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.
@@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".
"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.
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.
"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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Back then a 0-60 time under 10 seconds was quite good. I had one and loved it. It was loaded with anti-smog devices I removed and it's power went up dramatically. A fun car for a 20 year old!
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
The guy took his cap off so he could talk to the camera. I remember it was culture to take your hat off anytime you entered a building, but not outside while talking to a camera. LOL
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
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
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.
Not really. The Shelby GLHS version of this car was a serious car. Never did a Mustang II ever have any performance versions other then decal packages.
@@kz1000ps 0 to 60 in under 7 seconds for the GLHS version in the 1980's was fast. If you look at some true 1960's muscle car test that version would keep up and would be faster then my 85 Trans am I had. That said I think the Shelby GLHS version was a a great car and that is from a guy who drives a new Charger Daytona.
Our family had the 81 Plymouth TC3 version of this platform..with the 1.7 VW based four cylinder and the automatic.....had the same propensity to swap ends on heavy braking...even worse on snowy or icy surfaces...this was one of the cars I learned how to drive as a teen and it probably helped my driving skills......
I had the new 1979 Dodge Omni 024 with the 4 speed 65 HP Voltswagen 4 cylinder. Engine that ran smooth but the slowest car I ever drove. Top speed was 80 MPH at 4000 RPM and the engine was screaming. Had to crazy glue the body side moldings on every six months or they would fall off. Rack & Pinion steering, Disc Brakes, Air Cond, 4 Speaker Motorola Sound System, Paint Finish were all pluses on this car. Everything else was inferior junk. Body fit and cheap plastic interior were terrible. Drove it for six years 90 thousand miles and the only parts that failed were Battery, Alternator, Radiator. Reliable for a cheaply built Low Tech car.
acceleration times were actually very good for 1983 4 cylinder engine standards, I didn't expect to see this car break the 0-60mph times in under 10 seconds, the average mpg is also even better than the 1982 cousin model the Plymouth TC3 with the 1.7 liter 4 cylinder.
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.
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.
My 1986 Dodge Omni GLH's 2.2L put out 110 hp. so a 16 hp increase over this 83. 0-60 mph in 8.5 secs. Topped out at 110 mph. All GLH's only came with a 5 speed manual.
Yes I had an new 83 Shelby, put 180k miles on it over 10 years with just a head gasket and a few alternators. I loved that car. It handled so well it was scary on west Marin/Sonoma roads. I traded it on a new 94 Mustang.
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.
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. 🙄
These weren't as bad as some, but the shifter mechanism were famous for wearing out and coming loose without warning; at least day there are up grades for the shift linkage that fix the willowy feel of the stock up. The brakes would take some work, an adjustable brake portioning valve and removing the self adjuster set up would help a lot. Sadly, no fix for the lousy plastics on Chrysler products that crack and break often.. got a Dodge generation 2 Ram, everything plastic has either cracked or broken including the seat back adjuster handle!
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 was in the Army and stationed in Germany In the early 80's. You could buy a Dodge Charger 2.2 for $4995 and have it waiting for you back in the states when you left Germany. Ford Escort had the same type of deal. The shifter feel was crappy if best on these cars. The 2.2 liter motor was better than the 1.7 and 1.8 liter motors Dodge and Plymouth got from VW and were putting in these and the 4 door cars.
Owned one of these 1983-1988. Pretty much a throw away car at 100,000 miles. The carburetor would gunk up every 10,000 miles to the point where you would have to completely take apart and clean. It was actually cheaper just to get a new carburetor installed. Car was very cheaply made. Lots of plastic. I guess it did it's job for the most part the 5 years I owned it. Could have been worse. I believe I payed around $6500 brand new. In 1988 I bought a Honda accord which was a definite upgrade. Drove it for 15 years and 250,000 miles.
Pretty much exactly what I went through. Bought Charger new in 1982. Carburetor gunked up on me too every 10,000 miles. Other than that it did its job I guess until 1989 when I bought a new Honda accord.
