Dodge Omni GLH-S

            

    

What happens when a performance tuning legend links his name to a hot-rod version of one of the most horrific penalty box economy cars ever made? Crazy hijinks, that's what.

The Dodge Omni was actually not too bad as late 1970s American economy cars go, which means that in empirical terms, it was just awful. Slow, cheaply made, not very fuel efficient, and with all the dynamic characteristics of a lawn tractor, it's hard to envision a less likely basis for a serious performance car. Chevette SS or Pinto Boss, perhaps?

When Carroll Shelby, known for engineering and marketing such thoroughbreds as the Shelby Cobra, Shelby Cobra Daytona, and GT350 and GT500 Mustangs, agreed to tweak Dodges, he found the cupboard rather bare of quality cars. In a move that I find hugely compelling, he wasn't deterred--he simply started pumping up Dodge's cringing economy cars into giant-killers.

Shelby tweaked the econobox Omni into an Omni GLH (Goes Like Hell) and then, in 1986, into the GLH-S (Goes Like Hell - Some More). Basically, he tightened up the suspension, popped in Chrysler's ubiquitous turbo 2.2-liter four-cylinder, added an intercooler to bump the engine to 174 horsepower, and painted it black. In a hilarious move, he added a sticker to the bottom of the standard 85-mph speedometer to add the speeds up to 135 mph. New speedometer? Too expensive.

This in no way made the Omni any less of a terrible car, but it did make it (for the time) a blindingly fast terrible car. It was still cramped and uncomfortable and rode and handled like a go-kart, and the engine still suffered from the typical 2.2 turbo hand-grenade reliability.

What makes the Omni GLH-S so compelling is that it was a disposable demon--a cheap little car that could be abandoned without regret when it disintegrated around you, yet was fast enough to wallop a stock Ford Mustang GT, Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z, or Ferrari 3.2 Mondial, and quick enough to run just a half-step behind a Corvette. It could do the 0-60 sprint in 6.5 seconds and haul all the way up to 130 mph, which were serious numbers in 1986.

Whether or not you'd actually feel safe doing 130 mph in an Omni of any stripe is another question.

--Chris H.

Comments

[Deron on June 10, 2008 at 08:17 PM]

There are a few things I disagree with in this article.
1st - My 1998 Plymouth Horizon (same as the Omni) got 45-47 MPG on the highway regularly.
2nd - The front seating was ok, but the back sucked.

3rd - I shot my Horizon at 175k and it still wouldn't die

If you thought this was fast, you should have installed the Super 60 kit from Chrysler. It put 300hp under the hood - google Super 60 Omni and take a look.

[Mike on October 29, 2008 at 09:04 PM]

Chris the only thing that is terrible is your opinionated factless style of writing. Even more terrible is the fact that you have the nerve to post your thoughts. Who cares what you think? The Dodge Omni GLH is great - you are not.

[Johnny on October 29, 2008 at 09:30 PM]

I have had a GLHS since 1991, I LOVE it. Better car than my SunBeam Tiger, Mustang or 55 Chevy.

[Howard Allen on October 30, 2008 at 05:59 AM]

I really really get tired of people criticizing the Mid 80's MOPARS. The 60's Ford Mustang, based on the Ford Falcon, is highly regarded as an innovative marketing idea, but compared to the GLHS was a stick in the mud. For its time and the climate in which it came to life, the GLHS, GLH, OMNI, and a plethora of innovative K-Car derivatives, MOPAR came up with some long lived and worthy products offering Americans a good alternative to what Ford and GM was offering. Look around today and chances are you will still find the odd Omni or K-car variant driving around with its trusty 2.2 or 2.5L engine rewarding its owner with good fuel economy and reliable performance. Just ask someone like me who owns one. I LIKE 30 mpg when gas is $3.50/gallong and I like the fact that even with 175K miles on her, I still get 1000 miles per quart of oil. And when something does need replacing, it is easy to do yourself and the parts are half of what they would be for your Toyota Camry.

You are welcome to your opinion, but many of us do not share it. Our family currently owns a 1983 Rampage, a 1984 Rampage, and a 1990 Omni. The 5 Speed Rampages return 32-38 MPG and my automatic Omni regularly gets 30MPG. They are great in the snow and fun to drive - what more do you want?

