Consumer Reports is considered a trusted resource, whether you’re consuming reports to help you choose the best blender for your margaritas or the best car for your family. It’s a pretty big deal when Consumer Reports publishes a negative review, and in 1978, the magazine caused a bit of a headache for Chrysler when it panned a critical model for the brand. That year, Motor Trend nominated the Dodge Omni its Car Of The Year, but Consumer Reports was unwilling to accept it, and spent an entire article explaining why the Omni and its Plymouth Horizon sibling not only weren’t deserving of Motor Trend‘s award, but were actually “Not Acceptable.”
The automotive media wields more power than you might think. One negative article by a large enough publication can trigger alarms within an organization. Part of why manufacturers care so much about this coverage is that sometimes, all it takes is for one negative review from a major publication to ruin a model’s reputation. Sometimes, it doesn’t even matter if other publications wrote glowing reviews.
Perhaps the most infamous occurrence of this is when Consumer Reports, the magazine of Consumers Union of U.S., tested the 1988 Suzuki Samurai. As CNN reported in 1997, Suzuki accused the magazine of rigging its test results, which suggested that the Suzuki Samurai “rolls over too easily.” To keep it short, Suzuki sued Consumers Union, and the pair settled in 2004. Ultimately, Suzuki was vindicated somewhat as it was found out that the Samurai was no more rollover-prone than other SUVs. However, the damage was done, as Samurai sales plummeted by 70 percent after the article.
Another time when a car caught some heat after a Consumer Reports test was after the magazine published a review of the Dodge Omni that called into question why Motor Trend had nominated the small car as its Car Of The Year for 1978.
A New Era
This story takes us back to the 1970s, when dramatic downsizing was in vogue. Ford built the Pinto, Chevrolet built the Vega, and AMC had its Gremlin. As Hemmings writes, Chrysler was supposed to create its own domestic compact to battle its rivals, and started Project R-429 in 1969 to facilitate it. That car was due to arrive in 1971.
However, as the New York Times noted, the Chrysler subcompact never came. Part of the blame, the NYT reported, was on Chrysler President Lynn Townsend, who dismissed subcompacts. As the story reports, Townsend believed that one of the biggest threats against full-size cars was taxes on low fuel economy, but Townsend didn’t expect the full impact of those to hit until about 1980. In Townsend’s eyes, Chrysler had plenty of time to figure out just how many subcompacts it wanted to sell.
At the time, Chrysler had amassed a massive empire. It was under Townsend’s control that Chrysler spread far and wide, from one of my previous stories on Chrysler history:
In 1958, Chrysler decided to make its mark on the international stage by purchasing a 15 percent stake in French company Simca from Ford. In 1963, Chrysler put more money in, acquiring a total of 63 percent of Simca by buying shares from Fiat. That same year, Chrysler also took 35 percent of Spanish bus, truck, and car manufacturer Barreiros.
Chrysler’s buying spree included the purchase of Greece’s Farco in 1963 and an attempted purchase of an interest in Britain’s Leyland Motors in 1962. Chrysler didn’t get Leyland, but it did score a 30 percent share in Rootes Group (Hillman, Talbot, Sunbeam, and others) in 1964. By 1967, Chrysler’s European division was in full motion as the company purchased the remaining shares of Rootes. Farco, then renamed Chrysler Hellas S.A., ended production, but two years later Chrysler would take control of Barreiros.
In 1970, Rootes was renamed Chrysler UK Limited with Simca becoming Chrysler France. During the existence of Chrysler UK, storied British names such as Hillman, Humber, Singer, and Sunbeam saw their badges phased out and their vehicles called Chryslers. Between vehicles that were long in the tooth and general brand confusion, Chrysler’s European operations struggled to stay viable. In 1978, Chrysler decided to pull the plug, selling off the European division to Peugeot. Now under Peugeot control, some cars that were once branded as Chryslers, Hillmans, and Simcas were renamed to Talbot, a brand that at that time was dead.
As Chrysler figured out its plans for a domestic subcompact, it sold captive imports as a stopgap measure. These vehicles included the Dodge Colt, Hillman Avenger, and Plymouth Cricket, which were all rebadged versions of cars sold overseas. If you were wondering why Chrysler failed to make a domestic subcompact, Townsend made an interesting statement to Forbes in 1973:
“The subcompacts are just too small. The American people won’t climb into them. They have to give up too much in creature comfort. I think even a compact’s a little small. I would think that probably the most popular car size you’ll see 15 years from now will be like our intermediates today.”
Chrysler’s “World Car”
The Omni was a product of collaboration between Chrysler here in America and Chrysler in Europe. Chrysler enthusiast site Allpar has an article sourced from people involved in the making of the Omni. In that story, Allpar notes that in 1975, Chrysler Europe implemented a modernization program, which included the creation of three new platforms to create new models that could cover two-thirds of the European car market.
