(First Posted October 24, 2013) Is time slowing down? Just fifteen years separate this 1960 Imperial and the Horizon’s birth. Or was it just that Detroit was terribly slow to embrace the inevitability of modern European design? Better late then never, because not only were the Horizon and Omni the first proper small cars ever built in Detroit, they also saved Chrysler from irrelevance and bankruptcy just in the nick of time.
Before we turn the clock back and rediscover the origins of Omnirizon twins, let’s briefly put that fifteen year span between the Imperial and Horizon in perspective:
Thirty five years separate the Horizon from this 2010 Golf. Has automotive evolution really slowed down that much? Unfair comparison, perhaps. Well, there is no 2010 Imperial to compare it to, since that species long ago became extinct. And the Golf does loom large in the Horizon’s existence. Or is it the other way around?
Our timeless main story begins with the Simca 1100 (at the left on the top, and right on the bottom, mislabeled as an R12). This photo is here courtesy of allpar.com, which has an excellent article about the birth of the Horizon by its creators here. We see it in a comparison of the C2 Horizon’s proposal with the brand new Golf . The C2 was the intended replacement for the Simca, and it’s easy to see that they (Simca, C2) sat on the same platform and followed its general shape.
When the Simca 1100/1204 first appeared in 1967, it set the template for the modern hatchback small car. It was the true winner of our CC virtual 1971 Small Car Comparison, and one of the first cars to employ that template was the 1975 VW Golf. Some of the Chrysler fan-boys at allpar argue that the Golf imitated the Simca. Conceptually yes; stylistically, the photo above is the damming evidence that once the Golf appeared, Chrysler’s fine tuning of their C2 proposal was deeply influenced by it, to put it politely.
The final of our comparison photos: the evidence is all too obvious, right down to the kink in the rear door. Well, if you’re going to imitate, the original Golf was certainly a good model, and it was a sight cheaper than hiring Guigiaro, like VW did.
The development of the Horizon has other compelling aspects beyond the cribbing. As the headline says, it was the first time one of the Big Three pulled its head out of its ass and decided that a modern FWD European design did actually make more sense for a small car than the crap it came up with by itself: the Chevy Vega, Ford Pinto and AMC Gremlin. In case you’ve forgotten, click the links, but in a nutshell, Detroit was obsessed with the idea that small cars needed to look like a shrunken Mustang or Camaro (not sure what the Gremlin was supposed to look like). Combined with RWD meant that they were atrociously cramped. Perhaps they were punishing their buyers for being so stupid to want a small car instead of a real car.
It didn’t have to be that way, and cars like the Simca 1100 and the Golf showed the way. Certainly, by today’s standards they are quite small indeed, perhaps like a Fiesta or less. But at the time, when even cars like the over sized Nova were none too roomy, this was a revelation. And the Horizon was bigger than the Golf, by far the roomiest of any small car at the time.
Chrysler, fortunately lacking the funds to join the Vega-Pinto debacle, looked to its European subsidiary for a life-line, having already been convinced of the Simca 1100′s capabilities, despite its poor sales in the US and reliability issues. In a very closely coordinated effort, Chrysler undertook a three-way development effort with its French and British units. That presented huge challenges, given the substantially different priorities and the metric-inch divide. But the body was fine tuned on both sides of the continent, and for the fist time ever, digital scans of the clays were exchanged via satellite. A first, and not bad for 1975.
It became clear early on that the US version would be a very different car except for the basic body. Well, at least that was shared. The Simca’s supple but more expensive long-stroke torsion bar suspension was jettisoned for more pragmatic MacPherson struts in the front. Americans either didn’t deserve or just wouldn’t appreciate that famous French ride. On the other hand, the Americans wisely stayed clear of the Simca engine, which was generally fragile and usually developed terrible valve clatter within 20k miles or so. In another nod to the Golf, Chrysler instead bought long blocks from VW, a 1,7 L version of the Golf’s 827 engine. Chrysler added its own manifold and cantankerous carb, foolishly eschewing fuel injection for several more years.
The Americans also developed the front automatic transaxle, a miniaturized TorqueFlite, which turned out to be pleasantly similar to its big brother reliability wise (whew!). And it brought its electronic prowess to both versions, with the first popular priced trip computer. Of course, the domestic version got an interior more in keeping with the um…slower to develop taste of Americans at the time. Still, it was a refreshing place to sit in the late seventies era of bordello interiors, with excellent visibility and decent ergonomics for the times.
Either way, the Horizons on both sides of the Atlantic were well received by the press, both winning respective COTY awards. That may have meant more in Europe, where it’s voted on by hundreds of auto journalists. Still, the American press and public reception was pretty universally positive, even though it was clear that the Horizon was not a Golf in certain key respects, mainly in the handling department. The Omnirizon’s suspension was Americanized in more ways than one. Its handling was decent for the times, but just neither actually fun nor inspiring.
Maybe that was a worthwhile trade off for the American versions’ much better rustproofing; the Euro Horizons were some of the worst rusters ever, and there may likely be less than 200 examples left on the whole continent. I’m sure I could find that many in Oregon. Our city water and electric utility had a fleet of them until just a couple of years ago.
Of course, those were undoubtedly from the latter years of the Omnirizon’s long US run from 1978 through 1990. And typical for American small cars, they slowly got better and better, later adopting the Chrysler 2.2 L four, fuel injection, and a 1.6 liter Peugeot engine as the base mill. Meanwhile though, cars like the Civic, Corolla and Mazda GLC/323 were evolving at a much quicker pace.
So even though the Omnirizons were pretty progressive when they arrived, time in the eighties was not standing still. The Japanese upsurge kept Omnirizon sales in check, although in its first three years it averaged over 200k units and some 1.8 million were sold during the whole run. Those first couple of years were critical, because Chrysler was in the depth of its brush with bankruptcy, largely in part because its big cars were obsolete or deadly sins.
But it wasn’t just the sales numbers alone. Without the Horizon and Omni, it’s highly doubtful Chrysler would have been able to develop their K-Cars in time and on budget, or at all. Chrysler had a huge head start with the Horizon and its fwd transaxle, and Lee Ioacocca could prove to his Washington DC bankers that he really did have that leading edge fwd technology, the equivalent of GM and its Volt more recently.
Of course, the legendary hi-po versions of the Omni developed with Carroll Shelby can’t be ignored here, although the odds of finding one on the street are slim indeed. But starting with the 1984 GLH (“Goes Like Hell”), the VW GTI had a wild and woolly competitor. The first version was actually the most GTI-like, with the 110 hp tweaked 2.2. The optional 146 turbo version was already something different altogether. But then the GLHS appeared with an uprated 175 hp turbo. A crude and rude little beast it was; the wildest combination of torque steer and turbo lag bang for the buck.
The Omnirizon twins did nothing to stave of the Japanese invasion of the coasts or dissuade VW lovers from their Rabbits, but they did finally expose heartland Americans to what a proper small car could be, including a fitting hot-rod version of it. For that, it deserves a special place in my history book. And if Chrysler had kept developing it properly, my last combination picture could be comparing an original Horizon with a 2013 Horizon. Oops; make that a 2013 Omni.
No such luck; Chrysler decided small cars (Caliber) should look like a trucky SUV. Well, the Caliber’s replacement, the Dart, is of course based on a European Fiat. So maybe automotive time hasn’t slowed down; it’s just running in circles.