I had a new one from '83 until I traded it in with 36k miles on a Mustang GT in '86. As with just about any new '80s vehicle, and I had several of different brands, the build quality control was crap, but once the dealer straightened out those non mechanical QC issues I had no problems with it. In those 3 years/36k miles I never had any mechanical problems, carb related or not.
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 had a 84 and at the time it was 10 years old. Was in great shape and had hood pins on it. People thought had a sleeper engine. What they didn’t know was the hood latch was broke and someone decided to put hood pins in it.
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.
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...
I found a clean 1982 charger 2.2. Wish there were more videos on YT. Need maintenance and car repair videos. Is this vehicle carburetor? Is it hard to work on? Are maintenance cheap?
0-50 was in just over 5 seconds,the engine then dies out after that but these were great in the city,even hwy comfortable little cars...I bought/sold 30-40 of these in the late 80's throughout the 1990's...The 1984 version was quicker then you could get the Turbo versions that were rockets for the era!
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!”*
In the 90’s, one of my brothers owned the Shelby GLHS version of this car. Insanely fast for the time but the torque steer was increased as much as the power was. I nearly ended up in a ditch the first time I tried an acceleration run. He also owned a Rampage that had the vaguest, rubberiest, shifter I ever drove. Another brother’s first new car was an 024 and it was an unreliable p.o.s. These cars were truly flimsy and cheap even in comparison to other Chrysler products. Only the Shelby rose above the basement that was that platform.
@@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.
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.
Want to help keep our weekly Retro Reviews alive? DONATE NOW: mptevents.regfox.com/motorweek
"Now they improved the engine by 10 more horsepower, bringing it to 94" actually laughed out loud.
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.
Who's the brunette talk a about a seductive woman.
Ive owned both engines the 81 2
2.2 and now the 83 2.2, and i can say the extra 10 hp does help
@@michaels9657 You need to look at the retro review for the 82 Trans Am. The TA was an auto. It would outperform a Porsche according to the review.
@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.
They had a cup of coffee and a pack of smokes in the center console!! YEAHHHH!!! 🤘😎🤘
Prob had some Johnny Walker in that cup too 😂
Hellooooo early 80s
Salems in a old school pack. They were like knockoff Newports. Think they are still around.
@@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".
"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.
German cars were very good back then.
@@basshead. haha, no.
@@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.
Not many Japanese ones which is why they really gained market share.
@@toyoscio You need to watch more of these videos. Japan certainly had their share of miserable junk.
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!
Its so important. A lot of cars have secret menus that show them, even in the 80s. Oldsmobile being a big offender.
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.
I had an 81 Audi with a whopping 71 HP. I also had an 81 Suzuki 125cc Enduro. Despite the low power I had a blast with both.
80's American cars, that's why I was in love with my 1982 Accord Sedan with a 5 speed manual!
@@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.
Yes the lack of any computer aided driving is definitely a thing of the past.. Driving was a lot more fun without it :)
"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!
I thought it was odd though, the driver had the wheel turned to the right when he finally stopped...
😂🤣😂
@MultiSpencerc you can tell it was from counter steering
If it really goes to the right when braking. That is scary
*Ironically the best handling Charger ever made.* 😂
Not
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.
Im all about great mpg. So if 47mpg is what i get from this charger, ill take take it
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.
Q U I R K S A N D F E A T U R E S
D O U B L E T S H I R T S
Doug would give it a Doug Score of 5 total for not having Bluetooth or touchscreen.
and now it’s time to give this car a Doug score
@@SgtSnazzerino He would probably need to make a 2 parter to include all the quirks and features of this car.
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.
WHOA!!! The rear end had abruptly fishtailed at the braking test!!
Welcome to FWD and no ABS
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.
Go watch the old road tests with Bud Lindeman if you wanna see a charger get outta shape during braking.
In comparison this was quite mild 🤭
@@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.
Right, and i wanted to buy 1, but seeing the brake test is giving me 2nd thoughts!
That swerve was TERRIFYING, holy smokes.
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.
2489lbs for the Shelby version. Base model weighed in at 2282lbs dry.
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.
Still own 2 shelby chargers, love em. 20 bucks for a timing belt, 30 bucks for a water pump. Incredibly reliable. 200k on one & 300k on one
I have a Daytona Pacifica 2,2 I'm probably push 400hp nothing crazy
18 second quarter mile, just as fast as the 1978 Corvette they tested.