Chrysler, which had sent executives to Europe in 1974 to find a small car for America, was initially interested in the C6 platform, which would underpin the likes of the Chrysler Alpine and Simca 1308. Ultimately, Townsend rejected this vehicle, even though it would later win Europe’s Car of the Year award in 1976. Townsend would retire from Chrysler in 1975, and Chrysler moved forward with its plans to have a small car for America.
This time, America had set its sights on the C2 platform, which had been in development in 1974. The first sketches of the C2 labeled it as a short-wheelbase version of the award-winning C6. Clay models were made later that year, and development went full speed ahead on the car meant to replace the Hillman Avenger and the Simca 1100. Apparently, when the Americans saw the C2 in the clay, they had decided it was the car destined to win in the American small car market. The C2 became Chrysler’s “World Car.”
What’s fascinating about the C2’s development is that while the cars would be similar in appearance, the American version and the European version were actually very different.
Marc Honore, Director of Product Planning, gave this statement to Allpar:
It turned out that the C2 was a “World Car” in only sheet metal appearance. Unique USA powertrain, crash test, lighting, and bumper requirements changed many aspects of the European-designed vehicle. Then, European management, under the influence of a Sales/Manufacturing lobby, insisted on retaining the Simca 1100 torsion bar front suspension on the basis that this would save a bundle of investment money (an attractive argument in Detroit at the time) and assure for the new C2 the reputation of the Simca 1100 for comfort and surefootedness.
While this decision saved investment money, it also added a significant piece-cost and weight penalty to the C2, as well as some loss of front leg room because the torsion bar suspension required a higher floor pan than the originally planned McPherson strut suspension, which was retained in the American design. The relative heaviness and cost of the torsion bar setup was to penalize the European C2 throughout its life. I always felt that this was a bad decision.
Other sources of diversification arose from differing requirements for light switches, column controls, steering wheel, seat and door panel designs. The European and American cars looked similar but by the time we were through, I doubt if we had many common parts!
According to Motor Trend, Chrysler purchased 79 Volkswagen Rabbits for the design team to use and get ideas from. After all, the Dodge Omni and Plymouth Horizon would be Chrysler’s answer to the popular Rabbit.
The significant differences between the teams in America and Europe, from differences in paperwork to measuring systems, meant that the teams spent a lot of time hashing out many different details. The teams even had to figure out a part number scheme since France, the United Kingdom, and America all had different ways of doing part numbers.
The Crowd Goes Wild
The C2 platform would go on sale in the 1978 model year. Over in Europe, the team had done it again, and the Chrysler Horizon scored the Car of the Year award in 1978 in Europe. Over in America, the Dodge Omni and Plymouth Horizon, despite being very different under the skin, also impressed the American automotive press. Here’s what Car and Driver said:
The prototype cars we have driven did not offer a satisfactory basis for final ride judgments, but they did demonstrate exactly what Chrysler engineers are after. Extra-long wheel travel (6.6 inches in front, 7.7 inches in back, compared to 6.1 and 7.9 inches respectively in a Rabbit) is this car’s claim to fame, even though such an attribute is rare in American cars. The long travel theory of suspension design allows soft spring rates for absorbing little bumps, with less likelihood of bottoming out over big bumps. Body roll is managed by front and rear anti-sway bars. This is a typically European approach, but while VW or Fiat would finish the job with tight damping, Chrysler has chosen very low shock-absorber control. This lessens the influence of small bumps on comfort but also makes the car slow to settle after wavy pavement. On fast steering maneuvers, the Omni and Horizon react in a lazy fashion—they’re still zigging when you’re ready to zag. The idea here is not to make former VW owners feel at home, but rather former big-car owners, who might be ready for more efficient transportation.
They will be asked to bear few sacrifices. The options sheet is fat with goodies new to this size car. In spite of the engineers’ best recommendations, power steering is at the top of the extra-cost list. It’s not at all necessary from a functional standpoint, but the marketing types had no desire to cold turkey their power-assist addicts.
Inside, there has been no skimping—no exposed heaters, no bare metal panels, no rubber floor mats—and this should tell you the Omni and Horizon start out at import-deluxe levels of trim. How far you take them in the luxo-garnish-molding direction is limited primarily by your imagination. You can pick from two upgrades of interior and exterior trim, outside woodgrain, or even premium outside woodgrain. Vinyl bucket seats are standard, but you may choose from five other vinyl, or cloth and vinyl combinations in two different backrest designs. Cut-pile carpeting is standard with all interiors.
The Dodge Omni and Plymouth Horizon originally sported a 75 HP 1.7-liter four-cylinder engine sourced from Volkswagen with modifications from Chrysler. The American version of this engine has a longer stroke and slightly more displacement, plus a different intake manifold. The Omni also sports a Holley two-barrel carburetor as opposed to the Bosch fuel injection found in the VW equivalent of the engine.