Interesting that this comes on the heels of yesterday’s pristine Chevette. I think I’d rather have an Omnirizon any day.
Elderly neighbor had one. After he passed, it sat in the driveway, as his wife had given up driving a decade or more before. (Her 10,000-mile ’75 Granada sat in the garage.) I wished after it, and even asked if she’d sell it, but she gave it to her granddaughter instead, who promptly cracked it up.
Chevette vs. Horizon is no contest. Open the rear hatch of a Chevette and the spare tire stares at you as it gobbles up most of the storage space. The drive shaft tunnel gobbles up most of the interior space. The Horizon was indeed at the head of the pack and the front mechanicals served as the basis for the K cars and all of their derivatives. Talk about bang for the buck.
+1 Agreed, having driven both. The Omni/Horizon felt more modern, refined and civilized. The Horizon seemed directed towards the 80s. The Chevette felt like a 1970s car.
Launching in 1975, I would say the Chevette felt like a 70’s car, because it WAS a 70’s car.
The Talbot Horizon and Omni/Horizon were being developed at the same time the Chevette was first released… 1976/1977.
They were BOTH 70s cars.
Only the Omni/Horizon had dynamics, including front wheel drive, that would carry it farther competitvely into the 1980s. Where the Chevette was near obsolete around the time it was introduced.
I believe the Chevette was a variant on the Opel Kadette (Rekord?) which had already been out a few years. Assuming a ’71 or ’72 release of the Opel, that would make it a late ’60’s car in terms of development.
Chevette was a variant of the Kadett C, which came out in 1973.
in Britain we had the Vauxhall Viva versions of the Kadett and the HA, HB and HC Vivas, and then ultimately the Chevette, were all very similar mechanically as far as I recall so I think the Chevette very much had a 1960’s basis
Another familiar face as the Chrysler/Talbot Horizon.As with the Chevette the UK climate dissolved most of them though the Horizon was a bit more rust resistant.I once clipped a brand new one in my Vauxhall Victor,it was the colour of Red Leicester cheese with a gold stripe on the side!
Reading this article brings back good memories of both the ’84 and ’87 Horizons that my mom owned, white and red respectively.
Small, clean and fuel-efficient. My mother loved her first one so much that she spent about a month looking for another one before she found the ’87.
The ’87 later became my brother’s first car and he sawzalled the roof to add a shoddy sunroof. We took quite a few trips in that car.
Good memories overall.
If anyone ever needed proof that Chrysler was God’s favorite carmaker, the OmniRizon is it. Given how badly that company was screwed up by, say, 1974, it is nothing short of a miracle that this thing came out as good as it did. Barely 2 years after introducing a horrible hash job of the Volare (that should have been a fairly easy update of a car Chrysler had been building for fifteen years) and a year before the even bigger botch-job of the R body (again, a heavily updated version of a car in production since 1962) came this car.
If this car had a fault, it was random nickel and dime kind of stuff and typically random quality of assembly. But they didn’t rust (thanks to galvanized lower bodies), the automatic transmissions were stout, the VW-based engines were decent, the bodies felt quite good (certainly by Chrysler standards of the time) and they were a very attractive package.
My mother bought a Horizon in 1980. She wanted a small car that got good mileage, but was also approaching 50 and wanted something comfortable. The Horizon was it. Roomy, comfortable and responsive. She would never have bought something with that more sterile European look to it. Just like VW didn’t do well catering to Americanized tastes with the U.S. Rabbit, Chrysler would have failed in catering to European tastes with these cars, at least in the beginning.
Yeah, the ‘before/after’ pics should be with a Volaré, not an Imperial. On the roller coaster ride that is Chrysler Corporation, the Omni/Horizon is one of the high points. Although not bulletproof like the slant-six, sixties’ A-bodies, it was still far ahead of anything GM or Ford had on the road (in GM’s case, for years to come), particularly when the Omni was paired with the mentioned, still well-engineered Torqueflite FWD transaxle.
While no one could have foreseen the coming gas crisis (especially Chrysler, who was the longest musclecar holdout of the Big Three), consider how things might have played out if the funds spent for the E-body ponycars in the late sixties had, instead, been used on developing and getting the Omni/Horizon to market that much sooner.
IOW, a Omni/Horizon (instead of the Simca 1204) in the famous 1971 Car and Driver small car comparison (where the other competitors were the Vega, Pinto, Beetle, and Gremlin) would have been stunning. The Omni/Horizon would today be remembered as the ‘game-changer’ (instead of cars like the Civic, Rabbit, and Corolla).
Chevette vz Horizon?
I’ll take the RWD Chevette any day of the week. My eyes say the ‘vette is better looking too, and more of a conversation starter than a former Nun’s car like the Omni.
Boy, a tough one. I like the simplicity of the Vette’s RWD, but I still recall my first drive in an automatic trans Horizon, it was the first 4 cyl automatic car I had ever driven that seemed preferable to suicide.
I carpooled with a lady who drove an immaculate 1979 Chevrolet Chevette four-door. My best friend’s family bought the first 1978 Plymouth Horizon in town.
The Chevette was like an oxcart compared to the Horizon. I’ve NEVER ridden in a noisier car, and that includes my father’s 1973 AMC Gremlin.
I’ll take a Horizon over a Chevette – either as a driver or a passenger – any day.
It’s no contest… Omnirizon wins by a landslide. In the pristine Chevette CC I made no bones about my seething hatred of Chevettes. Hell, I’d drive a damn Yugo before I’d ever even sit one of those steaming piles of crap.
“No such luck; Chrysler decided small cars (Caliber) should look like a trucky SUV.”
correction- Daimler made that decision for them.
I think Paul was just trying to find a punchy way to end the piece, which was very good on the whole. He overlooked the Neon and PT Cruiser era too with that statement.
And to be more succinct, the replacement for the OmniRizon was the Shadow/Sundance; which, in the beginning, had a nicely integrated hatchback and nearly identical dash to the OmniRizon as well as the same assortment of engine/tranny choices.
Thank you for this excellent article and photos Paul.
Your research, as always is very thorough, accurate, and appreciated. Plus you point out numerous ironies for sure. It is true the K-cars did largely save Chrysler, but these models made Chrysler viable, and worth saving, when they sought government assistance in the late 1970s. Luckily for Chrysler, they got it mostly right, out of the gate.
Following the Rabbit template, was a safe route to take, that worked. Chrysler handled the early Consumer Reports steering issues, quite effectively. They didn’t have quite the same hype that the X-cars had upon introduction, but you rarely heard bad press about the Omni/Horizon after the early steering issue. The spinoff O24 and TC3s were decent hatchbacks as well. Of course, by the early 80s they were losing their competitiveness, but remained a safe and affordable choice amongst sub-compacts. I’m guessing it was due to limited finances, Chrysler decided to not replace the platform sooner, in the mid to late 80s. Even then, they competed well on price. I remember these cars being amongst the most affordable entry level cars, later in their lives. If not the most advanced, they were a proven choice.
They could potentially be nominated as a darkhorse choice as one of Chrysler’s greatest hits. As they prepared the foundation for the success of the K-Car.
It was the P-Car, Plymouth Sundance and Dodge Shadow that were designed to replace the Omni/Horizon for 1987. But there was still a market for the Omni.
