The 1st gear was so steep off the line it was quicker than a 82 z28 or trans am for thousands less these were as cheap as a base camaro 4cyl , now talk about a joke, yeah they were bad but so was everything else I afforded one of these out of high school on minimum wage try to do that now.
@Old Games Reviews See, that's not the full story though. The Toyota, with its VVTi, has a much flatter power curve than this old engine. It also has a wider torque band. And it's much more efficient. In the UK, the 1.33l Toyota engine in the Yaris has 99hp. So more power at almost half the capacity. 94hp from 2.2 litres really isn't very good at all.
"This is not our way to provide a merry-go-round for the local orphanage". Cars were so ridiculously bad in this era yet they still had a good sense of humor about it. Love it.
@@basshead. Luxury German cars, maybe. My sister had an Omni o24 with the VW 1.7. That engine was a miserable unreliable slug that ended up in the junkyard before it hit ten years old. Far worse than the Chrysler 2.2 in this video.
"Stopping distance from 55 was a very good 129 feet with very little fade" Forget the fact your facing 90 degrees the other direction and in the weeds!
0-60 in 9.5 seconds is actually pretty impressive for a car with double-digit horsepower. This car must have weighed next to nothing by today's standards.
Its not bad but to put it in perspective a modern 1.2 litre Renault Clio in the UK where i live will do that same 0-60 , im amazed how little horsepower Americans get from a 2.2 over here for example the Vauxhall Insignia has a 2.2 engine and produces 180bhp and top speed of 147mph amazing how 30 years of progress advances things
@@christineayres7094 What you guys don't seem to understand is that the low HP numbers were made up for by higher amounts of low-end torque, which European and Japanese cars did not have. Instead, you needed to rev those engines, sometimes quite high, to reach an equivalent power band. It was a different focus, generally. Cruising versus racing/sporty.
@@MaestroTJS Yeah but why would you need low end torque in a car ? unless your towing a trailer or something but if i want low end torque id buy a Raptor which is much faster
@@christineayres7094 On the contrary, I would say why do you need high-end torque? People like low-end torque at stoplights, which is most driving. Also, I believe it allowed the engines to have lower rpm while on the highway. The power felt more effortless coming on as opposed to having to work for it on multivalve, high rpm engines.
You have to remember that this was a time where all manufacturers were struggling to try and make power and emissions, all the while try to find acceptable mileage. Carol Shelby, a long time friend of Lee's, was the best thing to happen to Chrysler during the 80s and 90s. The lil 2.2 was worked to 107 then 110hp, by Shelby engineers. Then in 84, Shelby worked with Garrett, Bosch, and others to help create the turbo 4. Initially rated 142, it grew to 146, then with an intercooler, 174. With the Lotus head, it made 224, by 91. The light L body cars with the turbo and 5 speed close ratio were some of the fastest US made cars you could buy during the 80s and 90s, all the while making high 30s low 40s hywy mpgs.
Adam Trombino Shelby gets the credit, but didn’t do the work. The success of the 2.2 and 2.5 turbos was due to Dick Winkles (chief engineer on the Viper V10 engine) and Kim Lyons. Shelby was nothing but a name at Chrysler at the time. Also, the Turbo IV did not come out until 1989. It was the Turbo II that made 174 hp and 200lb/ft of torque. The Turbo IV did make a top rating of 174 too, but it was able to reach it’s max boast in half the time and had a much broader torque curve while having better fuel economy.
@@CamaroAmx yea Salem's were for the late 40s housewife you'd see wearing curlers and a bathrobe and fuzzy slippers you'd see going to her mailbox at 2:47 on a weekday. She most likely had green mascara on too, just like J Geils band told us about in "musta got lost".
In 86/87 I worked at a Dodge dealership. We had the Shelby Charger. But the car we most loved to hoon was the Omni GLH. We had the Daytona and Conquest too, but nothing made more smiles per miles than that GLH. That is Goes Like Hell.