The Omni also used a Volkswagen four-speed manual transaxle or a Chrysler three-speed automatic. Reportedly, the Volkswagen guts came because Chrysler initially didn’t have the capacity to build hundreds of thousands of engines for the Omni and Horizon. Chrysler would change this later on as these cars gained Chrysler K four-cylinder engines and a Chrysler manual. In terms of suspension, the Omni would sport trailing arms in the rear and MacPherson struts up front.
Motor Trend loved the Omni so much that the publication nominated the Omni as its 1978 Car Of The Year. Here was the magazine’s rationale:
Chrysler Corporation’s Dodge Omni and Plymouth Horizon were judged by the Motor Trend staff to be the outstanding passenger cars for 1978. The package-the first American-built production passenger car to use a transverse engine and front-wheel-drive-is powered by a Chrysler-engineered lean-burn version of a well-proven 4-cylinder powerplant that not only meets the established emission and fuel-economy requirements, but also preforms and handles on a par with imported counterparts. Simple and straightforward, the design is practical but far from austere, and available options include deluxe decor, air conditioning and automatic transmission- creature comforts and luxury accessories that the American car buyer desires in today’s motor vehicles.
The Omni and Horizon, while identical to each other in dimensions, powerplant and suspension system, will be featured as individual automobiles, representing the Dodge and Plymouth Divisions, respectively. They are fun cars to drive, have excellent rear passenger legroom and headroom, are quiet and have a sports-car feel that will satisfy the enthusiast and bring no complaints from those who like comfort.
Downsizing on a grand scale while preserving the required interior passenger and luggage space is the name of the game for passenger cars from this day forth, and the Omni/Horizon effectively meets this criteria. It is one of the new generation of cars that other American makers are going to be forced to imitate in view of energy conservation programs and air pollution standards. The launching of the Omni/Horizon is a great step forward in the production of cars of the future, for the future is now, and Chrysler has met its challenge with the Omni/Horizon. We congratulate them for a job well done.
The platform would go on to underpin the Omni 024 and Dodge Charger coupes, the Dodge Rampage and Plymouth Scamp utes, plus the spicy Omni GLH and Omni GLH-S hot hatches. The 1986 Shelby Omni GLH-S would still be a relatively quick car today with its 175 HP and 6.5 second sprint to 60 mph.
Consumer Reports Disagrees
Not everything went smoothly, however. Consumer Reports tested the Omni in 1978, and unlike the car buff mags, it wasn’t nearly as complimentary.
In the July 1978 issue of Consumer Reports, the magazine came out swinging. The issue’s cover notes that the Omni was awarded as Car Of The Year, but puts a question mark at the end before following it up with “Not Acceptable” in all caps. The article itself pulled no punches. Even though the article was a shootout between four hatches, the title of the article was “Chrysler’s Big Mistake” with a subheadline of “The Dodge Omni/Plymouth Horizon is judged Not Acceptable.”
This is honestly amazing because, again, this is supposed to be a shootout of the Omni versus the Chevy Chevette, Toyota Corona, and Datsun 510. But the article is centered around the Omni, or specifically, how much the magazine thought the Omni and Horizon sucked. Here’s the opening salvo:
Chrysler Corp.’s new subcompact—the Dodge Omni and identical Plymouth Horizon—is the most unfortunate car of the year. From the outside, it looks very much like the high-rated VW Rabbit, the Ford Fiesta, the Honda Accord, and the other boxy, relatively roomy subcompacts whose design it copies. Like many recent subcompacts, it has front-wheel drive, an arrangement that can be advantageous when well-designed. It has a peppy little engine made by Volkswagen. And its price looks good compared with the inflated prices of imported cars.
However, the Omni/ Horizon gave evidence of poor design. Because it behaved in an unstable manner in the handling tests described in the box on the facing page, our auto testers judged it Not Acceptable. Our test results confirm that a prudent buyer should approach any new model line with caution. Since it went into production, late last fall, the Omni/ Horizon has been recalled repeatedly to check for safety-related defects unrelated to the unstable handling revealed in our tests. Presumably, the problems for which the car has been recalled can be fixed. But the handling problems we found may be much more difficult for Chrysler to solve.
