Ah, the Rampage. Dodge’s “Sports Pickup”, sold between 1982 and 1984, was a short-lived phenomenon. While a few are still roaming the streets, as of this month there is one less out there. In this case, a 1983 model which I stumbled across a few weeks ago.
I don’t believe I have ever driven or ridden in one although they weren’t that uncommon in Southern California when I was younger. Obviously based on the Dodge Omni they used the swoopier styling of the 024 variant. I suppose if they had used the Omni itself it would look just like a VW pickup, might as well try to set it apart.
This ad is somewhat interesting in how they compare the truck to the S-10 and the Ranger. While obviously front wheel drive, I didn’t realize that the payload was so similar to the other two. In addition, the Rampage had more power and torque than either (when equipped with the standard engines).
I think they are kind of reaching when they list color-keyed carpeting as a feature on a truck, but the amount of galvanized metal is an interesting statistic (340 square feet of it vs 265 on the S-10 and only 50 on the Ranger). Did these end up doing much better in regard to rust in the real world? This one looks pretty good but rust isn’t a huge thing in Colorado.
Why were all the plastic bumper pieces yellow underneath the paint? Mustangs of this era exhibit the same phenomenon when they get worn.
That’s actually not terrible as far as space goes. It’s also a rare pickup in that you can almost strain your back reaching down into it to get something out of it. Bend with your knees, folks.
My first college roommate had an Omni 024 and I remember that steering wheel. Very rubbery and sort of mushy, kind of like fake flesh or something. The key is in the ignition in this one. I always wonder what went wrong to make it end up here, if it’s not an obvious accident it’s hard to tell. The mice have been at work on this one a bit but otherwise it’s decently preserved in here. I guess the standard color-keyed carpeting is a nice touch after all, and you all know that I do love me some red interior!
It’s a bit hard to make out in this picture (look just ahead of the grab handle on the above picture), but the door locks are a knob that you twist 90 degrees to lock and unlock. Was the Omni like that as well? It seems extremely non-intuitive as compared to the pull tab or rocker switches in most cars.
Besides being a bit faded, that seat fabric is in phenomenal condition. It’s kind of a fairly coarse cloth that seems well padded and looks pretty comfortable. The doors wouldn’t open for me for some reason so this is as close as I could get. Of course with the mouse droppings I wasn’t overly interested in actually climbing in to really see for myself.
It appears to have died just before quitting time, a few minutes before 5 O’clock. There’s no way of telling if it’s done 113,000 miles or 213,000 miles, unfortunately. The HVAC controls to the left of the wheel are a bit bizarre, there isn’t much space there and it seems like you’d be fumbling around in the dark half the time too.
The mighty Chrysler 2.2. An engine I have zero familiarity with, unfortunately. Or fortunately? But there it is, covered in dust and dirt. Maybe that means there wasn’t ever much reason to open the hood and fiddle with it. 99hp and 115lb/ft of torque wasn’t horrible back in the day for this size engine. A VW GTI’s 1.8L only put out 90hp in the same year with less torque too.
Here’s the ad from the original (1982) year. Note that payload was lower by 70 pounds. I wonder what was different to cause the increase for 1983. The gas mileage number seems ludicrous, I can’t believe these got anywhere near 47mpg on the highway with a 2.2L engine, even at the 55mph speed limit. Maybe on a downhill section? I’m obviously aware the standards/testing regimen has changed several times since then but did this fool anyone?
The owner’s manual was on the dashboard along with a loose Rampage badge. Yes, I tucked them back inside after taking the picture on the hood, although I maybe should have taken them, they are interesting artifacts.