As I figure out how to write my COAL stories, both the L body and the P body will be featured as time goes by, but the story will begin with 1940.
We have had cars from Chrysler through the decades to the present.
A weird picture of that red Simca, what did they put in the trunk ?
We had a Simca 1100 in the seventies, the only problem was its bad rust proofing.
Just like its successor, this Simca (later Talbot) Horizon. As a matter a fact like all French and Italian cars from that era. Nothing special, keep on walking.
Simca did pretty well in the seventies, modern and interesting cars, but Mother Mopar went down the drain in the late seventies, and so did Simca.
(Forget the whole Talbot story after Simca, it was a farce from day one)
These were a big part of my youth – my Cub Scout denmother had a dark green ’78 or 9 Horizon, later on my mom had an ’86 Horizon and my own first car was an ’81 Omni. They were solid after 10 Vermont winters, an achievement for a mid-80s car let alone a late ’70s one, (although the ’86 had an issue with back bumpers falling off. I got at least one junkyard replacement for Mom…) and the ’81 had some issues with nickel-and-dimed repairs (eg. replacing a clutch but not the clutch cable) by the time I owned it but ran for several more years when sold off to someone better at fixing cars.
The Omni was one of those little milestone points in my life.
As everyone well knows, dad was formerly a Chevy dealer. Which meant, after he left the business in ’65, there was only one acceptable marque in the Paczolt driveway. Which was fine as far as he and mom went. Its when he dragged the kids along that stuff went grumbly.
Come ’73 and I’m getting my promised college graduation gift – it has to be a Chevy. Anything except a Corvette, of course. Dad knows he’s got a sports car fanatic for a son and isn’t about to put out that kind of money. So I settle for a Vega GT which gave me three wonderful years of day to day service and SCCA B-sedan autocross. I’m one of those people who got a good Vega.
1976, another graduation (M. Ed.) and another car. It still has to be a Chevy, Corvette and Cosworth Vega are not in consideration. So, I get a Monza 2+2, four cylinder five speed. Not quite as much fun as the Vega, definitely not an autocrosser, but a good rally car. I’m happy with it.
1979, and this time I buy my own car, with my own money. Or, more realistically, my own borrowed money. Which dad is going to loan me. No, bank loans will only cause family trouble, I’m back to living at home (don’t ask, just read “Mommy Dearest” if you want to understand my family) – and dad is only willing to loan me money for a Chevy. Of course, he won’t loan me the kind of money needed to buy a Corvette. So, kiss off the Ford Fiesta S that I really want, the MG or Triumph I’d really like to have, and I build myself up a sporting Monza Kammback, six cylinder, five speed . . . . . . . which turns out to be my classic “I don’t touch Chevrolet for another twenty years” POS.
Shortly after getting stuck with that car, I get married, tell the family to kiss off; and make plans for the 1982 car which is definitely not going to be a Chevy. I’ll finally break the family tradition.
Except that, in 1981, dad goes and buys himself a Dodge Omni. Dad’s old used car manager, good friend of the family, had bought the local Dodge franchise. So after sticking me with a decade long run of “I don’t get to drive what I want, but get to build the closest approximation out of the Chevy catalog”; he goes and buys what he wants. The next time I spoke to anybody in the family (relations were already strained over my having married “beneath myself”) was three years later when my sister got married and I was in the wedding party.
In the meantime, the wife and I got an ’82 Omni, absolutely wonderful car (that red interior above brought back memories), that led to an ’85 Caravan C/V customized, later a Daytona and a couple of Dakotas that I based my sutlery business around. Plus a couple of Fords (Fiesta S – finally!, Escort GT and Festiva LX).
And I didn’t go back to a Chevy until my S-10 pickup because the second wife wanted something smaller than my long bed Dakota.
Dad? That was his only Dodge. Periodically, he would buy something real small and economical. And within 18 months trade it in for something big, traditional, and GM. That Dodge was the end of Chevrolets for him, as he transitioned to a series of Buicks and one Cadillac.
Wow, being the son of a GM exec I thought there were issues in my family over owning cars of other makes (seriously frowned upon), but yours is the psycho-brand loyalty winner… by a long shot
Probably has a lot to do with my dislike of traditional American cars, my all-consuming hatred for broughams, and my firm belief that muscle/pony cars are the most overrated automobiles out there.
Dad’s taste was totally conservative, midwest America. Automatic on the column, bench seat (the 62-65 Impala SS’ were a sop to his kid, plus he knew they’d sell well the following year as a used car) was his stock in trade to the very end (Chevy and Buick station wagons, two Buick Century’s and his final car, a ’92 Caprice).
The only exceptions to that long line were two Camaro’s (’67 RS and ’70 RS – a short burst of middle aged exuberance), a ’77 Vega (picked up as a real cheap deal with factory warranty still in force as a temporary car) and that Omni.
Foreign cars were strictly not allowed – which made it interesting when little sister’s boyfriend (now husband, 30 years next year) showed up at the house with a brand-new Austin Marina. He refused to let him take her back to college in it, said flat out it was a piece of shit (without knowing anything about the car – he wasn’t keeping up on the market).
My family was a prime example of the classic Nietzche “what does not kill you makes you stronger”. Oh, dad was the relaxed, reasonable parent.
“Austin Marina. He…said flat out it was a piece of shit…”
Reminds me of the saying that even broken watch is right twice a day.
I actually saw a mint Austin Marina on the road a few weeks ago. Couldn’t stop to get a pic though. Amazing it had lasted all these years.
My ex BIL bought a 3 year old Marina,18 months later it had rusted terminally.I had a strange interest in the Aussie 6 cylinder version til Bryce told me it was an even bigger POS with a crap engine and worse handling
I see Marinas here quite often actually the same 2 utes are in regular use they are quite rare cars, longevity was not their strong suit,
Just avoid helicopter based piano moving services…
I couldnt marry “beneath me”.
I was and am The Beneathiest.
Alawys had a soft spot for the Omnirizon. Too bad Chrysler didn’t just update it the way VW did with the Golf. There was one that looked mint in service at the Air Canada hangar here up until a year or so ago. It probably didn’t accumulate many miles running back and forth to the airport.
As a 26 year old member of the supposedly car hating generation y I have to say that if automotive development is indeed going in circles I sincerely hope it circles back to the Imperial and I wish the change over had been never instead of late. I personally have had enough of European (aka German) influence on the automobile, everything from rock hard suspensions, to minimalist coal mine interiors and stark exteriors. There does appear to be hope for a return to the Broughams (aka real cars) though, the Chinese preferences for comfort above all else, the Cadillac concept cars, continued existence of the 300C, ever-growing lengths and widths, adjustable suspensions that can be turned all the way down to marshmallow you can get a Kia Optima with a white diamond pattern leather interior and the new Jeep Grand Cherokee can have blue AND brown leather seating.
being about 10 years older I just want to say AMEN!
I’m tired of hearing European this and Japanese that. Bring on the American cars with character and style. I want a brand new 1968 Eldorado/Toronado/Riviera.
++1 In many regards, cars have become appliances. In many ways, they are far better than cars of the past. But too frequently cars lack character today.
Alternately, so many owners don’t want to express individuality either.
That’s part of the problem. So many choose the silver, white or black cars
as they don’t have the desire/courage to stand out. Cars with different styling
are often made fun of. I think car design is reflecting society and the manufacturers follow these trends.