The story continues by talking about how the publication got three Omnis, and of the trio, two of them were riddled with defects. The article then takes a swipe at Motor Trend:
The many failings we discovered in the Omni/ Horizon make us wonder how Motor Trend, a magazine for auto buffs, decided to pick that model for its “Car of the Year” award—a selection made before a single Omni or Horizon had been sold by a dealer. News of the award ran in Motor Trend’s February issue, cheek-by-jowl with paid advertising from Champion spark plugs and General Tire congratulating Chrysler for its achievement and, in Champion’s case, congratulating itself for selling parts to Chrysler. Chrysler has since spent a pretty penny publicizing the award and, incidentally, publicizing Motor Trend. (“Nobody can buy this award,” says Robert E. Brown, Motor Trend’s publisher. Brown describes the “Car of the Year” award as a “good healthy promotion.” )
Most years, the commercial back-scratching that sometimes passes for journalism, even for product-testing, can be ignored; it’s just a drop in the ocean of flackery. But sometimes, as this year, those who take such flackery seriously risk paying with more than their dollars.
Perhaps one could understand—if not justify—such an award if the design of the Omni/ Horizon had broken new ground. But Chrysler has merely followed what has become the standard subcompact recipe. That recipe has worked very nicely for the Rabbit, the Fiesta, the Accord, and other models.
The comparison then kicks off. To the Dodge Omni’s credit, it scored 30.9 mpg, besting everything in the comparison. Second place was the Chevette with 30 mpg. The main Omni test car also had power steering, which none of the other three cars in the comparison had. But things basically immediately fall apart for the Omni on the same page, in a blocked section that says “The Tests That The Omni/Horizon Flunked.” In this area, Consumer Reports explains that in 1974, it adopted a test where the publication’s drivers would pilot a vehicle at 50 mph on a track and then tug the vehicle’s steering wheel abruptly while leaving their foot on the throttle. The tester will then let go of the steering wheel and see how much drama ensues. The article said that, at that time, most cars would usually straighten out by themselves with limited swinging, and that the cars often returned to close to being on course.
The Test
So, naturally, the magazine tried the same test with the Omni. Here’s how that went:
When we performed that maneuver with our Omni and our two Horizons, the results were unsettling—and often frightening. After we released the wheel in each of those three cars, the car veered from side to side; sometimes each swing was wider and more violent than the one before. The technical term for such behavior is “oscillatory instability.” The driver had to grab the wheel quickly and firmly and make skillful steering corrections to bring the car under control. Power steering made the instability worse. We check-tested a car with heavyduty suspension; it did no better than our three Cars.
Motorists do not perform such maneuvers in normal driving (and we urge you not to try it out of curiosity). But the way a car behaves in this “free control stability test” can point to problems in the car’s basic design. No car on which we’ve performed this test has behaved as poorly as the Omni/Horizon. (Otherwise, normal driving wasn’t unusual.)
That first indication of instability was confirmed during our handling tests at the track. In an avoidance-maneuver test, we run the car along a path that includes an abrupt swerve—like the swerve one might make to avoid a child darting from the sidewalk—and an equally abrupt swerve back to the original lane. The path is outlined with rubber cones. We run each car through the course many times, gradually increasing speed until the car can no longer go through the course without knocking over any cones. After the final swerve in that test, the Omni/Horizon cars would veer from side to side in much the same way as they did in our free-control test. Such behavior made the cars hard to control. In our other track tests, the cars tended to swing out their rear ends sharply when we cornered hard. If the driver of an Omni or a Horizon should have to make an abrupt evasive maneuver at expressway speeds, we believe, keeping the car under control could require more driving skill and experience in high-speed emergency maneuvers than one can reasonably expect of nonprofessional drivers. We have therefore rated the Omni/Horizon Not Acceptable.
The paragraphs I quoted above became a huge headache for Chrysler. It became such a big deal that national news publications like Time Magazine covered it. Front-wheel-drive economy cars were still somewhat novel in America, and reports of these cars potentially being hazardous were news.
Time talked about the test that I noted above, and then included the bit from the now-infamous test that a typical driver might not be skilled enough to handle the Omni in an emergency. Worse was the fact that the 1978 Dodge Omni test was the first time Consumer Reports had declared a car “Not Acceptable” since its test of the AMC Ambassador in 1968.
Chrysler was quick to respond to the test. It gathered a gaggle of journalists and took them to its proving ground in Chelsea, Michigan, where Chrysler replicated the conditions of the Consumer Reports test, and the car did not lose control. Likewise, Chrysler said it had not received any complaints about such behavior, and according to Time, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration hadn’t received any complaints, either. Initially, Time says, NHTSA couldn’t even figure out how Chrysler and Consumer Reports got vastly different results doing the same tests.
The car buff mags responded by pointing out that the Consumer Reports test didn’t accurately reflect real-world conditions.
The Omni Perserveres
A year after the test, Chrysler added a steering damper to the Omni and Horizon, which reportedly satisfied Consumer Reports‘ safety complaints. The model would go on to sell over 2.5 million units over a production run that lasted 12 years. As for Consumer Reports, the next time it would rate a vehicle as “Not Acceptable” was the Suzuki Samurai, which kicked off that whole scandal.