[Tim on October 30, 2008 at 06:01 AM]

"Hand-grenade reliability"? Seriously? Those engines are as complicated as a hammer and just as tough. I've owned the 80s and 90s Mopar 2.2/2.5 for many years in both turbo and NA flavors and found them to be mechanically solid little engines in the extreme.

[oldmoparguy on October 30, 2008 at 07:19 AM]

Dang Chris,

That sounds like a sad cry for attention.

1986 Omni GLHT
1987 Omni N/A
1988 Turbo Lebaron GTC-T2
1989 Turbo Caravan
1989 Turbo Spirit LE
1989 Turbo Spirit ES

[Chris Hafner on October 30, 2008 at 08:01 AM]

Sheesh, guys. I'm a little surprised by all the outrage.

I said:
- the Omni was a decent late 1970s economy car, which is to say today's drivers would think it's crap
- compared to modern cars, or performance cars of its time, the Omni wasn't a very promising base for a performance car
- nevertheless, the Omni GLH-S was hellishly fast
- the Omni could beat the heck out of other performance cars at the time, which made it a fascinating car.

For the record, I *love* the GLH-S. I love the fact that it's an Omni that could knock off Ferraris of the time. The world would be a poorer place without the GLH-S. If there was a car show with a million perfect Camaros and Mustangs and one well-used GLH-S, I'd beeline to the GLH-S. I think it's much more interesting than a Ferrari Mondial, and if I had the budget and availability to a good one, I'd buy one.

But that doesn't mean I'm going to pretend it's the perfect car or a performance thoroughbred. It's an Omni with a sport suspension and lots of power, and that's its appeal.

When I lust after a car, and I write about it here, I try to be honest - based on my perspective, in my opinion - about the car's strengths and weaknesses. I talk about the cars I love without shying away from noting the weak points. And since I have a self-deprecating tendency, I apply that to the cars I like as well.

I love other turbo Mopars of the time too - I've written love stories on this blog about the Daytona Turbo Z and the Shelby Charger, and at some point I'll get around to the Lancer and LeBaron. Heck, if you guys are GLH-S owners, well, you're my heroes.

Which brings me back to this post. Is this really so controversial? The Omni *was* a bit agricultural. It was a weird but compelling base for a world-beating performance car. The speedometer had a *sticker* to make it a 135-mph speedo. And--maybe you missed this part of the post--I sad the was insanely fast, whipping many of the performance big boys of the time, made the car a hero worthy of discussion even two decades later.

[Matt on October 30, 2008 at 04:50 PM]

Car of the Year when it came out. Please go ahead and compare it with cars of the day as a base for performance, and with todays cars. Head to your closest autcross with a GLHS and watch owners of real sports cars tremble with fear. 2300lbs and 175hp was very fast, second fastest american car in 86 in fact. A simple mechanical boost controller would get you to 14psi and 200+ hp. The parts were available off the shelf and could be applied to ANY omni or horizon, or could be swapped off a wrecked daytona.
Great mileage, cheap insurance, 5 doors/seating for 5, stupid performance potential, flies under the radar, easy/cheap to fix, cheap to buy, and much more; sounds perfect to me.

[Michael D'Antonio on October 31, 2008 at 11:41 PM]

You wrote: "But that doesn't mean I'm going to pretend it's the perfect car." What's a perfect car?
A $250,000 Bentley? For a quarter of a million dollars it should be damn close to perfect - right?
Or maybe the most overrated piece of fiberglass of all time - the "Vette" - is "perfect"?
Then you said, "the Omni wasn't a very promising base for a performance car." OK but wasn't a Plymouth 'Cuda just a Barracuda with (your Omni words) "with a sport suspension and lots of power, and that's its appeal".
The 'Cuda cost about $4000 new (in 1970). Sales were lousy and Chrysler cancelled it's pony cars in 1974. NOW the 'Cuda gets about $250,000 at Barrett Jackson. Even with inflation that's a hellava percent increase. So a perfect car is in the eyes of the beholder, right Chris?
Fact: The Omni Horizon was "Car of the Year" on both sides of the Atlantic. Sure, it was an ecomony car but the cost per mile made it a bargain. The HO, turbo I and turbo II versions of the 2.2 made it legendary. In fact, Car Craft wrote in 1984 that the Mopar 2.2 was in a class by itself as 4 cylinders go.