Looking back, it was an interesting little sub-section of the market. Clearly the Ford Ranger and Chevy S-10 just dominated over the Rampage, Dodge’s advertising selling points notwithstanding. And the Japanese obviously did as well. I wonder how this fared against Dodge’s own in-house Japanese transplant, the Dodge D50/Ram50 (a rebadged Mitsubishi Mighty Max). Obviously producing something in-house is preferable to buying it in, but the Rampage wasn’t offered in 4WD or in any other body configuration. For 1984 the front end changed a bit with a move to four headlights but then the lights went out for good at the end of that model year and the Rampage ended.
Related Reading: 1982 Dodge Rampage
Thanks, Jim. You’ve got me scouring my brain for how the door locks operated on the ’81 Omni my parents bought new back in the day. And darned if I can remember, although I’m pretty confident it wasn’t like what you saw in this Rampage – although it is indeed a very intuitive mechanism.
Part of the muted response to these is likely the name on the hood. Sad, but so many people had Dodge-phobia back then.
You raise a great point about the bed height on these as it is insanely low. It would be interesting to know lowered tailgate height on these in comparison to an S-10 or a Ranger. For my money, I need a pickup whose bed height won’t cause back strain and why pickups today have perfected bed height. Lowered tailgates on half-tons are the same height as a standard bathroom vanity we all use daily – and that height is ideal for using it as an ad-hoc workbench and a multitude of other things.
Door locks on the 4drs were the old pull up- push down pins on the window sill. The 2drs shared the same twist knob with Rampage/ Scamp.
Color keyed carpet… S10/Ranger had rubber mat as standard. Just depends what you’re using the truck for I guess as to which is better.
Chrysler 2.2/2.5. Probably the engine I know best of all, due to time spent working in a Dodge dealership in the late 80s and then running an engine shop with my dad in the 90s.
I have no recollection of the inside door locks on the 4 door, but I do recall the weird exterior door handles on the first-year Omni sedans. It looked like a standard pull bar, but the main part of the handle was actually fixed in place and to open it you reached underneath and squeezed a thin, flimsy-feeling metal tab outward against the stationary exterior handle. It just felt unnatural to open and created a bad first impression when you first entered the car. They were changed to conventional pull bars in the second year (1979).
yes. I had an ’87 Duster and I remember the knob for the door locks.
Bed height depends on what you’re loading; the Rampage was the best thing this side of a Corvair Rampside for loading bulky stuff from street level. And you could always use the hood as a desk/workbench.
Unless you are using a ramp or tilting in something like a washing machine no the lower load floor is not good for loading bulky items. It is just as easy to lift all the way to a fully standing position move the load into position and then put it down just a bit. The real payoff comes when it is time to unload in that you don’t have to bend down to pick it up.
Jason is right counter height is the perfect height for a truck floor.
As he mentioned it makes a great work bench at that height and you are not going to be able to use the hood to cut your lumber to length and the hood is tool low to use as a standing desk.
I’ll throw in another perspective – Falcon and Holden utes had the floor at roughly mid-thigh height so you can pick up things with a straight arm can be handy, and the bed sides are about bench height, which I think works well. It is a lot easier to climb into the back too.
‘Standard’ height Japanese pickups were about the same – apart from base work-truck types they are mostly 4×4 height now.
I thought it was actually NON intuitive. Thinking about it more maybe it does make sense assuming if the bar is sideways it’s locked and vertical for open.
When I wrote it I was thinking more about it just being add and different for no good reason and would make it a bit difficult for people to get out of in an emergency if they were not familiar with it – likely though that would only be the case if it locked once they got in, which while common (the norm?) today obviously didn’t happen much in the days of yore.
At least for the driver, the door unlocks when you pull the interior release.
The 80s were an intriguing time for car-control experimentation in general. Turn signal levers on dashboard pods, cruise controls on pods, swiveling radios, digital dashboards, talking cars…the list goes on. A lot of ideas that didn’t stick around, but it made things interesting.
and why pickups today have perfected bed height.
I beg to differ, and rather vociferously. When it takes a fold-down ladder to climb into the back of one, that’s hardly “perfect” in my book.