0-60 is a quick 9.5 seconds! good ole 1983... love watching these retro reviews!!
These 80s and 90s DSM and Mopar sports cars are so awesome, I'd love to have one!
These weren’t bad cars ,they came out when I was a senior in high school and they had good performance compared to most cheap cars..
A pinto
pimpninja1985 a pinto
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.
Back then a 0-60 time under 10 seconds was quite good. I had one and loved it. It was loaded with anti-smog devices I removed and it's power went up dramatically. A fun car for a 20 year old!
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
"Rollin in my 2.2" 😂
My '98 Camry 2.2 has more horsepower, safer and roomier... Beat that Charger 2.2! 🤣
My 89 probe was a 2.2l, thing was pretty bulletproof to be honest. Same motor as the old mazda trucks
@@jeffreyknox9354 that's what 15yrs of development does
Overhead camshaft or lifters were noisy.
The Probe its a beauty.
The guy took his cap off so he could talk to the camera. I remember it was culture to take your hat off anytime you entered a building, but not outside while talking to a camera. LOL
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
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
Brakes are fine. Back then you didn't have abs
This car swerves to avoid the accident for you. Cars had more feelings back then.....😂
Lmao!
😂😂😂
Love those lil 2.2 mopars, my pops had one in his 85 Reliant K , simple and durable mills.
Click, click, click lifters. Yeah I miss those cars.
got my smokes and a cuppa joe
Would love to have a Rampage to play with...
“...it literally beats you to death...” That’s, arguably, a bad thing.
4:26. And so begins the race for most cup holders!
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.
this charger was dodge's "Mustang II" lmaoo😂😂😂😂
Not really. The Shelby GLHS version of this car was a serious car. Never did a Mustang II ever have any performance versions other then decal packages.
Aim for the stars, baby!!
@@kz1000ps 0 to 60 in under 7 seconds for the GLHS version in the 1980's was fast. If you look at some true 1960's muscle car test that version would keep up and would be faster then my 85 Trans am I had. That said I think the Shelby GLHS version was a a great car and that is from a guy who drives a new Charger Daytona.
@@bikingD Ah, my reply was aimed at the initial comment. But yes, sub-7 seconds in the 1980s was nothing to sneeze at.
This was faster and got better gas mileage though.
Our family had the 81 Plymouth TC3 version of this platform..with the 1.7 VW based four cylinder and the automatic.....had the same propensity to swap ends on heavy braking...even worse on snowy or icy surfaces...this was one of the cars I learned how to drive as a teen and it probably helped my driving skills......
Never had that issue with mine. Maybe they fixed it by 86.
At least they kept it 2 door unlike todays chargers
We went from this to a 4 door...lol
We *went* to this!
@@re8672 In my opinion if it had a rwd v8 it wouldve worked.
and the 4 door is 10x better
From a 4 cylinder to Hemi V8 powah!!!!
@@AbronHawkins Fake Hemi*
I had the new 1979 Dodge Omni 024 with the 4 speed 65 HP Voltswagen 4 cylinder.
Engine that ran smooth but the slowest car I ever drove.
Top speed was 80 MPH at 4000 RPM and the engine was screaming.
Had to crazy glue the body side moldings on every six months or they would fall off.
Rack & Pinion steering, Disc Brakes, Air Cond, 4 Speaker Motorola Sound System, Paint Finish were all pluses on this car.
Everything else was inferior junk.
Body fit and cheap plastic interior were terrible.
Drove it for six years 90 thousand miles and the only parts that failed were Battery, Alternator, Radiator.
Reliable for a cheaply built Low Tech car.
Drips
Oil
Drops
Grease
Everywhere
Had the same car. As I remember with the vw engine if you wanted to pass going uphill you had to switch off a/c. The 2.2 I had later was far better.
I also had one, it was always acting up and the body was falling apart at 3years old.
41 mpg! Beat that today!
Just don't get in an accident....I prefer competent brakes, thanks anyway.
Easily, with a 0-60 time three seconds quicker, and I can actually stop when I need to!