Finally, you wrote: "...which is to say today's drivers would think it's (Omni Horizon) crap - compared to modern cars". Who are these drivers and why should we care what they think? This statement is conjecture - not fact.

Hyperboles, Similes and "self-deprecating tendenc[ies]" are great for English papers but to "car guys", the facts matter! And yes we are passionate about our L bodied Mopars. I own a HO 2.2 carbed GLH (I'm not lucky enough to own a GLHS) and I still love it.

[Chris Hafner on November 01, 2008 at 02:55 PM]

Michael, that's a great, well-thought-out comment, and it deserves a good answer.

If you think this is a typical car enthusiast blog where we bash cars like the Omni and worship Bentleys, well, I think that's where this misunderstanding is coming from. The blog is all about cars like the GLH-S--interesting, imperfect cars that wouldn't get a second glance from the general populace. At Car Lust we talk about the Ford Couriers and Renault Fuegos of the world much more than we do Ferraris and Lamborghinis. And when we talk about the exotic and expensive cars, we point out their weaknesses too.

That's where I'm coming from on the Omni GLH-S. I like it. I like it a lot. Yeah, it's a late 1970s econobox with a lot of power. I think that makes it *more* interesting, not less. The base Omni was a contemporary of the Pinto and Chevette--better than both, for the record--and yet it forms the base for one of the most legendary giant-killers in the performance world. When I point out the weaknesses of the base Omni, I think you're reading that I hate the Omni and/or GLH-S, and I don't. Not at all. Recognizing the car's weaknesses doesn't mean I don't love the thing. For two decades now I've been the guy who loved the GLH-S when everybody around me looked at it and saw a piece of junk. I feel like I did a pretty good job in the story of conveying my awe at the car's performance. It was able to knock off the big boys of the time.

Calling the Omni agricultural is pretty fair, I think - while the Omni outclassed the Chevette and Pinto in the late 1970s, it lagged behind the Rabbit. And by the time the GLH-S came out in 1986, the base Omni was pretty obsolete compared to its subcompact competition. That's not just me saying this in 2008 - I can dig out the 1986 comparison tests saying the same thing.

The fact that the GLH-S sprung from the Omni is what makes the whole thing such a great story. Start with a functional but obsolescent econobox and wind up with a giant-killer. How cool is that?

A few specific responses, mostly nitpicking on my part:
"Fact: The Omni Horizon was "Car of the Year" on both sides of the Atlantic."

Sure, but by the time the GLH-S was born, the Omni was well behind the times. Beside, the domestic Car of the Year award doesn't really have that much oomph. Other MT Cars of the Year include the Ford Mustang II, the 1997 rental car Chevy Malibu, the Chevy Vega, the Chevy Citation, the Renault Alliance, the Chrysler Cirrus, and the Aspen/Volare. I like several of those cars, just because I'm quirky like that, but I think you'll agree that MT Car of the Year status does not necessarily indicate a good car.

You: "Finally, you wrote: "...which is to say today's drivers would think it's (Omni Horizon) crap - compared to modern cars". Who are these drivers and why should we care what they think?"

Well, I'm one of them. I've driven a base Omni, and it's crap compared to modern cars. Of *course* it is. So is virtually any car of the late 1970s.

It's not a fair comparison, of course. Any car should be judged against its peers, not against cars with designs advanced by three decades. That's why the GLH-S is such a star.

The reason I pointed that out is that a random person off the street pointed to a GLH-S and told it's a world-class performer would be in a state of disbelief. That doesn't mean it *isn't* a world-class performer, it just makes the car more interesting. And frankly, most of my readers aren't L-body Mopar enthusiasts steeped in Shelby lore. They're likely to come at the story thinking, "hey, my older sister wrecked one of those in high school" - I try to lead them from that starting point to what the GLH-S really is.

Congrats on owning a GLH, Michael - you own a special car, I hope you take care of it. If you'd like, I'd love for you to stick around and read a few posts on other cars - based on your comment, I think you're one of us, people who say damn the torpedoes, I love non-mainstream cars and I don't care who knows it. I'll definitely understand if you don't want to, but I appreciate the thoughtful comment.

[Carl on November 01, 2008 at 05:49 PM]

What!?!? Someone let their sister drive a GLHS Horror!!