I thought somebody would. 🙂
My ’07 F150 4×4 has a distance from ground to lowered tailgate of 34″. My father’s 1998 Dodge Ram 1500 (2wd) has one of 32″; the ’92 F-150, also 2wd, my grandfather had measured 33″.
For what I do with a pickup this is a good height for doing various tasks. If out cutting wood, as one example, this is ideal for replacing the chain on the saw if it gets knocked off or for any other work the saw may require.
In the big scheme of things, I suspect how I use a pickup is in the thinner part of the bell curve.
Great for a work bench for anything at that height and also perfect as a replacement for saw horses, lower tail gates just aren’t as convenient.
I’m not sure why people need to climb into the bed so much. About the only time I do that is when doing the final clean out of the bed after hauling something like rock or gravel, the bulk of which was brought to or over the edge of the tailgate with my old Load Handler. http://www.loadhandler.com/ A board with a hook or a piece of metal rod with a hook bent in one end and a handle on the other gets any small items out that inadvertently slid out of reach, or were pushed out of reach due to filling the bed so full.
Once again, Paul and I agree.
I’m not convinced modern bed heights are done for anything more than aesthetics to make the truck look taller and brawny, or a sense of security so nobody can see what’s in your bed at a glance.
I personally find them useless unless you only haul small items that you put at the very end of the tailgate for easy access(which they won’t be for long). If something is all the way at the front of the bed, climbing up onto that thing to get it is way more of a hassle than bending down slightly, and even accessing it directly from the sides like you can this Rampage and many other old trucks(the now extinct stepsides were great for this reason too)
I looked up Jason’s old post on Crewcab pickups https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/automotive-history-and-coal-the-crew-cab-pickup-and-my-2007-ford-f-150-super-crew-versatility-be-thy-name/
and noticed that his 4×4 (2004-2014 vintage) has a bed height of 34″. He also measured a 2WD 1992 F150 and realized the bed height on that is 33″. And his own Dad’s 1998 Ram (also 2WD) has a bed height of 32″. So while higher than the Rampage and truly “old” (60’s?) trucks, things haven’t changed that much.
Many truckmakers offer running boards that run all the way to the rear wheel (i.e. way past the cab) thus restoring the old step-side functionality along with more usable space in the bed, kind of the best of both in my eyes.
It doesn’t seem too difficult to keep small loads located in one place, either by dividing the bed or in Jason and others’ cases, by utilizing the bed extender in its stowed position to provide a defined space. There’s a good picture of it in his post.
I think Ford’s bed sides seem or are high(er than most) as a conscious decision to give the bed itself more volume with the 2004 restyle. It makes sense from a “load” perspective but yes, it makes it more difficult to access that load from the sides when standing next to it. Sort of a give and take I suppose.
It would be nice though to have more choice in the market, with lower beds and lower bed sides with the large/long volumes afforded by the fullsize chassis as opposed to the resurgent midsizers. The tray styles (like a Home Depot rental) seem to be the most useful since all the walls can be folded down for access, but would be even better if the walls themselves could be made higher with, say, another folding section on top of what already exists in order to carry a higher loose load or whatever. The disadvantage is they don’t really work with toppers etc which is a large “nice to have” feature depending on the use case and/or security.
I know this post is old but incase your wondering about the door locks – they were round knobs that you twisted left or right to unlock and lock, respectively. They worked like older oven knobs. I remember them from my first car – an ’85 Shelby Charger turbo.
If you zoom into the 1st interior pic, you can see it between the door grab and steering wheel. It was a weird design and one I don’t recall seeing on any other non-Chysler car.
I’ll never understand why these weren’t more popular. It seems like they would ride and drive infinitely better than a traditional body on frame rwd pickup, be more fuel efficient, as the author pointed out be easier to load and unload, and be more comfortable while still offering all the capacity people need in a truck. I suppose the only real advantage of a traditional truck is towing, but most people I see towing are landscapers with a trailer of lawn equipment and that cannot be that heavy?