This whole debacle goes to show the power that some publications can have. One bad test can result in a huge headache for every party involved, from the publication and the automaker to even the person buying the vehicle. In the years since, Consumer Reports has grown to be an even bigger testing powerhouse, one that many consumers trust to deliver unbiased, comprehensive testing of new vehicles. Of course, the magazine also still tests more than 10,000 other products, too. Notably, the outlet still buys the vehicles that it tests, which many dedicated car publications can’t do.
The Dodge Omni and the Plymouth Horizon are largely forgotten by most people now, but Mopar enthusiasts keep the passion alive. Occasionally, even publications will write a story about Chrysler’s world car. But if you were a car buyer in 1978, there was a good chance that, maybe, you bought a different car because there was some hot debate over whether the car was as good as the car-buff magazines said it was.
Top graphic images: Chrysler; Ebay
I know some people here aren’t exactly fans of Consumer Reports, but sometimes their harsh takes on disappointing cars does a world of good. For example, the 2012 Civic, the assessment of which forced Honda to do an immediate refresh, and basically saved Honda from turning into Chevy.
It’s not like CR was the only outlet trashing that car. Honda was going to get the message whether CR said anything or not.
Consumer Reports was the only one that really mattered though. Because to the sort of highly rational Civic buyer that listened to Consumer Reports, a scathing review critical of the things that say, my mom cares about, matters a lot more than what say, Car and Driver thinks.
It’s not the message, it’s who the message is coming from.
It works in the other direction too. If Consumer Reports says (for example), the GR86 is pure shit, well, I don’t really care what they have to say about the GR86. Now if the Autopian reviews the GR86 and says it’s a massive downgrade in every respect from the original and it’s built like a cheap POS, well, that’s going to alarm some people.
I guess an Omnirizon had “sports car handling” if your idea of a sportscar was a Thunderbird. Chrysler certainly succeeded in making a small car drive like a barge.
I usually questioned both MotorTrend’s and Consumer Report’s best picks about equally. Neither usually aligned with what I find appealing in a car.
Experiencing “trailing throttle oversteer” in a Porsche Super 90, I wasn’t daunted by the CR article and purchased a 78 Omni. Wasn’t hard to recover from the “tank slapper behavior” with the gas pedal. The Chrysler design and quality solutions were abysmal. Took about a year to fabricate/design fixes for things like door and window actuating hardware and fix the Holley carburetor issues (aluminum throttle body bushings!!). Coulda been a contender…
It all sounds very USSR, in that buyers figure out how to make the consumer goods actually function.
First off, Great article Mercedes! You write articles that tend more into the long form that reminds me of the older articles in things like MotorTrend back when they were at their peak.
Next, I do find it interesting how bad the Omni did with those evasive maneuver tests, sounds like they had to engineer some Death Wobble into their FWDs!
Seems like the steering damper was a quick fix, but it sounds more like the rear was over-sway barred, and the extra long suspension travel they designed had bad toe-curves and camber-curves that allowed for wacky toe and camber changes under heavy turning events. That would probably have involved some decent redesigning of the suspension geometry to calm it down so it was faster and cheaper to dampen the steering.
GLHS
Omni Awesome!
“The subcompacts are just too small. The American people won’t climb into them. They have to give up too much in creature comfort. I think even a compact’s a little small.”
Sir? Volkswagen is on the phone. They think you should know Americans have bought over 1.7M Beetles over the past five years.
When these first came out my step mother’s brother purchased not one but two of these miserable piles, due to a big settlement he had received, based in part on the COTY award. Not too long after the CR report came out. Along with those two cars he also used the settlement money to purchase a sail boat.
Since we were out visiting him he of course wanted to take our family out on his new boat. The problem was that it was docked quite a fair ways away and he decided he should bring it closer to where we were staying. So his friend, my father and I all went down to sail it to a more convenient place for the rest of the family to take a nice day trip on it.
I don’t remember exactly how we got to the boat but I do remember that one of the Omnrizon’s were parked at our destination for us to get home. Well on the way back we were cruising down the freeway at speed when someone pulled in front of us. Next think I knew I was looking out the side window and the front of the car that was following us, then the back of the car that was in front of us. After several osculations we found ourselves in the median, surprisingly pointing in more or less the right direction. After the oh shits were uttered along with “yeah it can do that sometimes”, we pulled back on the freeway and continued our journey. I decided that maybe CR was correct despite the fact that Chrysler and some journalists claimed that CR had rigged the test.
Osculations? I’m impressed!
Who was osculating? Never mind, I don’t want to know.
(TIL what osculation is).
Good old auto correct, thankfully there weren’t any cars in the path of oscillations or osculation could have occurred.
I knew that the Omnirizon heavily cribbed off the Golf/Rabbit, but never realized that the Simca 1307 was a dead ringer for the Passat/Dasher hatchback as well.