I got a GLH, slightly modded, and it hangs with M3s and other cars costing 30 or 40k. I paid 600. There is purity and irony in this car, making it one of the most interesting of all, in my eyes.

I like you posts, and we have similar tastes in the obscure auto world (except for ones like the Fairmont, that's about as interesting as my grandparents "doing it" i.e. I have no desire to be anywhere involved) but I totally disagree on the Shelby issue. Even he stepped out of his realm of v8 simplicity and tooled with intercoolers, turbos, and ECUs. I think he should be praised for that, not denegrated for selling his name. And without him and Dodge taking a risk, the car world would be way sadder, stuck with crap like 130 hp TransAms in the most pathetic era in autodom.

[Pete Swarr on November 01, 2008 at 07:10 PM]

I have one of the Horizon TC-3's. It was boring, didn't go too good. The VW engine blew up. I got mine with a V8. I have had it to 150 mph, straight as an arrow, no float. Took it to the track, 14 sec at 100 mph, rear tires spinning all the way (old hard tires don't belong at the track) By the way, I have $2500 in it and it gets 26 miles per gallon. Why does my Neon only get 28?

[Chris Hafner on November 01, 2008 at 10:32 PM]

Carl: "I like you posts, and we have similar tastes in the obscure auto world"

Thanks! It's always nice to find somebody with the same sort of disorder. :-)

Carl: "... but I totally disagree on the Shelby issue. Even he stepped out of his realm of v8 simplicity and tooled with intercoolers, turbos, and ECUs. I think he should be praised for that, not denegrated for selling his name. And without him and Dodge taking a risk, the car world would be way sadder, stuck with crap like 130 hp TransAms in the most pathetic era in autodom."

Well, yeah. I feel like we're in violent agreement. I said pumping up Dodge's economy cars was totally compelling. I never denigrated him for selling his name. I'm completely on board with the fact that the world would be a sadder place without cars like the GLH-S.

Maybe you guys are fed up with people saying your GLHs or GLH-S' aren't real Shelbys, or not real performance cars, or dogs, or whatever. *I'm* not saying any of those things. I said the Omni was an agricultural little econobox in 1986, and that Shelby turned into a world-class performer - and that's a great story.

I think we're on the same side here. I mean, for what it's worth, I find the GLH-S much more interesting than the Cobra. Park a Cobra and a GLH-S side by side, and I'm walking up to the GLH-S because it makes me smile and I could actually imagine owning one. That's why I wrote about it.

[Vince Mclaughlin on November 10, 2008 at 07:09 PM]

As a former owner of an 85 GLH (owned in 85 new, silver with red interior) and an 86 GLH Turbo (bought in 88 used with 10k miles Red with Red) i can tell you these cars rule. Totaly stock these things handled unbelievably!! and were certainly fast. As the current owner of an 06 M5, I can say I still long for those GLH's. I used to AMAZE freinds in those cars, and people/friends of mine STILL are talking about some of the sick rides i gave them on twisty back roads. And blowing off i-rock z and mustangs, priceless. Best car for the money EVER! the 85 cost $8500 NEW. WOW. And I NEVER had a problem with engine trany etc. Did burn up a clutch on the turbo at about 70k but hey, that was my fault!
Let the legend live on here!!

[Ryan on March 24, 2009 at 07:22 AM]

i was wondering what would be the track time on a GLH-S omni.because im about to get #313 of 500

[r.l.hall on June 20, 2009 at 09:38 PM]

My 1989 omni was good for 34 mpg and wasn't a bad running little bomb .
My 1987 Turbo Sundance was a blast . Learned early on that you wanted to have it pointed in the direction that you wanted to go when you touched it off . That turbo lit up at 2300 . It went 200,000 miles before the turbo went bad .
!982 aries 225,000 miles . 1990 Shadow 250,000 miles and someone is still driving it .
1984 caravan with stick shift 250,000 miles . Hit to many deer .
These 2.2 , and 2.5 motors and platforms were bullet proof and very easy on the pocket book to maintain .

[EDWAZ on July 12, 2009 at 08:58 PM]

chris I had one glhs back in the day!! I LIVE IN MICHIGAN I WAS WONDERING IF YOU WANTED TO SELL THE CAR! IF YOU DUE E-MAIL ME BACK