Dad gave me a gray one for graduation. People forget that this car would out ran a iroc z, mustang gt, and most anything 0 to 50. Cars where slow back in the 80s. I would ran my friend in his dad's vette in a quarter mile would always win these cars where quick back then. Times are better know lol
whew... a neck snapping 94 HP i remember buying the 1986 Dodge Daytona Turbo Z........146hp it was considered a beast, competing with camaro, and firebird...... 0 - 60 mph was 8 seconds
College roommate had one of these. I drove it on occasion and actually liked it. It felt like quicker than my Honda at the time. And I kinda liked the fact it was a little rough around the edges
The goddamn trunk got wet due to bad fit and finish. It's amazing what we put up with in that era. My dad bought an '84 Dodge Ram that had to go back to the dealer because the passenger door was so out of adjustment that you could see daylight at the top from inside the cab.
I had one of these brand new in the same color scheme in 1983. PLUS: That really was the bast console design of all time. MINUS: The car was a disappointment, that put me in a sports car insurance category paying a high price for pitiful performance. I don't recall it beating me up on long drives in the mountains so i would say the suspension and seat were OK. I helped save the American car manufacturing by buying this car. God Bless America.
I had an '83 Shelby Charger. It was a lot of fun, but yeah, a ton of torque steer. And I had no idea how crazy the braking was. I never had to lock them up, but if this display is typical, that's a very good thing. Wow.
@@Johnny96ri Back in the 80s like you said that the reason they were building economy cars was so they can stay in business and it worked but now since 2015 the Hellcat has raised the bar and they're now building outstanding muscle cars.
I had an '85, silver over black with red interior. Three things I remember are: flaccid steering, rubbery shifting, and a surprisingly pimped-out interior. Chrysler splurged on the inside parts because it was the cheapest way to make the car better.
The 💩💩we used to put up with. I was a auto mechanic back then and it was a real treat trying to get any car from that era to run good. And of all the cars,the Chrysler products were the worst. Vacuum hoses and thermostatic switches galore and a carburetor you couldn’t legally adjust except for idle speed. I would try selling them a carburetor overhaul and if it had anywhere near 40,000 mi or more it always needed the crappy rubber carb base gasket that they used (severe vacuum leaks) and then I was allowed to unplug the mixture screws and adjust idle mixture. Several customers said that it ran the best ever since they owned it. I guess one thing to take into consideration is you could get one of those 💩-boxes for 6-7grand brand new in 83-84….hard to find a decent used vehicle that doesn’t have a jillion miles on it for that much nowadays…hard to find anything new for under 20. 🙄
My first new car was a 1982 Charger 2.2. My trade-in was a 73 Duster 340. Dumbest trade I ever made, and the Charger 2.2 was the second worst car I ever owned (worst was an Opel GT). Clunky shifter was an understatement, power was mediocre even for 1982, 4-speed transmission was weak, replacement 5-speed wasn't much better, and then it started vapor locking under full power halfway through second gear. Gave it to my stepdaughter after I got it paid for and bought a slant six 67 Barracuda. Drove that car 100,000 miles in four years with the slant, then swapped in a 360. Still have the Barracuda 33 years later, wouldn't be afraid to fire it up and go off on a cross-country drive w/o any preparation whatever.
I truly believe that today's vehicles with their 1,000 safety systems give the drivers a false sense of security. Us Generation Nexters learned how to drive without all that stuff so we know what limitations are. Everytime it snows here in Chicago the first vehicle you see in the ditch is a 4x4.
60 in the 9sec range in '82 is quick, especially for under 100 h.p.. Sidenote today's HEI ignition systems makes most carbureted vehicles much more livable, efficient and quicker...
3:35 Daaaaang! That comment was funny as heck! 🤣😂🤣 Gawd! The late 70's to the early 80's were truly horrific years for US cars. Seriously, a Dodge Charger derived from an Omni subcompact? Which was derived from A Vauxhall, from a Simca-Talbot? Awful times those were. People today don't know how good they have it with modern cars. Yup, I remember seeing those atrocities as a teen back then and thought they were pretty bad.
It was a low point for cars in general, not just US. Vehicles of that era from overseas weren't any better on average, and in many cases they were much worse. Underpowered, finicky, electrical problems, burning oil, corrosion out the wazoo, etc. The rustiest vehicle I've ever owned was a '79 Toyota I bought in '87 to use as a commuter/winter car so I could keep my '86 Audi in the garage and out of the salt. For that reason I didn't care about the body rust on the Toyota when I bought it, but it got even worse in the couple of winters I owned it. Toyotas of that era were notorious for rusting even to the point of the frame breaking. Don't even get me started on British, French, German, or Italian ("Fix It Again, Tony") cars back then.