My dad briefly owned a Horizon TC3 back in the 80s. We used to joke that TC3 stood for Total Crap Crap Crap because the car was, well, completely nonredeemable.
I remember my parents going to purchase a LeBaron back in the day. There was a pale yellow TC sitting in the showroom. I thought it was the coolest thing ever. Shows you how silly kids can be!
The only cool thing about those cars was the giant scoops out of the front fascia for the headlights would hold a 1gallon milk jug.
My parents bought a new ’83 Omni 2.2L with a stick. It was surprisingly quick and my dad said he could beat 305 Camaros in stop light drags. I don’t know if that’s true, but it was a decent car, and the only issue we had was a leaking windshield seal that was quickly repaired.
I remember reading about this in C/D’s lookback at the century going into year 2000: “No shit Sherlock! That’s because it’s the first handling test that involves no hands.”
And leaving your foot on the gas!? WTF? Who on earth ever leaves their foot on the gas during an abrupt change in steering input?
LIke, OK, I get that the goal was to reveal underlying issues, but if your test is literally unconnected to anything that happens during real life driving, maybe the results are also going to be untethered.
Been driving since 1983, I don’t think I’ve ever yanked the wheel hard at 50mph AND LET GO.
A good friend in the Navy had an 80s Omni, manual, he had done something I wish I remembered now (different fuel injectors? Bigger carb?). For a little hatch that wasn’t even a GLH that thing could scoot.
And I was today years old when I learned the Samurai did not roll over any worse than other SUVs. I’ve had that in my mind since the 80s. I thought they were neat.
The ones with the 2.2 were legitimately quick cars, as one would expect for a small shitbox with a big engine stuffed in it.
CR likes to find issues with a product to plaster “Not Acceptable” on the cover. They gave that moniker to a bunch of pressure washers because they included a zero degree pressure tip! What next? Knives being to sharp.
What did they think was wrong with including a 0° tip? That some kid would shoot his eye out?
The automotive press has long had a bias against American cars.
Consumer Reports being especially notorious with its leanings. Listen to their info about washers and dryers and TVs – not so much for other things.
On the one hand, it was undoubtedly true that Road and Track really did have a bias against American cars. On the other hand, there was a vast period of time in the 70’s and 80’s when American cars truly were garbage, and a lot of American car shoppers somehow were slow to catch on. Eventually they caught on. But it took 20 years.
While there were indeed some stinkers, most cars from that era were not nearly as bad as people these days like to pretend they were. Forgettable? Sure. But for basic transportation, which is what most people wanted, they really weren’t all that bad.
For instance, the Ford Taurus was a massive hit with much improved quality, amazing styling for that era and a totally modern design. GM’s B, C and D body cars of the 80s were also very reliable, comfortable cars. Their styling was too traditional for many and they looked too similar, but they were still very good cars.
They were slow to catch on because Americans are in general stubborn as fuck. People generally don’t even change their minds when the evidence is overwhelming. Japanese cars sucked in the 1950s and therefore they suck today and they will always suck.
You can still see it today with Hyundai. They were terrible in the early 90s and now, even though they turned it around and are releasing some of the most compelling cars on the road, many people assume they’re still cranking out shitbox Excels.
That’s certainly what is holding back Hornet sales! We have no outside woodgrain options at all, much less premium outside woodgrain.
I have 2 omni memories (the car not the magazine).
I drove from PA to NJ to help a friend who’s onmi died and when I opened the hood and saw the VW on the block I was surprised as it looked like my rabbit motor. (it was leaking coolant out of a hole in the block)
My wife’s grandfather had one to putter around his small upper midwest town and not put miles on his rv puller pick up truck. It was a totally cheap little car for Fleet Farm runs. Now I am an old, I see the good idea of having a crap can runabout car.
Growing up, I knew lots of people with Omnirizons. The car was…fine. My memory may be tainted but I do not believe people made fun of the Omni as much as they did the Chevette.
I agree, there were just vastly more chevettes and they seemed to go bad faster.
I think you’re right! The old “GM cars will run badly for a long time” adage just didn’t apply to the Chevette, I suppose.
I was told by a car salesman once that VWs never die they just keep getting worse.
I actually owned a Chevette in the mid-80s. I purchased it in 1988 with 25k on the clock for $1200. It was very slow, had zero amenities, and was terrible in the snow. However, the only repair needed over 15k miles was to replace a broken alternator bracket, which took about an hour for a 16-year-old to figure out.
When I went to college, I sold it to two Italian guys for $1100. They were starting a gap-year trip where they were planning on doing a complete loop of the U.S. About 10 months later, my parents called me to say the two Italian guys had stopped by to see if we wanted to buy the car back. They had put about 10k miles on it across 30 states, and the only thing they had needed to do was to change the oil, tires, and a few lightbulbs. They were amazed at how robust it was relative to anything they were used to in Europe.