I remember back in the late 70s, early 80s when full blackout trim was replacing chrome accents. Can’t say I was overly enthused at the time,
as cars were losing identity already.
Part of the problem with color is that, at least in saltier areas, getting a car repainted used to be a maintenance thing every few years. So, it was no big deal to repaint in a different color if the original was unfashionable or you were just tired of it. Now, the finish lasts the car’s lifetime which is itself longer so a dated color is a bigger deal-breaker.
It’s mostly the post-unification cars coming out of Germany which are undesirable. The Golf used to be an honest car, as did the three series. But lately, it’s all been about excess and extreme profitability. In many ways, this represents American influence on the German school of automotive design. And the Chinese influence ain’t helping, in terms of flash and excess.
If anything, the last truly characterful cars were the ultra-conservative hardtop designs, mostly by Toyota and Nissan, sold in Japan and also popular in Taiwan. They were uber-American in concept, if not execution. I guess, though, that there wasn’t enough pretension for today’s market, since they didn’t manage to make an impact beyond those limited markets.
I am more familiar with the Chinese market that most posters here I would wager and of course, comfort is paramount in China, at least with the people with the means to buy it, which is a huge absolute number. You want to see traffic? Well, China has the worst traffic in the world. Most of the time one spends in a car is sitting in traffic, or barely crawling along. That’s where the “comfort” thing comes in. Added to that, many people, even members of the middle class, can afford to hire a driver. G forces don’t mean a whole lot then.
I am really happy we have such a wide variety of choices today. You want brougham? Well, you can have it. Want a stark Teutonic driving environment? Well, you can have that, too. Want to go whole-hog brougham? Well the latest Cadillac stuff from GM seems to foot the bill.
I like choices.
Where’s the choice for a long-low-wide RWD two door hardtop with a V8 for under $30 grand?
Yep gen Y chiming in. No point buying new cars when the most appealing choices are all 20+ years old 😉
We’re in the very very very small minority in wanting something like that. People want their CUV’s and bland midsizers.
The closest we have to the ideal is the Mustang/Camaro/Challenger, and to me each one has its own unique flaw that keeps me from pulling the trigger.
They sent some of those from Australia but Americans wouldnt buy them in sufficient quantities too much power and good roadholding dont suit US driving conditions.
Golf Clap.
There’s hope yet. In top trim, the new Impala and even Cruze offer three interior choices. And we’ve already talked about all the colour combos offered by Fiat.
As a 30 year old member of your generation, I agree completely. Seven available interior “environments” on the new CTS, including “Morello Red” leather. We’re getting there!
During the same timeframe that the Omni and Horizon were sold, Dodge (and Plymouth) dealers were also selling Mitsubishi built Colt hatchbacks (Plymouth Champ from 1979-82).
A couple of thoughts: You left off the failed attempts of Chrysler to sell Hillmans and Sunbeams as conventional small cars, probably easily as dismal as the US homegrown small cars as everyone was still making/selling these in the early mid 70’s. Let’s not forget the whole rack of early mid 70’s Corollas, B210’s I-Marks along with these other RWD rolling punishment devices. It was the regime at the time.
Until the Civic, the Golf and (for the US) the Omni came along, everyone pimped a RWD small car. To be sure there was the Simca/Chrysler and Saab with their early FWD cars, but FWD really didn’t gain critical mass until the second fuel crisis of the late 1970’s. Regarding the RWD compacts though, by your reasoning weren’t all the automakers punishing their client base for wanting a small car?
Also, the sainted Fox body was rather roomy considering it’s RWD origins. I can remember clearly getting into my brother’s brand new 1978 Zephyr (Fairmont clone) and being amazed at how much room it had compared to my parent’s 1974 Montego. And the Montego was huge compared to the Zephyr, at least on the outside.
There were similar comparisons with early B-Bodies compared to their predecessors, too. Granted, nothing has the space utilization like a FWD car (which is why they’re nearly universal now), but just before the assimilation happened, there were a few RWD cars that did rather well in the interior space race. I think contemporary BMW’s are still holding up well in that regard.
The OmniRizon made a big mark on the automotive landscape here in the US. But by the time it went away, it was just one of the crowd.
Sign me up for a turbo L body, that’s how I want to remember them.
The failure of various Simca and Rootes cars was probably a blessing in disguise for Chrysler. So few people bought them, and were familiar with their vices, that they didn’t have much of an impact on the public perception of Chrysler.
A family up the street from us bought a brand-new Plymouth Cricket in 1971, and I’ve seen only one other Cricket since that time. By 1978, the average new car buyer probably had no idea what a Plymouth Cricket was – which was fortunate for Chrysler.
The Cricket was one hell of a half hearted sell on the part of Chrysler. It got very little ad space, the back page of the catalog, and a very muted “built by Chrysler UK” in the credits. Meanwhile the Mitsubishi built Dodge (Colt?) got a lot of ad space and the advertising was absolutely screaming “made in Japan”.
Its almost like somebody forced Chrysler to bring the car over, and once it was decided to do so, immediately lost all enthusiasm for the project. No matter what the quality of the car, it didn’t have a chance. The importing almost reminded me of Dihatsu twenty years later.
I live where both Mitsubishi Colts and Hillman Avengers/Crickets sold quite well Ive not seen a Colt recently at all rust ate them and there are only 4 Avengers that I see regularly. Made in Japan did not draw buyers here in the 70s it repelled them
On the second paragraph, it’s important to insert “in the U.S. and Japan.” In Europe, FWD small cars were exploding even the first oil crisis, starting with the Fiat 127 — which was Europe’s best-selling car for a fair amount of the early ’70s — and then the Renault 5 and Peugeot 104, followed by the Golf and then the Polo. These weren’t niche products; they were rapidly becoming the European mainstream and well before development began on the Horizon or Ford Fiesta.
I still own the 74 Montego 2dr MX Brougham my dad bought brand new on May 11, 1974. White with a white/gold interior. He got $700 trade for his (believe it or not) 65 Impala SS! That Impala was the first new car he bought. Although I was only a month past being 7.5 years old, I remember as if it happened today, the salesman looking at the Impala (which was still sharp in mettalic blue) then looking back at my dad saying ” that’s a pretty clean old impala, I don’t know if I’ll wholesale it or keep it for myself as a fishing car”. Of course today the Impala is worth 50 times what the Montego is. But I don’t care, I basically grew up in the Montego. I also have my grandmother’s 74 Impala Sport Coupe that was also free, as was the Montego.
To answer your question, I believe that yes, automotive evolution has slowed, especially in the last decade. Of course it varies significantly by type of vehicle and manufacturer. It seems today that cars will minimally change in design for 2 or 3 generations, before a more significant restyle.
I like the late-80s Chrysler lace-spoke alloys on the white Omni you photographed. Adds a little class. One thing that I always find interesting is how nice the front seats in the Omnirizon looked. They look much more comfortable and supportive than seats in similar sized cars from the ’80s.
Auto evolution has slowed because automakers are mandated to put the bulk of their efforts on the environmental and safety fronts, not general vehicle dynamics and styling.
I understand your argument, but respectfully disagree. Once could argue that marketers and financial obligations have too great an influence on modern car design.
No one wants to take a risk which may alienate shareholders and the compulsion to appeal to the lowest common denominator of gen-Y globally is something I feel is responsible for making cars as dull as they are today.