@@erinfreize4717 most cars today dont average 41 mpg....and a prius might be the only answer.
My 2010 prius will beat this in every way shape and form.
@@mattt198654321 but no 5-speed LOL
i had one exactly like this except a horizon, and it was so fuel efficient for a 20 years old beater, i miss her so much , she was comfy
I love Craig's response.
I just hope this really underlines to everyone how much of a Golden era we are currently in with cars.
acceleration times were actually very good for 1983 4 cylinder engine standards, I didn't expect to see this car break the 0-60mph times in under 10 seconds, the average mpg is also even better than the 1982 cousin model the Plymouth TC3 with the 1.7 liter 4 cylinder.
We had a new 1989 plymouth reliant with similar bucket seats- most comfortable seats to this day.
So you like the shifter or no... 😆 2:22
“The braking scares the sh*t out of me, but that coffee cup holder is a great feature!”
That homemade Motorweek sweat shirt on the one staff member!
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.
I had one of these in black in 1992. It was a fun little car by the standards of the day.
That’s quite quick for the era and still entertaining today
That fake hood scoop is embarrassing. Along with the panel gap so bad it let the cargo compartment get wet
This would cost a fortune to insure in the UK where i am from and the worst thing is a 1.2 litre car will go just as fast and handle better too LOL
Imagine if they brought this back as the new Charger. People would lose their minds. 😂
What Ford was trying to do with the Ford Probe
@@RC_928 yep
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.
5:30 My man is 40 years ahead of his time. That Christmas Sweater is EVERYWHERE nowadays.
This video was absolutely hilarious 😂😂😂
I love this charger TBH, just put the SRT4's drivetrain and it's good.
Have you thought of bringing back the “from the drivers seat” segment? I really like it!
My 1986 Dodge Omni GLH's 2.2L put out 110 hp. so a 16 hp increase over this 83. 0-60 mph in 8.5 secs. Topped out at 110 mph. All GLH's only came with a 5 speed manual.
MotorWeek, please bring back those awesome "MotorWeek" sweatshirts (sweaters?). Would love to have one. Totally rad. 😎
Great America Cars, stay long live retro America cars
Imagine a Dodge Charger based rampage today
This Charger 2.2 model was originally called the Omni 024 and is a fastback version of the Omni 4-door hatchback
An extra glove box for your Salem lung darts.
“1/4 in 18 seconds.” Lmao!! Son.....mah chest!!!
Yes I had an new 83 Shelby, put 180k miles on it over 10 years with just a head gasket and a few alternators. I loved that car. It handled so well it was scary on west Marin/Sonoma roads. I traded it on a new 94 Mustang.
I had the 2.2L Shelby Turbo. Fun little car!! -especially back then when cars were mostly so terrible.
A time when you were lucky to get 100hp, braking was a practice of keeping the car in a straight line and 10ish 0-60 was acceptable..
I have 2 87 and 84 loved them both. I want to get a new one and replace the engine. The higher end seats were super comfortable.
This model Features the "shart pack!"
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.
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. 🙄
Found an 82 charger 2.2 for $3,500. With 120k miles. Pass or buy?
The braking was awesome and very thrilling
The late 70's and early 80's were the dark ages of the automobile
Yet more of those cars on the road than all 90s to '05. See more 80s LeBarons than 90s Civics & Corollas
These weren't as bad as some, but the shifter mechanism were famous for wearing out and coming loose without warning; at least day there are up grades for the shift linkage that fix the willowy feel of the stock up. The brakes would take some work, an adjustable brake portioning valve and removing the self adjuster set up would help a lot.
Sadly, no fix for the lousy plastics on Chrysler products that crack and break often.. got a Dodge generation 2 Ram, everything plastic has either cracked or broken including the seat back adjuster handle!
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.
Imagine being able to take a new Charger Redeye back in time for these guys to see!
Emergency braking from 55mph interpretation: You're dead
Do these really swerve when braking?