I bet a lot of people passed on those because they just assumed a Ranger or S10 had a bigger payload. I know I did.
The Ranger is a hometown hero here in the Twin Cities, used values are extortionate – but even the later ones seem to rust for fun.
I, too, figured those for payload ability well less than a “real” small pickup (Ranger/S10); I wonder what the 1960s (Falcon) Ranchero’s had been?
It was 800lbs.
The VW Pickup had an 1100lb payload.
Frankly, these numbers are all just a function of spring rates in the back. I suspect Ford and Chevy had a harder time making their RWD trucks ride half-way decently when empty due to the heavy rear axle. A FWD truck with a light (low unsprung weight) rear axle can have a higher spring rate and still ride about the same.
Does anyone really pay attention to the payload ratings for trucks? My experience was always that, when a lot of stuff needed to be hauled, said stuff was loaded into the bed until the wheel wells contacted the rear tires. At that point we would start removing things until they no longer rubbed. I realize that putting 2000 pounds of rock in the back of a truck rated for 1100 pounds is not a good idea but it was (and still is) routinely done, at least where I live. I can tell you from personal experience that 2000 pounds of river rock in the bed of a Ford Ranger makes for some interesting handling.
Today’s technical equivalent, though aimed at a very different buyer, is the Honda Ridgeline. By all accounts an excellent vehicle, but has sold poorly, in both generations.
I’d say more like the Ford Transit Connect. The Ridgeline is a lot more expensive and the two-row seating is a big difference.;
Wow, the overall condition of this thing would have fans of “The New Chrysler Corporation” in the upper midwest drooling all over themselves. Actually I kind of liked these myself. It would be a spare vehicle/pickup that would fit my lifestyle pretty decently.
Chrysler did indeed lead the industry in the use of galvanized steel in the lower bodies. Mopars of the early 80s were almost impervious to the kinds of sheetmetal rust we had gotten used to in the midwest. These cars proved that the American auto industry knew how to make cars that were quite corrosion resistant. I am not sure that the big trucks and vans got this level of galvanized usage.
That is in better condition than some of the stuff I have driven home. It probably wouldn’t take much to put it back in service.
In this time period, parking in the crowded and congested French Quarter of New Orleans was easier if you had a “truck” rear license plate tag and could park, ticket free, in the business freight zones.
This Omni “truck” was MUCH shorter than any pick up trucks; could squeeze into parallel parking slots that other truck drivers only dreamed of.
Equipped with the 2.2 engine/4 speed manual transaxle, these car/trucks were quite peppy (esp for that time period!) and easily maneuverable in the above mentioned, tight, narrow, congested streets.
Equipped with the same factory A/C as in the 4 door Omni cars, with much less interior volume to cool & dehumidify; cool down was darn near instantaneous and could put frost on your nose and ear lobes even in the hottest New Orleans extended summers.
This truck’s city gas mileage was about double of any full or mid sized American truck.
For the occassional sofa or recliner or bags of flower bed mulch, the bed capacity was always more than adequate for me.
Rampage: 1) to rush wildly about, 2) a course of violent, riotous, or reckless action or behavior
Looks at trucklet, looks at definition. Looks back at trucklet, then again at definition. Chuckles, walks away.
Compact micro trucks like this are great in their own right, but the need for hyper masculine names is ridiculous. Personally, I think Brat is a more fitting name
“New for 2019! The MINI Annihilator micro-pickup! Punish the road!! Grrrrr!”
Neither of those definitions mentions RWD or a separate chassis 😉
Seems you can rush wildly about in one of these far more readily than in a D100 or a Ram 1500.
How did it end up in bone yard?
Numerous reasons. Owner sick of it, no one wanted to buy and fix it. Best offer was junk yard. “The Automotive Circle of Life”. Not every old car/truck is a “collectible” that will cross Auction block and sell for over $20,000
I always thought these deserved a longer run. I can easily imagine the 1984 facelift being further tweaked to a modified Shadow nosecone to keep the looks up-to-date with minimal investment.