Real uniqueness is too dangerous.
I would also respectfully disagree, Syke. Cars today, especially the Korean brands, are all about “features,” because “features” sell. This is really apparent in the lower-market brands looking for first time buyers, meaning young people.
I also don’t see increasing safety as a bad goal. I recently went car shopping for my niece. We drove quite a few but the ones with the best safety ratings also felt the most solid on the road. No surprise there, more metal, and better design means better driving dynamics and crash-worthiness. In fact, when I showed her the Elantra offset crash test, it was a deal-breaker for her on that car compared to the one she actually bought.
E.L. Cord was credited as saying, “When designers discover the wind tunnel, all cars will look the same.” That’s where we are now. Cars are getting better, and cheaper, all the time, but they are also getting more generic, because the wind only likes one shape. However, it seems to me that even in the 1950-1960’s era we all opine about, there really wasn’t a whole lot of difference in most maker’s cars.
Many base level cars do have less than stellar driving dynamics, mostly because money spent on doo-hickies could have been put into better handling dynamics but most of the buyers of these cars don’t know the difference.
Finally, any old Falcon I ever drove was hardly a paragon of driving dynamics.
Newer Falcons suffer from the same problem awful dynamics they simply do not steer or stop well
Auto evolution has slowed down for one very big and obvious reason: it’s a mature technology. And the key evolutionary steps to that were in the late sixties, early seventies, in cars like the Simca 1100 and VW Golf, and others.
Of course there continues to be evolution, but not at the apparent rate it once was. It’s continued refinement, much of that focused on making production more efficient while still increasing the content of high tech features.
Refrigerators and dish washers aren’t exactly evolving all that rapidly anymore either.
I agree with this statement, but even when taken into account, it doesn’t fully explain the lack of attention to engaging dynamics or homogeneity in today’s marketplace.
The drive to load cars up with features while keeping shareholders happy is a major factor which isn’t given enough attention. It IS possible to have cars without automatics and power steering (or electric steering assist, which saves vastly more money than gas and is an example of how buyers are being shortchanged), and I don’t believe that buyers won’t want them.
There is a real lack of straightforward engineering in today’s offerings, and I don’t believe it has to do with safety regulation or maturing technology.
I am in the market for a new car. More than a few that I have driven indeed have “engaging dynamics.” Perhaps you need to try a few more cars.
I also disagree that cars have a “real lack of straightforward engineering.” Cars are safer, faster and more economical that ever. That requires good engineering.
Thus, everything you decry is indeed readily available but perhaps not in the segment in which your are looking.
I think electric power steering is an example of a still basically immature technology. Most of the complaints about it are very similar to the complaints originally levied against hydraulic power steering in the ’50s and early ’60s (a lot of which were justified, of course). Hydraulic power steering got progressively better to the point where people now wax nostalgic about its gradual demise.
By the same token, electric assist is improving — and more rapidly than hydraulic steering did. The preliminary reviews of the Porsche 991, for instance, suggest that Porsche has come up with an electrically assisted rack that gives away very little to hydraulic assist. (I haven’t driven a 991 or a 997 for that matter, but the road tests have been indicated that you’d have to drive the hydraulic and electric systems back to back to pick out the differences and even then a lot of it is subjective.) In the not terribly distant future, electric steering assist will work as well as or better than hydraulic assist. I have no doubts about that.
Whether that will mean better steering feel for workaday consumer cars is another matter, but that has more to do with manufacturers’ perception of the average driver’s tastes than the actual technological capabilities. The average driver doesn’t necessarily consider steering feedback a good thing (it’s not like a lot of hydraulic-assist mainstream cars have excelled in that area) and having one less belt to wear out and squeal has its points.
What happened to the days when a buyer had a choice of what they wanted on their car, and could personalize it ordered to his or her tastes? Now everything is sold as a “Package”, and is crammed down consumers throats like it or not, including such things as I do not want on my car, like park assist and navigation systems. Neat? Yes. Necessary. No way. Bottom line: consumers are forced to unwittingly pay more for “innovative features” without getting a choice of what they really want.
Amen to Pshoar: Real uniqueness is too dangerous.
Coincidently, there’s a new article over at TTAC titled ‘Generation Why, No Job, No Money, No Car’ that may help explain the general lack of auto evolution:
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2013/10/generation-why-no-job-no-money-no-car/
To me, the decline of auto evolution began long ago when the most engaging/exciting car style, the two-door hardtop, stopped selling and went the way of the dodo. The only two-door domestic products left are low-volume, niche vehicles like ponycars/convertibles. Everything else, including the so-called ‘performance’ versions, is a 4-door sedan of some sort.
IOW, the automotive equivalent of a refrigerator or dish washer.
I’m not sure what you mean by “auto evolution” Do you mean style changes or technological advances? Cars may not have changed in appearance much in the last ten years but, technologically speaking the advancements have been dramatic. Back in the “stylin’ days” little changed but the skin, underneath they were the same ol’ cars
I spend a lot of time thinking about this: “Has automotive evolution really slowed down that much? ” I think so. But maybe it’s my age, and I tend to discount the refinements seen in the last 30 years or so. I think about the features and technology that were adopted by almost all manufacturers and became mainstream for many, between about 1968 and 1983 … wide low profile tires; bucket seats and floor shifters; “overdrive” transmissions (5 speed manual or 4 speed auto); radial tires and disc brakes; rack and pinion steering; fuel injection, catalytic converters and other emission controls; hatchbacks and unit bodies. Etc etc. Sure there are refinements like ABS and traction control; as well as airbags and nav systems. Perhaps hybrid drive is now common enough to be considered a huge step in technology. But rather than compare a 35 year old Omnirizon with a 15 year older Imperial, how about comparing that modern-looking Mopar with a 30+ year older small car … say a ‘Willys Aero or HenryJ (or the ’54 Hillman Minx that brought be home from the hospital when I was born). Now those just look old to me.
I had a 1979 TC3 Plymouth Horizon with the 1.7L VW and a 4 speed, it was a pretty good little beater for me. My future wife had a 1984 Dodge Omni with the 2.2L and an automatic, what a piece of crap engine and it had less miles and overall wear than my ’79. The VW engine just ran and ran, dispite my beating the crap out of it.
1. “The inevitability of modern European design” is so depressing, looking at that contrast with the Imperial. Ugh. But my opinion is already a matter of record on that. And, in designing a true compact car, it makes sense.
2. Anyway that said, I have actually seen a Shelby version in the flesh. Was at a gas station in rural CT with my ’77 Electra, what pulls in but an Omni. I saw the classic plates, asked about the year, and he explained about his special Omni. And then roared off.
3. My other experience with these was with one of my grandmother’s friends. My maternal grandmother, and most of her friends, were widows. Their kids (including my mom’s family) had all grown up together. We’ll call the widows Evelyn, Betty, and Margie though none of those are their names. They were some of the first older people I knew to adopt smaller cars (unlike my paternal grandparents and their friends, who drove big cars until they died or could no longer drive). My grandmother (“Evelyn”) had a Mazda GLC hatchback, and her best friends/cronies had a little puke green Subaru hatchback (“Betty”) (don’t know the model but not a BRAT), and a pale blue Omni (“Margie”). They were big plant and garden people and I remember all of those little hatchbacks having flowers unloaded from the back by my parents’ generation when they came to visit their children (who still hung out as 30/40 something adults). The cars were all late 70s, early 80s models and were kept by the three elderly ladies for over 10 years…replaced with their respective last cars: a Honda Civic sedan (“Evelyn”), a Plymouth Acclaim (“Betty”), and a Chevrolet Corsica (“Margie”).