My mother had one of these it would intermittently shut off and not start. The dodge dealership had no idea what was wrong. Not great during Vermont winters.
My family had an ‘83 Shelby Charger and an ‘85 Shelby Charger. The turbo in the ‘85 made a tremendous improvement in performance. I’d say I still wish I had one, but my wife’s Honda minivan is probably faster. Those were fun cars for the time and the styling always worked for me.
Crappy shift linkage that would disconnect. I came up with a simple collar fix that I installed on my dad's Charger and my wife's Turismo. Problem solved!
2:47 to 2:54 - ***THAT’S WHAT SHE SAID!*** 5:29 - They got the name wrong, that’s Dale Gribble. And what a gentleman to remove his hat when speaking; his motto is clearly *“Class gets you ass!”*
An '85 was one of my first cars, I was licensed in 1993. Only had 63K, a 5-Speed, lot of fun, not a speed demon, but the visibility and turning radius was horrible.
So imagine sitting idle in a new 2020 Dodge Charger Hellcat. From the depths of hell, you see coming up in your rearview mirror this... this... abomination. (I am aware of the irony that the abomination from hell, is going to try to pass a car named Hellcat)... as this thing approaches, going 40 miles per hour, the second it tried to pass, you launch. You instantly pull ahead and are already 10 miles an hour faster. That's because this thing took 4.5 seconds to go from 40-50, and the Hellcat can go 0-60 in 3.5 seconds. What would Lee think if he could see that?
yup, they hauled ass for the time!..as in destroyed nearly anything else with 4 or 6 cylinders. obvo not Grand Nationals, lol. but yeah. a lot of cars then were 13-20 sec range, 0-60. ..why do ppl think Carroll Shelby loved them and plopped his name on a series of them? Some of the faster 80's cars were the Omni, Horizon & Charger GLH & GLH-S cars. ..when the 2.2L turbo 4 cyl. Mopars of the 80's bested the 1/4 mile time of the late 60's Mustang GT 350? ..Whew! I can still hear the screams of disbelief! Muuaahaha.
Immediately upon opening this I thought “It better have an oil pressure gauge or they’ll hear about it!”. He is relentless on that one point in any 80’s car!
Ignore the stats, 80s cars were genuinely fun! Crappy brakes, tires, and suspension made 80 mph feel like 130 today. You needed skill and healthy dose of swagger to drive those beasts to the limit.
Explains why my friends thought it was crazy when I went fast enough in my Bronco II to break the speedo cable (3.8l from a T-Bird swapped in place of the crappy 2.9l), or when I would play a game with myself where I would purposely leave later and later to go somewhere just to see if I could still make it on time.
@@CamaroAmx Wow, my best friend had a Bronco II with the 2.9 and a five speed. I used to drive it all the time and it was a slug. A 3.8 sounds like a perfect replacement. Rock on and safe travels.
Also it’s quite obvious that the rear drums needed to be readjusted. Had this same issue with my AMX until I readjusted the rear brakes. Stopped straight and true after that. This was a press car. It was probably beaten half to death by 10 other “journalists” before they got a hold of it.
@@CamaroAmxA lot of cars left the factory that way at the time. They just needed to work, not work precisely. Quality control was an interesting concept, maybe even a goal, but it wasn't an enforced rule.
I actually liked these back in the day. Still a competent design, utility and sporty looking. Doug DeMuro is watching this going goo goo over that cupholder/storage thing.
Rose colored glasses my friend... This car was the worst of the worst! I took my driver's test in one of these piles of garbage, and I couldn't believe how unbelievably crappy it was.
dont listen to ppl that comment on these that are in fact 12 yr old trolls or buy into the revisionist history of how bad they were. bs..i was there..great cars. & yes..they destroyed most econo cars of the day in acceleration and handling. they beat many V6 cars & gave V8 cars fits! far quicker than the 3.8L Ford T-Bird of that time and immensely better handling. ..if you laugh/disagree, you weren't there.
@pimpninja1985 1982 Ford Escort, for one with 0-60 mph in 13.9. There's your refrigerator! Chevy Chevette diesel? 0-60 time of just over 20 seconds. Charger 2.2L was sub 10 sec if u recall. ..i could likely list 50 more cars, all far slower than the 2.2L Mopar cars.