Just goes to show how times have changed. Nobody would name their product “Rampage” in 2018. Back then though it didn’t automatically conjure the image of a disgruntled nutjob picking people off from atop a clock tower.
Sadly you could almost name something the “Tuesday” these days and get the same visual. 🙂
I doubt the 911 would be named that had it debuted 40 years after it did…(although it was originally the 901 until Peugeot objected due to the middle zero).
But yeah, Rampage doesn’t strike me as a great name. But then they went with “Scamp” for the Plymouth version. Maybe they should have named the Dodge the “Rascal”.
At least they didn’t call it “Swinger”, after the old Dodge Dart model. That conjures up the image of uhmm, uhh, oh never mind.
Interesting find! I haven’t seen these since I was a kid. It would be cool to see one restored and cruising around at least once. A turbo Omni power train would be cool too!
Not only is the bed very low, look how correspondingly comically low the fuel filler door is. Especially when compared to the more ergonomically correct locations on the standard Omni 024 and Omni four door (below).
I liked the new nose cap on the 1984. It gave them a slightly more premium appearance.
I liked the new nose cap on the 1984. It gave them a slightly more premium appearance.
The smaller, dual rectangular sealed beams did smooth the hoodline out a bit.
I suspect Chrysler was probably more resourceful than other manufacturers at the time, when it came to standardizing parts commonality, among their car lines. Their near bankruptcy may have helped necessitate this, but the Rampage front and rear side marker reflectors appear to be identical to the ones used on the 1976-1979 Dodge Aspen and Plymouth Volare. A unique detail, I never noticed before, and wouldn’t have expected.
Chrysler used those side markers on virtually every car they made after 1972
Thanks Matt. As I explored more models, I was seeing this. Same with the exterior pull up door handles. They appear like a universal design.
Chrysler wasn’t the only one. GM used a lot of parts across their lines for deacdes. Some, like interior switches, climate controls, shift levers and the like stretched across decades.
Good for us old car fans that are restoring and need something…
The practicality of this is unquestionable. It’s important for a widely adopted design element to age well, and work somewhat seamlessly across various models. I immediately see a couple detail items under the hood of this Rampage, Chrysler still used well into the 90s. Like the design of the plastic brake master cylinder reservoir.
I don’t feel the the AMC paddle door handles aged well. They already appeared a design relic of the early 70s, when they were retained for the Concord, Spirit, and through the 80s on the Eagle.
The opera lights in my 94 Cougar are the same ones used in various Ford’s/Mercury’s dating back to the early 60s, you’d never know unless you compared them side by side.
To some degree I agree, but I also don’t like change for the sake of it, or the need to be “ALL NEW!” Sometimes carryover components work just as effectively as a brand signature as the emblem on the grille, like when GM divisions would have their own corporate “road wheel”, that carried on no matter the design of the body and still manage to look fitting. I don’t at all mind the AMC door handles, personally, I think if they finished them in black or even body color for the 80s they would have looked more modern than in the stainless steel appearance and still retain the signature AMC quirk. If there was a car I truly had a peeve about door handles looking dated it would be the refrigerator handles on the 1986-1990 H-body Buick and Oldsmobiles.
Wanna bet that this was used to haul pool maintenance supplies?
A better look at the knob door locking mechanism. This was a TC3 at the Gilmore’s Mopar show a few years ago. It occurs to me this might be more resistant to thieves who were too adept at slipping a bar down the door to pull up on the lever from the typical pushbutton lock.
Interior shot from a 4 door hatch, showing the typical for the 70s top of door pushbutton. This was in an 85 GLH.