Of the second set of cars, my grandmother’s Honda was far and away the best of the three. Of the first set, they were all durable, long-lived cars. There is definitely something to be said for the 80s compacts from Japan–and from Chrysler.
If it was a choice between the Omni/Horizon or the chevette, I would take the chevette hands down. With a small bit of maintenance the ‘Vette would be still running and would be running on its original engine and trans. The Chevette engine(gas version) and the THM-180 were bullet proof. The Omni/Horizon was crippled with a crap transmission. The A404 was a POS and the revised A404(renamed A413) was still a POS. Coupled with the 2.2l(1981) which ate headgaskets and ruined the head, it is a wonder there are still examples on the road.
LMAO! Sure, both cars have their supporters and detractors, their pros and cons. But the Chevette was in no way superior. Not in technology, roominess, reliability, durability, or economy. Omnis and Chevettes are both rare sights anywhere by now. What makes it a wonder either still has examples on the road is the fact the newest example of a ‘Vette is now 27 years old and the newest Omni is 24 years old.
My first brand-new car purchase was an ’89 Omni. $6k out the door – the rebates made it look like the best value in the subcompact field, and it was. All the competition had ~1.6 liters, but by ’89, the base (and only) engine was the 2.2.
That was a lot of engine for this car, and the payoff was in the tall gears and lots of torque. 40+ mpg wasn’t out of the question on the highway.
The only downside was that by the time I paid off the Omni (4 years and 60k miles), the book value was only $600!
In Europe in its day the 1100 (1204) series were a hughe hit.
Maybe because the hotter versions were easy identifiable from the lower range models. And there was a vast range of models.
The 1100 Special with two additional Cibie driving lights in the grille and the even hotter Ti with four driving lights and alloy wheels were really popular.
A family hot saloon/hatch for Opel Kadett money.
With the Horizon the range got bland, no real identification between the models and the shape was too neutral. No additional drivinglights and small stuff that make a model more interesting.
The Horizon also drove worse then the 1100, I believe Chrysler wanted the Horizon to be too much of everbody’s friend on each continent, ending up with just nothing.
They boasted about the electronic ignition but actually Volkswagen leaped into the gap that the 1100 had left.
By simply making a car that did have personality.
While the US does not get a US front driver of any sales stature until the Omnirizon, it took us as long, or longer, to get a front driver from either Toyota or Nissan – remember? The Honda’s success was already apparent by this time, but it wasn’t only Detroit that didn’t get with the program – remember?
And – both Toyota and Nissan made their bones on small cars, while Detroit was busy selling big cars and trucks, along with their Vegas, Gremlins and Pintos. Omnirizon puts FWD with transverse mounted engines on showroom floors, but Toyota’s Tercel puts FWD with longistudinal mounted engines on their lots TWO YEARS LATER and Nissan was still working on it.
Tokyo wasn’t being any more delinquent than Detroit over the direction of small cars, were they? And they had more to lose by being behind having only small car competition. So, what was their story to “finally embrace the inevitability…?”
The Omnirizon was a trailblazer, not only for US makes, but for the entire small car market. It’s launch and success shouldn’t be seen as Detroit finally getting it’s head out of it’s ass, as it is written here – it should be seen as a moment when Detroit put their own mark on an auto design we still live with today.
I remember thinking, “about time!” too – but in hindsight, the “inevitability” not embraced until 1978 from a US manufacturer shouldn’t be seen that way – in my opinion.
With the exception of the very advanced FWD Civic and Accord, yes, Toyota and Nissan and some of the other Japanese manufacturers were very conservative about the shift to FWD.
But, and it’s a big but, the Japanese RWD compact cars being built in the pre-FWD era were decidedly more practical in their packaging than the RWD small cars Detroit gave us. The Vega and Pinto were designed to look like mini-Camaros and Mustangs, and their seating positions, rear seat room, trunk space, lack of four door, etc… all made them very cute perhaps, but decidedly less functional as an alternative to a larger car. Never mind the Gremlin with its optional but utterly useless rear seat.
The Japanese RWD cars were boxier and taller than the Vega and Pinto, offered four doors, and four door wagon versions, and were consistently rated higher in terms of functionality in comparison tests. The 1971 six-car C/D comparison I’ve done a version of here makes that quite clear: the only reason the Corolla didn’t win was because it only had a 1200cc engine, which was rectified a year or two later with the 1600 and five speed.
The same goes for many European RWD cars of the era; I’ve consistently pointed out the excellent Opel 1900 as being a much better alternative to the Vega, and many have wondered why it wasn’t built by GM instead here.
Detroit had a weird attitude to its small cars back then: perceived cuteness over functionality, as well as quality. I wonder where that came from?
GM and Ford were trying to make the Vega and Pinto into “Mini-me” versions of their respective pony cars, but the Gremlin’s styling was driven more by desperation than anything else. AMC wanted to enter the subcompact market, but simply did not have the money to tool up for an all-new car.
Chopping the back off the Hornet was a fast – and very cheap – way for AMC to have an entry in this new segment. That the car’s styling was very polarizing was, from AMC’s standpoint, a bonus, given that it had to stand out from not only the anticipated GM and Ford offerings, but also the imports. As for the lack of back-seat room – people were not buying VW Beetles because of their spacious back seat or commodious trunk in the late 1960s.
I would also argue that, whatever its faults, the Gremlin was the only one of the three that didn’t seriously damage the reputation of its parent corporation in the long run.
What AMC needed, in retrospect, was a partnership with a foreign company (preferably a Japanese one) by the late 1960s. That would have given the company access to more development funds and desperately needed new small-car technology. Absent that development, it’s easy to see why AMC went with the Gremlin and its oddball styling. Considering the paltry amount of money AMC spent to develop the car, it was probably more of a sales success (relative to the parent corporation’s total sales) than either the Vega or the Pinto.
I believe it was at TTAC where I threw brick-bats at the Chevrolet Vega and at Detroit for similar reasons. A family friend had a 1969 Corolla. It was a revelation. It was a small Valiant, completely practical, functional and understandable. It made no pretense of sporting abilities. It was just a remarkable – tinny, yeah – but a logical work of engineering.
While we can admire these cars – the Omnirizon should also be admired for putting Detroit on the map regarding the modern small car in America. While Vegas, Gremlins and Pintos were selling by the millions and stereotyping American small cars as crappy mini-pony-cars, we shouldn’t clump all of Detroit together into this Vega Gulag of incompetence or stupidity.
The Falcon, the 1963 Valiant/Dart, the Corvair, the Chevy II were all first-rate cars a decade earlier in auto history. The Falcon was engineered with a remarkable eye towards European-style budgeting and design. The Corvair broke the mold on both sides of the Atlantic and inspired European car designs well into the 1970s. The Slant 6 was a bulletproof masterpiece of engineering that lasted nearly 40 years on the marketplace in some guise.
So, yeah – Detroit gave us some of the most pathetic rides in the subcompact class – but there must have been a reason behind these cars’ mini-pony layout over what had come before from the same companies. Detroit knew how to make a 1969 Corolla. It knew how to make an Opel 1900. It knew how to make a Mini or a Civic. It didn’t.