I was in the Army and stationed in Germany In the early 80's. You could buy a Dodge Charger 2.2 for $4995 and have it waiting for you back in the states when you left Germany. Ford Escort had the same type of deal. The shifter feel was crappy if best on these cars. The 2.2 liter motor was better than the 1.7 and 1.8 liter motors Dodge and Plymouth got from VW and were putting in these and the 4 door cars.
Did anyone else laugh out loud uncontrollably when Craig Singhaus appeared?
Owned one of these 1983-1988. Pretty much a throw away car at 100,000 miles. The carburetor would gunk up every 10,000 miles to the point where you would have to completely take apart and clean. It was actually cheaper just to get a new carburetor installed. Car was very cheaply made. Lots of plastic. I guess it did it's job for the most part the 5 years I owned it. Could have been worse. I believe I payed around $6500 brand new. In 1988 I bought a Honda accord which was a definite upgrade. Drove it for 15 years and 250,000 miles.
Pretty much exactly what I went through. Bought Charger new in 1982. Carburetor gunked up on me too every 10,000 miles. Other than that it did its job I guess until 1989 when I bought a new Honda accord.
I had a new one from '83 until I traded it in with 36k miles on a Mustang GT in '86. As with just about any new '80s vehicle, and I had several of different brands, the build quality control was crap, but once the dealer straightened out those non mechanical QC issues I had no problems with it. In those 3 years/36k miles I never had any mechanical problems, carb related or not.
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 had a 84 and at the time it was 10 years old. Was in great shape and had hood pins on it. People thought had a sleeper engine. What they didn’t know was the hood latch was broke and someone decided to put hood pins in it.
I did the same thing with my Dakota when the hood latch broke. Put on a glass pack just to keep the theme.
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.
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...
Thanks for the post-the evolution that Chrysler went through in the Iaccocca era was never boring.
I'm proud to say two of my cars have ash trays, don't smoke but remember the good times
"Chrysler's quattro motor" I blinked then I had to think about it for a solid 30 seconds before I got it..I think
I found a clean 1982 charger 2.2. Wish there were more videos on YT. Need maintenance and car repair videos. Is this vehicle carburetor? Is it hard to work on? Are maintenance cheap?
I would guess carburetor...the 2.2 four cylinder had a good reputation for reliability and ease of maintenance...
"Wow, you drive a Dodge Charger? How many horsepower does it have, like 750?"
"Uh...."
1983 I purchased a brand new plymouth turismo 2.2. 5 speed, gray with red interior. Wish I still had it.
0-50 was in just over 5 seconds,the engine then dies out after that but these were great in the city,even hwy comfortable little cars...I bought/sold 30-40 of these in the late 80's throughout the 1990's...The 1984 version was quicker then you could get the Turbo versions that were rockets for the era!
My friend bought a new one in the fall of '83. Who would've thought, at the time, Chargers would be front wheel drive and have a 4 cylinder.
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!”*
In the 90’s, one of my brothers owned the Shelby GLHS version of this car. Insanely fast for the time but the torque steer was increased as much as the power was. I nearly ended up in a ditch the first time I tried an acceleration run. He also owned a Rampage that had the vaguest, rubberiest, shifter I ever drove. Another brother’s first new car was an 024 and it was an unreliable p.o.s. These cars were truly flimsy and cheap even in comparison to other Chrysler products. Only the Shelby rose above the basement that was that platform.
Had a Turismo. Shifter was kinda bad but not as bad as the 05 BMW 5 series with nearly 200,000 miles on it I just drove today.
After all the economic crap that Mopar tried, they hit stride when they went back to muscle cars.
Actually, they went from the brink of failure to a money machine in 5 years, propelled by K-cars and the runaway success of the minivans.
I know which Thank God.
@@CJColvin ...what?
@@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.
@@CJColvin They're building ancient vehicles with more power is more like it.
This was considered quick for it’s time. Oh how things have changed.
Imagine putting this side by side with the ‘69 Hemi 😂 did car manufacturers even realize how pathetic their post-fuel crisis cars were?
My girlfriend had 1 , it was more fun than the carolla ! Love the coffee cup!
A friend in high school drove an 86 Charger. I hated the car, so did he, but today it would be cool drive one to Cars and Coffee.
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.
How about the construction?
That braking is indeed scary