Meanwhile, the Chevy Citation my parents had purchased new was basically a pile of rust and sadness after five years, and the ’84 VW Scirroco I had bought was a bit of a basket case of electrical issues. The Chevette was the least interesting, least sexy car you could get. But because it was based on very old front-engine, rear-drive ideas, reliability wasn’t one of its issues.
The basic T-car started as an Opel in the late 1960s. So…yeah. Especially in Chevette form – there was barely anything in it of consequence to break.
It’s okay, though, GM had the Vega/Monza to be an attractive, spectactular hunk of shit.
It feels a bit strange going to the plate for the Chevette, considering how lame it was in just about every way. But as far as basic, cheap transportation, there weren’t many better options than a used car in the mid-80s. It was also many miles better than a new Yugo or the first Hyundai Excel in every conceivable way. All for about 20% of the cost.
Yeah – not a Chevette fan, but the thing was an anvil.
The Chevette was GM’s mea culpa for the Vega. As it turns out, it’s easier to let Opel/Isuzu do it for us. A pretty good option in the late ’70s. It took real guts to offer that carb’d OHV engine new in 1987 but hey not everyone wanted to pay over MSRP for a new Civic. The Chevette amazingly did have disc brakes and a rack-and-opinion steering setup. Thank Opel/Isuzu for that.
Front disk brakes were a nice element. I also felt fancy with a 4-speed when my buddy had a Hornet with a 3-speed on the column.
Lol I also had a Hornet. 3-speed on the floor. It was a glorified tractor but entertaining to drive.
The drag races between the Hornet and the Chevette were the least dangerous in history. However, both were faster than the guy in the Powerglide Nova with the 250 I-6.
The interiors of these was a considerable upgrade from a Chevette. These were downright plush, especially in the later years. The had cushy seats and most of the carpets and fabrics were what you saw in larger Chrysler stuff. As noted, everything was covered up and color matched- no black belts and steering wheels. The handling was sloppy yes, the 75-series tires and soft springs got you that, but it was comfy when you weren’t in a hurry and that was the point.
That’s how I remember it. It was comfortable even though you knew you were in a little economy car. And reading this article, that seems to be exactly what Chrysler was going for. It was not designed to master the slalom (honestly what car in 1978 was?).
Think lot of the problem with small cars not doing it in the states was down to most US drivers, even then, demanding a torque converter auto box.
Small cars usually have small engines, and autoboxes then, and now, are not nice to drive with small engines.
Modern electronics have helped a bit but torque converters are still usually only found with cars with 100 hp or plus.
Is there even anything left in the US new car market with under 100 hp?
So far, all I’ve learned is that if Consumer Reports doesn’t like you, they’ll basically do everything in their power to fuck you over.
Not exactly what I want from my consumer advice journalists. It really takes the impartiality out of things.
I’m also STILL angry about the Samurai.
We all are still angry.
CR has steadily lost credibility since at least the ’90s. My father had a subscription for years, had every issue dating back to the early ’80s, so I grew up reading everything CR said about cars. Yet today I’m surprised every time I’m reminded they still exist.
Remember when they bought The Consumerist blog and then stuffed it full of bullshit hysterical headlines that were borderline libelous just to get eyeballs?
They’re still riding on their rep from decades ago but they’ve been suspect since the first Bush administration.
In 1987, I was newly divorced, up to my neck in alimony and child support payments. I did not have enough cash to down payment a good used car. I ended up buying a brand new 1987 Dodge Omni America (the zero option model), since it did not need a large down payment.
Not a very comfortable or reliable car. It became known as the “Fodge” (F’n Dodge).
This was the only car that I traded off before it was paid off.
Funny, I always thought the Omni and Horizon handled pretty well. The Rabbit/Scirocco was sharper, but I’ve driven a lot of these things over the years and never noticed any behavior that worried me.
But then, for all its virtues, Consumer Reports always sort of felt like a worrying mom, telling you to wear a coat outside so you don’t catch cold, and scolding you for running in the yard.
Consumer Reports is extremely nerdy and I do have my issues with them, but IMO it’s hugely important that we have an automotive news/testing outlet that’s written for and by normal people and not car dorks.
Agreed, before I buy a new car I want to know how good the seats are etc., the things that you are going to have to live with for the next five years.
IN the mid-late 80s I drove an omni and a rabbit back to back as I had a rabbit and a buddy had an omni. My rabbit was vastly better.
Mine was an Omni and his was a diesel rabbit. I was driving my good friend to NYC to catch a plane to Spain for a visit with his future in laws. Stopped at three exits in a row and none had diesel. Made it just in time to the airport to hear an airline employee shouting my friends names and rushing them to the plane with barely moments to spare.
All this to say that I don’t need, nor have ever needed additional stress in my life.
