within the context of your last couple of sentences, Chrysler Corporation absolutely seems to have been ahead of the curve with their use of turbo fours. That hadn’t even occurred to me. That seems to have been Chrysler in a nutshell: way too early (downsized ’62s), or far too late (can’t pick one example).
How much performance did they wring out of platforms where it couldn’t be expected? The Omni GLH. The Spirit R/T. Even the Daytona IROC. I thought Chrysler had such a bright future around the turn of the ’90s.
I remember when these replaced the L body cars – those had become cheap value leaders while these were the nice ones. Chrysler always seemed to do this – leave it alone, slowly make it cheaper, then replace with a new model. Valiant to Volare, Volare to Reliant, and eventually this one. Groundhog Day indeed.
PS – I’m also a fan of that movie.
The decontenting / replacement cycle is a great observation. Even with the Sundance and Shadow, the move from Chrome badges and what looked like die cast grilles to stickers and plastic cross-hairs up front was noticeable. I wanted to think “aero”, but I couldn’t help but think that the original cars somehow looked more finished. And that’s before even looking inside (which I admit I still haven’t).
I always found these cars appealing, including the 5 door hatch configuration and optional turbo powertrain. But honestly, if they really sold 167k (Dodge and Plymouth combined) in the last year, maybe 7k of those came to California. At most. And I haven’t seen one for many years, despite our general lack of rust.
I seem to recall from a magazine I had read when these cars came out that they were targeted at import shoppers, and I know how California loves the foreign makes. Though I like these Chrysler P-cars, I don’t see a whole lot of similarity between them and imports of the day.
Peak Dodge Shadow year (and the best rental car I ever had in the Nineties): 1993
I rented a white 1993 Shadow 4-door for a week when I visited Texas in 1993. I knew I was in for a far superior rental car experience when I picked up the Shadow from the Thrifty Car Rental lot at Houston Intercontinential, No sign of body damage or evidence that it had spent any time in a motel swimming pool. The burgandy interior didn’t smell like stale mac & cheese mixed with armadillo piss (unlike a 1990 Ford Tempo I rented the previous time I visited Texas…)
I did my VIN check….”K”….Cool! A 2.5 instead of a 2.2!
I got in and fired it up. Quiet-no clattering, banging, or 7.1 Richter-scale idle.
I turned on the a/c. Perfectly cool!
“I got a good one!’ I thought.
When I merged onto US 59 (then right on FM-1960, my back road shortcut to Beaumont), It had way more adequate power and a Torqueflite that responded to the depression of the accelerator pedal. (I later found out that Chrysler had started to use a “looser” torque converter on the FWD Torqueflite in 1993-no wonder I was able to squirt away from the stoplight quickly)
This Shadow was comfortable-It had the best seats I had ever sat in for a P-Body. The back seat actually had leg & knee room. (thank you, model-year1991 seat re-design).
I drove it a lot on the freeways and FM-roads that week. The Shadow never missed a beat. Fuel economy was excellent. There were absolutely n0 squeaks or rattles.
It was great driving a non-abused rental.
I didn’t want to give it back.
I hope a subsequent renter didn’t decide to drive it into a motel swimming pool.
Wow. Loved reading this. Your rental was certainly not a Monday or Friday car, but honestly, I can’t remember ever having read anything about these cars lacking reliability or performance for their class.
I always thought these should’ve been offered with a “wagon” rear extension to replace the rear hatch, like the Nissan Pulsar NX had.
That would have been such an innovation. Both these and that generation of Pulsar NX came out for MY ’87, so I’d guess that Chrysler might have had to come up with their version later.
I love the commercials for these. A Dr. Frankenstein-like lab depicting one on the production line being infused with what appears to be Dodge Dart parts. So nice you found one in a great color, let alone at all. Haven’t seen one here in NJ in years.
Chicago cold is legendary. How long ago was it that people were trapped in their cars on Lakeshore Drive in a storm within view of the front doors’ of their high rises?
I don’t think I’ve seen one of those commercials before, but I love the concept. And the fact that the Dart was used as a reference point only speaks to the general excellence of the older car.
I think it was only three years ago we got a huge blizzard in the middle of February. I’m not asking for another one of those, but it has become increasingly disquieting to me that we’ve seemingly had five minutes of snow for the past several winters.
These were another car which I might have considered had they come out at a different time, but I keep cars a long time, had bought my ’86 GTi which I had till 2001 or so (overlapped a bit after I bought my 2000 Golf which I still own)…these came out after I bought the GTi but ended well before I bought the Golf so never considered one.
I’m a big hatchback fan, and one thing I remember about these is the “hidden” hatchback where they tried to disguise a hatch as somewhat of a notchback or sedan…but that also served to make the cargo capacity diminish a bit…but still would have considered buying one. I know styling is important to many people, but I never got why hatchbacks were lumped into “cheap” vehicles in the US that are somehow less desirable than sedans. Now VW no longer sells the Golf in the US, it is getting hard to find hatchbacks (they still sell the GTi, but I’m more than a little old for another one…look for comfort more than sportiness nowdays). Seems they think we should now buy a CUV or SUV instead…that’s what I really don’t get…if CUV/SUV is popular, why isn’t a hatchback? Don’t need or want AWD. Just want a newer replacement for what I drive now (unfortunately will be an automatic, but bowing to what market offers in that respect.
One of these would be fine for me…if they still sold them…guess I missed out…35 years late.
Thank you for this. I’ve read several times (and I can’t remember where) that in Europe, it’s the hatchback versions of cars that are considered upmarket from sedans with trunks – the inverse of how it is in the U.S. I can think of many examples of hatchbacks that don’t look cheaper to my eyes than their sedan counterpoints.
And another thing on hatchbacks – at the Chicago Auto Show earlier this month, I was checking out a new Mustang and thought to myself how, unlike with my ’88 Mustang LX hatchback, I’d be unable to fit a bicycle in the new Mustang’s narrow trunk opening.
Great point about CUVs being basically like larger, elevated hatchbacks. I absolutely agree.