And those Vegas/Pintos/Gremlins sold. They weren’t a marketplace failure. They were a bastardization of engineering excellence, but they sold and sold and sold. Something had to be up with that. Can millions of American car buyers be wrong, for so long?
So, I’m questioning any charges that Detroit couldn’t produce a FWD/transverse mounted/4 cylinder/five seater/hatchback because it couldn’t figure out what the European manufacturers figured out in their home markets.
Honda needed a winner and something memorable. It gave us an awesome Civic.
Subaru needed a winner and something memorable. It gave us 4WD boxer engines.
Mazda needed a winner and something memorable. It gave us Wankles.
VW needed a new winner and something memorable. It gave us the Golf.
Chrysler needed a winner and something memorable. It gave us the Omnirizon.
GM and Ford owned the market. They didn’t have to try. That doesn’t mean they couldn’t have done it. They didn’t need to. When their Vegas and Pintos began failing in the Market by 1980 – they gave us FWD/Transverse mounted 4-cylinder/five seater/hatchs too. When their Corollas and B210s began failing against the new FWD cars from the Tier Two Japanese makes, Toyota and Nissan did the same thing as GM and Ford.
The front-wheel-drive Ford Escort debuted in this country in the fall of 1980. Ford had it under development long before 1980, if that, in fact, was the year that the Pinto “began failing.”
Pinto sales actually held up reasonably well in the late 1970s and 1980, considering the age of the car, the entire gas-tank fiasco, and the fact that the American economy was in a serious recession by the fall of 1979.
pinto was not great, but did its job. got us to erika. 1981 escort.
mustang II was not great, but it got us to panther/fox.
they may suck in hindsight–at the time, but they were average when the world was falling apart and they did *well enough* to stay alive.
i give them credit…as history looks back.
+1 (to Vanilla Dude)(I just saw where this falls in the threads)
Your comment went where I was headed with my earlier comment. Of course, you’ve elaborated far beyond what I was able to do.
My sentiments, exactly.
Another thing to point its when they were designed, the Vega was pretty much locked in between 1968-1969, during the tail end of the pony car boom and still in the zenith of the muscle car era, so its styling is largely influenced by that era.
On the latter point, I was reflecting on that yesterday, and not just in regard to the small cars of the ’70s. Both the first Ford Falcon and Chevy II have a kind of stubby, dinky vibe that really belies their actual dimensions — they’re a lot bigger than they look.
I tend to think of the Vega and the Maverick as being part of the same general school of thought, which was heavily influenced by the success of the Mustang. I could even say that of the Gremlin, if you consider the Project IV car on which it was based; in that light it seems like a sporty car that was watered down into an economy car.
As for the Pinto, my guess is that its shape was a sign of Detroit’s misreading of the popularity of the Beetle and the assumption that Beetle buyers were looking at it in the same way they might compare a Galaxie and an Impala. The Pinto seems like what you’d get if a Detroit design studio was asked to do something that looked sort of like a Beetle, but designed after WW2 and with the engine in front.
I always appreciate your insights.
I sense that the first gas crisis not only killed the muscle car, it also killed the mid-size and full size cars styled in that manner. Since the domestic subcompacts were also designed as a pony car, their design was also wrong – but they could do the job necessary after the gas crisis.
The subcompact market went from being an entry-level car for young people, or a second car, to a family vehicle after the gas crisis. But their designs weren’t family friendly, being low two-door hatches. If we recall the Japanese offerings before and after the gas crisis, we see Datsun taking a fabulous sedan design, fit for the future – OFF the market and replaced by an overstyled version of it that had no foresight post gas crisis. The Datsun 510 is head and shoulders above it’s successor.
Ford and GM had two mini-pony subcompact cars that were priced right, and gave enough gas mileage to find an entirely new marketing niches beyond what these car manufacturers imagined when the Pinto and the Vega were originally designed. These cars were not designed for the folks who bought them post gas crisis. This created a good short-term problem, but also created a bad long-term problem.
A Pinto or a Vega could satisfy a 20 year old’s needs, but not a 35 year old parent’s – but after 1974, it was these older buyers who bought these cars. Naturally, this is a mismatch as older buyers found these cars to be poorly designed for their family needs. These cars were not designed to undergo the wear and tear of a family or be loaded up in the way they started to be used. Instead of shuffling to a community college, or being the love chariot of a young couple until their first child, Vegas and Pintos began doing the work once done by medium and full sized cars.
How many times did the gas crisis make a buyer feel forced into a Vega, a Pinto or a Gremlin? A whole hell of a lot. So how long could these cars satisfy this kind of buyer? Not very long. We end up seeing thousands of Americans buying these cars not because they really wanted them, but because they felt they needed to. That is a poor recipe for happy consumers, and it was what happened. Forced customers are not happy ones.
These cars were not designed for a post gas crisis American market, but they still sold well enough to be very successful, profitable and fit the bit for millions of Americans, happy or not.
Having the wrong kind of buyers in your cars can injure a brand in the long run. Just as pumping out cars without assembling them correctly in order to meet demand, hurts a brand – not meeting the expectations of buyers that a vehicle was not originally designed for, is also a problem.
Pintos and Vegas were better than a Beetle in most ways. But they weren’t better than the older and larger Chrysler A body cars. The assumption that the newer subcompacts should be better than the 1967-era Valiant is a natural one, but in this case, also an incorrect one since the Pintos and Vegas weren’t supposed to aim for the Valiant niche anyway.
Finally, Pintos and Vegas were the most successful of the small cars of their era, and became targets by every auto manufacturer needing a piece of the small car US market. After forty years of being targeted, it is time to put these cars into their proper place and frankly, stop targeting them for not being what they were never designed to be. It is time to stop belittling Detroit over how they handled the gas crisis and stop using that era’s missteps as an excuse to belittle the Big Three. We didn’t see either Toyota or Nissan doing much better.
That includes me, as well. I am seeing the Pinto and Vega differently. While they weren’t great cars, they shouldn’t be a forever curse among us car afficianados.
Great write up! Having ‘come of age’ in the early ’70s, the Pinto and Vega certainly served their purpose as smaller, entry level cars. Sure, in hindsight they could have been better.
I’m a huge defender of the Mustang II personally. While it gets all the hate as a gussied-up Pinto, people have to be reminded that it sold millions, and perhaps helped keep the badge alive.
Having been in the car repair business, I have seen loads of Omnirizons. Like previous posters have stated, the ones with the VW engines were pretty good cars for the most part. Yes, the carbs acted up a lot and yes, they were notorious for water leaks (like all Mopar stuff is in these parts) but the cars were as good as anything else out there and better than some. I always thought they drove like a dumbed-down Rabbit, but I also realise the target market was coming from Dreamwhip Ride ™ and expected something pretty soft. Fair enough.
The later ones with 2.2 were not as good as they ate head gaskets and this often spoiled the head. That didn’t mean much in Canuckistan as our Peso was not worth much at the time, so cheap cars like the Omnirizon has a real following, especially among seniors. In Victoria, many of these cars ended up with grandkids who proceeded to beat the bark of the things. But really, in the late 1980’s these cars were everywhere. I remember automatics being sold for $6300 at the time, dirt cheap.