Thanks for that, the pic I wanted to use was all washed out…
From an 86 Omni/Charger owner’s manual. It appears that if the bar on the knob is horizontal, so it’s easy to read “lock” on the bar, the door is locked. This manual also seems to imply that the 4 door Omnis switched to the same lock and latch mechanism as the coupes in 86, while retaining the earlier design lock on the back doors.
Can a Rampage rampage?
Driving home from the Gilmore’s Mopar show, at ummm…70, something, ish. This was the view I had as this Rampage blew past me like I was anchored to the ground.
So how popular was the Rampage? I recently pulled some numbers from the “Standard Catalog of Chrysler” for the L body. Being a truck, the Rampage was not included in that book, but the Wiki entry for the Rampage/Scamp had some numbers.
1982 Omni 4dr 31210
024 2dr 40654
Horizon $5927 37196
TC3 $6421 37856
146916
Rampage 17,636
1983 Omni 4dr 42554
Charger 41234
Horizon $5841 46471
Turismo $6379 32065
162324
Rampage 8033
Scamp 3564
11597
1984 Omni 4dr 68070
Charger 54264
Horizon $6137 78564
Turismo $6868 49716
250614
Rampage 11,732
That’s it, 40k across three years for two badges? That’s quite a bit lower than I had figured. Somehow I was thinking at least that many PER YEAR. Wow.
These were never particularly common, but I’ve seen enough of them around that I’m rather surprised they were only built for 3 years and only sold about 40k in total. I guess they must be fairly durable and with a dedicated fan base.
A Scamp that showed at the Mopar show a few years ago.
…with it’s red velour interior.
On the topic of rust. the early Omnirizons were par for the course for the 70s
Chrysler seems to have stepped up it’s game later in the 80s.
Ford made some improvement in the later Escorts as well.
During the era of Roger Smith, it seemed GM cars became more eager rusters. I saw the newer GM products rusting in places where cars did not usually rust around here. The Cavalier was no exception to 80s biodegradable GM products.
I’ve never seen this combination of colours on any Rampage before, either in advertising, or on the street. Dark grey metallic over light grey. I wonder if it was repainted at some point. The light grey almost looks like primer, as it has no visible sheen.
Given the rarity of these, and the great condition, it’s really unfortunate it was junked.
It was black over silver, basically the inverse of the 1982 Ad truck, the dirt and bright sun angle isn’t doing it any favors. Even the pinstripe around the bottom is there (inverted). The silver just faded like on many 80’s cars.
Thanks for taking the time to clarify this Jim. You do a great job of following up in your articles. It’s much appreciated.
It would be a genuine shame if this one is lost.
*Awesome* find and write-up, Jim. As a kid when these were new, I never saw them in the same class of small truck as the S-10 or Ranger, so those base model statistics were enlightening. I did, however, like the idea of a smaller, “sporty”, El Camino-esque alternative. Always liked the original, dual-headlamp nose cone better, and saw the quad-lamp restyle as retrograde.
I kinda feel like this one deserved to live.
P.S. The taillamps always reminded me of exclamation points, in keeping with the “Rampage!” name.
Maybe they should be curved as in “Rampage? Really? That’s the name you’re going with?” 🙂
But now I can’t unsee it!
I have to agree on the nice find, Jim! That would be a $4000 truck here in the upper midwest if it were in running condition. I knew people who had them back in the day, they were good little haulers and seemed to hold up well. I have far more experience with the regular two- and four-doors, particularly with the 2.2L motor.
I’m honestly afraid to look at Craigslist in Colorado; I’d find soooo many things I’d want to bring back to Michigan… LOL!
CC Effect? As I was perusing FB car groups today, this came up:
https://ottumwa.craigslist.org/cto/d/1984-dodge-rampage-pickup/6752116530.html
This is too close to me…
You were looking for a project, weren’t you? 🙂
Go get it!
I drove one of these a few times back in the early ‘90’s. They were a fun little truck to drive, and the 2.2 pulled quite well with the 4-speed.