This Was as Hot as the Dodge Omni Got, and It Can Be All Yours

Steph Willems
by Steph Willems

The Dodge Omni/Plymouth Horizon twins didn’t get much respect in the 1980s, and even today’s hipsters – who’ll cling to anything avante-garde or ironic – failed to bestow them with latter-day reverence.

Well, never mind the haters. If you’re in Monterey, California on Aug. 19, and you have a hankering to spend a seemingly ludicrous amount of money on a 30-year-old econobox, your day has come.

RM Sotheby’s plans to auction a 1986 Dodge Omni GLHS, once owned by legendary tuner Carroll Shelby. This was the original hot hatch, with only 500 of the Shelby-tuned, turbocharged and intercooled Omni variants build before the model’s swan song.

Spotless and gleaming black, Shelby’s personal vehicle has just 7,733 miles on the odometer. Certainly, there’s no Omni nicer than this one, or as expensive. The auction house lists the vehicle at $40,000–$60,000, offered without reserve. Proceeds will go to the Carroll Hall Shelby Trust.

In many ways, the Omni GLHS is the ultimate sleeper. An ultra-rare performance version of a wholly boring and unsexy hatchback might be someone’s ticket to car show fame.

The Omni and Horizon were born out of desperation. In the late 1970s, with Chrysler’s fortunes falling like rust from the fender of a Dodge Aspen, the company re-engineered the French Simca Horizon in order to add a fuel-efficient subcompact to its stable of thirsty dinosaurs. The original 1.7-liter Volkswagen four-cylinder was soon joined by the 2.2-liter unit from Chrysler’s phenomenally successful K-car line.

The thing about that iron block SOHC 2.2-liter was that it could handle modifications with ease. Eager to exploit existing engine inventory, Chrysler added a turbocharged variant — the Turbo I. Soon after came the Turbo II, which Carroll Shelby thought would make a nice addition to a performance hatch.

Shelby Automobiles took the Turbo II and worked it over completely, leaving almost nothing unchanged. When it left the shop (and entered the Omni), Shelby’s unit cranked out 175 horsepower and a flat 175 pounds-feet of torque. Because the Chrysler 2.2 was already known for its low-end grunt (and often nothing else), an engine computer was added to tamp down the Turbo II’s torque. Without it, owners could kiss their Omni’s stock 5-speed manual transmission goodbye.

The Omni GLHS made the 0–60 mile per hour run in 6.5 seconds, topping out at a 135 mph top speed. The following year, Shelby worked his magic on 1,000 Omni-based Charger coupes, but they simply don’t have the nerd appeal of these done-up boxes.

[Image: Sotheby’s]

Steph Willems
Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 65 comments
  • Geo Geo on Aug 08, 2016

    What's with the Omni hatred? They were a decent car in the eighties. Smooth ride, good power, powerful even with the 2.2, and usually held together well. I remember it handled and cornered better than my dad's Rabbit. Hopelessly outdated by the end of its run, but it was a good run.

  • Dividebytube Dividebytube on Aug 08, 2016

    A good pal of mine had a 5-speed Omni, replacing his '78 318 Valiant. The Omni - non-GLH - was not a bad performing car for the 80s. Not great compared to today, or the 60s, but still not bad considering the general performance crappiness of the time. We could play with the Monte Carlos SS and the 305 Camaros of the time. One night my friend came across a GLH loaded with teenagers - I told him not to even try once I saw the badge, but he didn't listen. The GLH pulled like a bull and had 2-3 cars lengths on us in a few seconds.

  • W Conrad I'm not afraid of them, but they aren't needed for everyone or everywhere. Long haul and highway driving sure, but in the city, nope.
  • Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
  • B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
  • Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
  • Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.
Next