New Post
Hot Topic
New Poll
Moved Topic
Sticky Topic
No New Post
Old Hot Topic
Old Poll
Announcement
Closed Topic
As Lee Iacocca said, "They saved Chrysler's bacon"
SPEEDtv.com is celebrating the launch of the new program "101 Cars You Must Drive" with a weekly countdown of the vehicles featured in the show. Tune-in to SPEED 9pm ET on Monday nights, and to SPEEDtv.com every day for new "Must Drive" features.
101 Cars: Dodge Aries
Abnormal User
Total Posts: 1701
Joined
Veteran
Total Posts: 78
Joined
1. What's up with the picture of a Mitsubishi built Eagle Talon in an article about a Dodge Aries?
2. Did Chrysler use a time warp to spawn the Omni-Horizon cars built in 1978 from a platform that came out in 1981?
Rookie
Total Posts: 1
Joined 08/26/2008
Indeed, the Omni/Horizon twins were NOT K-car derivatives sent back in time to 1978. 
These pretty much execrable piles were based on a platform from Chrysler Europe's Simca (France) division. In the late 1970's the VW Rabbit (Golf in Europe) was THE benchmark front-drive econobox-to-beat. So Chrysler intended the "Omnirizon" to be a VW Rabbit fighter.
On paper, it looked great. It's styling was similar to the Rabbit, though less severe than the Rabbit's Giugiaro-designed minimalist "creased-and-folded" look that was bleeding-edge design back then. It was a tiny bit larger, for us Yankee "wide-loads". It had the very same at that time radical and new (at least to us Yanks) transverse-engine front-drive layout as the Rabbit, too. It even used the very same VW Rabbit engine! Chrysler's Simca four-cylinder engines were deemed unsuitable for the U.S. for emissions reasons, and Chrysler U.S. did not have a four-cylinder engine of its own at that time, so VW supplied Rabbit long blocks for Chrysler.
They were castrated a bit, though. The engines themselves were solid (despite some later corrected valve-stem seal issues) and ran like little jewels in VW Rabbits (I ought to know - I owned several over the years). VW's fuel injection was so good that at that time, Rabbits met emissions requirements without need for even a catalytic converter. But Chrysler was not about to spend the money to license Bosch's fuel injection; their aim was to undercut VW in price, so they cheaped out with a two-barrel carburetor, an air pump, EGR and catalytic converter. The version of the VW engine sold to Chrysler was a little larger - 1.7 liters, up from 1.5L. But in final form - with Chrysler's intake and exhaust plumbing and emissions controls - it produced LESS power than the VW Rabbit engine, in a bigger, heavier car to boot!
Nevertheless, acceleration in the Omnirizon was at least "adequate plus" compared with the downright spritely VW (81 hp goes a surprisingly long way in a 1700-pound car). But drivability stank. What's more, the gear shifter felt like it was connected to rubber bands. And build quality was TERRIBLE, even by the standards of 1970's Detroit. While VW Rabbits felt tight and solid as Mosler safes, Omnirizons were loosey-goosey rattletraps - lots of mysterious bumps and thunks and squeaks.
Omnirizon's seats were typically American flaccid and misshapen horrors, soft on the tush, but after a long day's drive would send you screaming to your chiropractor. (Again, I know, I had to rent an Omni for a few days while traveling on business.) For comparison, VW seats were hard as rocks - fit for a prison waiting room - yet oddly comfortable even after many long hours of driving.
To sum up, like with so many American small car designs over the decades, the Omnirizon's bits and pieces were there, the basic layout was there, but the execution was so bad it became obvious that when benchmarking the Rabbit, Chrysler totally missed the point.
But I would still rather have been sentenced to an Omnirizon than to a K-car. In its defense, the K-car of the '80's accomplished one thing I certainly thought impossible... It made me all misty and nostalgic for the '70's Dodge Aspen and Plymouth Volare.
These pretty much execrable piles were based on a platform from Chrysler Europe's Simca (France) division. In the late 1970's the VW Rabbit (Golf in Europe) was THE benchmark front-drive econobox-to-beat. So Chrysler intended the "Omnirizon" to be a VW Rabbit fighter. On paper, it looked great. It's styling was similar to the Rabbit, though less severe than the Rabbit's Giugiaro-designed minimalist "creased-and-folded" look that was bleeding-edge design back then. It was a tiny bit larger, for us Yankee "wide-loads". It had the very same at that time radical and new (at least to us Yanks) transverse-engine front-drive layout as the Rabbit, too. It even used the very same VW Rabbit engine! Chrysler's Simca four-cylinder engines were deemed unsuitable for the U.S. for emissions reasons, and Chrysler U.S. did not have a four-cylinder engine of its own at that time, so VW supplied Rabbit long blocks for Chrysler.
They were castrated a bit, though. The engines themselves were solid (despite some later corrected valve-stem seal issues) and ran like little jewels in VW Rabbits (I ought to know - I owned several over the years). VW's fuel injection was so good that at that time, Rabbits met emissions requirements without need for even a catalytic converter. But Chrysler was not about to spend the money to license Bosch's fuel injection; their aim was to undercut VW in price, so they cheaped out with a two-barrel carburetor, an air pump, EGR and catalytic converter. The version of the VW engine sold to Chrysler was a little larger - 1.7 liters, up from 1.5L. But in final form - with Chrysler's intake and exhaust plumbing and emissions controls - it produced LESS power than the VW Rabbit engine, in a bigger, heavier car to boot!
Nevertheless, acceleration in the Omnirizon was at least "adequate plus" compared with the downright spritely VW (81 hp goes a surprisingly long way in a 1700-pound car). But drivability stank. What's more, the gear shifter felt like it was connected to rubber bands. And build quality was TERRIBLE, even by the standards of 1970's Detroit. While VW Rabbits felt tight and solid as Mosler safes, Omnirizons were loosey-goosey rattletraps - lots of mysterious bumps and thunks and squeaks.
Omnirizon's seats were typically American flaccid and misshapen horrors, soft on the tush, but after a long day's drive would send you screaming to your chiropractor. (Again, I know, I had to rent an Omni for a few days while traveling on business.) For comparison, VW seats were hard as rocks - fit for a prison waiting room - yet oddly comfortable even after many long hours of driving.
To sum up, like with so many American small car designs over the decades, the Omnirizon's bits and pieces were there, the basic layout was there, but the execution was so bad it became obvious that when benchmarking the Rabbit, Chrysler totally missed the point.
But I would still rather have been sentenced to an Omnirizon than to a K-car. In its defense, the K-car of the '80's accomplished one thing I certainly thought impossible... It made me all misty and nostalgic for the '70's Dodge Aspen and Plymouth Volare.