I thought they both drove about the same and were comparable in the comfort department.
I had a gas 4 speed manual rabbit that was a blast.
Understood, I only drove the diesel that one time and once bitten twice shy.
Back in high school, a buddy of mine had an Omnirizon and we double-dated for a Homecoming Dance. The interior was pretty swank for such a cheap car, and the seats were downright fantastic.
Forty years later, she’s still my date.
40 years later, Chrysler and Peugeot are back together, and making the same mistakes LOL
Too bad they couldn’t agree on the Omni/Horizon on both sides of the ocean. They should’ve played rock/paper/scissors for the suspension design and other shit and make it the same for both versions.
Chrysler fucked up by not using the Euro suspension here stateside. That might have saved the tests without the need of a steering damper.
I can’t imagine why they would have thought that people wanted luxobarge suspension on a car with an incredibly short wheelbase. Those springs need to be stiff on such a short car.
Consumer Reports was absolutely justified in publishing that article.
The European arrangement was lifted straight from the 1960s 1100 and came with major packaging issues, it was chosen specifically because the European marketing staff thought it would provide a more comfortable ride and better traction than the all-new Macpherson strut arrangement the engineers intended from the beginning and which the American cars retained
What packaging issues? The Omni wasn’t exactly a tiny car. Also, the 1960s 1100 had thoroughly modern suspension design: double wishbones with anti-roll bars, disc brakes, and rack-and-pinion steering. Nobody else did that to an economy car at the time except maybe Fiat. Eventually the European competitors caught up.
In the U.S., though, nobody was using premium suspension components for entry-level cars so it’s understandable the cheap macpherson and twist-beam was adopted. But Omnirizon was initially a Chrysler Europe project and they would not have started out with macpherson struts from the beginning.
The US suspension was designed in Europe by Simca engineers, it was supposed to be for both markets, the sales organization ar Chrysler Europe demanded the reuse of the 1100’s suspension late in the development process, while the team in the US stuck with the original plan. The 1100’s torsion bar setup cut into front legroom somewhat, partially because the car wasn’t designed for it in the first place
Comfort was one of the reasons, the 1100 was known for its typically French ride quality and the sales department worried that the Macpherson struts would be too harsh and alienate buyers
That makes sense. I wonder how that affected development of the larger 1307/Alpine, which shared the same 1100-derived suspension design and was basically the same car as the new Chrysler Horizon, just a longer wheelbase and obviously bodywork. It can’t have been that difficult to revert to the other suspension for the European market, unless the 1307 was also destined to received macphersons for both markets.
Interesting that the 1100’s designers used Chrysler-style torsion bars… Chrysler itself was using torsion bars in other U.S. products, even during the 1970s and ’80s.
We also got the 1100 in the US for a little while, it was the last Simca sold here. Pretty much flopped on the market and it and the brand were withdrawn from North America in 1970/71.
It’s amusing that the Americans thought the French suspension was too harsh,
Motor Trend Car of the Year going to an unworthy winner?
Knock me over with a feather.
You mean the Dodge Aspen wasn’t the finest car of 1976?
There are a couple of generations of Ford Thunderbird that would like to enter the chat as well. I seem to recall at least one of them was the same scenario outlined in the article with the Omni – it was known before the testing even took place the T-bird was going to win.
Or Citation of 1980? Many questioned the Renault Alliance in 83 but I always liked them!
I went out and bought a 1980 Citation X-11 (named Xerxes) based on magazines gushing praise.
1990 Lincoln Town Car. A rebodied Panther with an old 302 as the Modular motor was still a year or so away.
These still had rear drum brakes, and old school front wheel bearings integrated with the brake rotors!
I had no idea front wheel bearings went into the brake rotor!
Although I would prefer the pushrod 5.0 over the spark plug spitting modular V8.
MT painted themselves into a corner with it in the 70s. Their own rules limited eligibility to “all-new or substantially redesigned models” and American cars (there was a separate Import Car of the Year). There were a lot of winners by default.
I’d be more sympathetic to that argument if there weren’t bad winners from the 21st century as well.
Every single year, the 1971 Volkswagen 411 gets ROBBED!
ROBBED, I SAY!
ROBBED!!!
4 doors, 11 years late.
11 YEARS TOO LATE TO GET THE AWARDS IT DESERVES!!!
I know it’s a pretty tired, unoriginal take to say that MT’s Car of the Year judging is rigged, but my God when you look at some of the cars that have won it over the years it’s hard to not feel that way.
I had the same thought. You said it better than I could have.
“Car of the Year” was rarely the best car available that year. More often it was the most innovative or most interesting car they could find. Then they’d make up justifications to give the award to that car.
Innovative and interesting rarely translate directly to reliable and popular. You just have to hope that the qualities that make a car innovative and interesting spread within the company to survive until the next generation or model.