Head gasket hungry 2.2L’s were more of an issue on the early versions. By ’84 or so head gaskets weren’t so much a problem, and the 2.2’s, especially the fuel-injected ones, were mostly bullet proof. Loved Chrysler’s design of the non-interference engine. Very good design, which should have been more widely adopted…especially since most companies build in enough things to kill their cars without that needing to be one of them.
http://www.allpar.com/eek/k/k.html See “Drivetrains” @ 1/2 thru the article.
These cars are completly integrated into the warp and weft of my life during my teens and early 20s.
Most of the kids I went to high school with whose parents were flush enough to buy new cars for their children to beat on bought OmniRizon sedans or Turismo/Omni 024 coupes,including the girl who broke my heart in high school. She got a red Horizon America sedan from her father when she passed her drivers’ test.
The driver training cars at Keystone AAA Driving School where I spent an appreciable part of early 1988 in between showings of “Blood on the Highway” and “Signal 30” were OmniRizons. My favorite aunt and uncle had a ’78 Horizon (with the VW engine) when my uncle was in the seminary back in the early 80s. I remember staying with my grandparents during the summer of 1983 and my aunt and uncle taking me to Hershey Park in that car.
Although I am the anti-Syke when it comes to my taste in cars, one of these has been tucked among the Sedan deVilles, Continental Mark IIIs and Imperial LeBarons of my MM garage for years. Even if I have to max out my credit card and stiff the electric company for a month or two, when a clean OmniRizon sedan crosses my path for the right money I am going to pounce like a lion on a wounded zebra.
These were good cars. As a young car guy I read about the SImca origins and VW engine. That made the Omni/Horizon somewhat appealing but I also knew that the VW Rabbit was superior in every way – acceleration, handling, build quality and styling – at least until the Westmoreland versions came out.
I would have never bought one, though I could certainly see the appeal to the average American compact shopper. Fuel economy, room and, compared to American cars before, crisp styling and driving characteristics. A Chevette it wasn’t.
The Omni/Horizon offered traditional touches that Americans were fond of like power steering and push-button controls for the HVAC. Those push-buttons were charmingly “not VW” and really stood out to me. As did that deep dished wheel which had a ferocious tendency to self-center after a turn.
Speaking of the Rabbit it was so good that even Isuzu mentioned the VW placed first in a magazine comparison test, in one of their ads. They went on to sheepish say that the I-Mark came in second place.
Any access to a scan/link to the ad or comparison test? It’d make for great reading.
I remember it like it was yesterday and yet an internet search turned up nothing. That it could be referred to as a better car in a competitor’s ad said a lot about the Rabbit. It was viewed as universally good.
Hope it wasn’t my mind playing tricks with me. Here’s another one… I very vaguely remember a news item about a weaving, hands-off-the-steering-wheel car, I think it was the Omni. Or maybe I manufactured the memory because of how strong the self-centering steering was when I drove one the first time. Actually I thought it was fun.
Car and Driver compared several small cars in a test published in either the August or September 1978 issue. I’m pretty sure that the test included the Chevrolet Chevette, Honda Civic, Toyota Corolla and VW Rabbit. I can’t remember if the Omni/Horizon were included.
Soon after the Omni/Horizon debuted, Consumer Reports rated the cars as “unacceptable” because their test car failed to properly “return to center” when the testers jerked the wheel to the left or right and didn’t place their hands on the wheel.
It was all much ado about nothing…most people didn’t take the test seriously (Just keep your hands on the steering wheel when driving- DUH!) and Omni/Horizon sales weren’t affected.
The most interesting thing about CR’s seemingly unfounded condemnation of the Omni/Horizon because the one they tested didn’t return to center when the steering wheel was wildly wrenched in one direction while at speed, is how little impact it seemed to have on the respect for the magazine. They had managed to kill off the little Suzuki Samurai with their ‘not recommended’ rating because of its propensity to rollover, then tried it again with the Omni/Horizon. Unfortunately, not many seemed to take the bait the second time around.
And yet, to this day, CR remains one of the leading references for new vehicle purchases.
Rudiger: You got the timeline backwards, CR hooned-and-whined the Omni in 1978 and the Samurai in 1986-7.
Ha, a handling test that involves no hands? No wonder it was scary! That’s so stupid I can’t even…
Sorry but it wasn’t just the hands off test that the Omnirizon failed, it also failed an avoidance maneuver test where the hands were on the wheel and the car often ended up spinning. While Chrysler initially denied there was a problem they made changes to the car and recalled cars to fit steering dampers. http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr1309.pdf Personally I was in an Omnirizon when some one cut us off on the freeway. We came to rest in the median facing the opposite direction we were traveling. According to my uncle who was driving it wasn’t the first time that had happened. He had recently received a big L&I settlement and had purchased two of them just a month or so before that particular incident.
“As did that deep dished wheel which had a ferocious tendency to self-center after a turn.”
Oh, my – do I ever remember the way that steering wheel would whip itself back to center. I was driving a 71 Scamp with the old Chrysler “park it with your pinkie” power steering, and when I would drive Mom’s Horizon, it took quite an adjustment in driving style.
The talk about prices just reminded me that my ’82 Omni was the first time I ever got a rebate on a car, and, I believe, one of the first manufacturer’s rebates offered.
I now remember closing the deal on a Friday, with intentions of a Monday pickup, as the car didn’t have a heated rear window and the dealership had a jobber come in and add them. Over the weekend Chrysler upped the already set rebate of $200.00 (yeah, this was in the early days of rebates) to $400.00. I don’t remember the price of the car, but once I figured in the trade on my POS ’79 Monza, it was a fair percentage of what had to come out of my pocket.
I also remember getting a very good trade offer on that Monza – when then preceded to sit on the dealer’s used car lot for the next year and a half. Things were grumbly enough in ’85 about that car that I bought the Caravan from the Dodge dealer in the next town over. Which was the only Dodge I ever bought at a competing dealership, such were the family ties.
I’ll put my experience on the table. Back in 1978, my mother was completely fed up with her pea green Pinto wagon with green interior. She hated, among many things, the way it handled in the Ohio winters and the horrible gas mileage (apparently, it was so underpowered that real-world gas mileage was similar to the 1967 turquoise 289 Mustang that was traded in for it and that the salesman actually ended up buying it for his daughter). My parents were eyeing both the Pacer wagon and the Rabbit, but they were worried about AMC’s survival at the time and the Rabbit was too expensive, so they looked to the new Horizon. As most of the ones at the lot were base models, they custom ordered an up-level model with two-tone dark-over-light-brown, automatic, air, cloth interior and no power steering or brakes for about the same price as a base Rabbit. Although my father felt that power steering took away the road feel, neither one of them realized that how much effort it took to steer a front-wheel-drive car with no power steering. The extreme vibration in the wheel at idle didn’t help either.
The big issue, however, was the fact that it kept breaking down. Shortly after we brought it home, it had to be towed back to the dealer and we ended up with a Volare loaner for 2 weeks. Then it broke down again and again. The quality of these cars was, overall, atrocious. I believe that’s the reason why there are so few pre-1984 Horizons or Omni’s still around.
Unfortunately, since my parents had good experiences with the Mustang and (quality-wise) the Pinto, they didn’t realize how far that Chrysler in particular, and the American auto industry in general, had fallen. My father convinced himself that these were just first-year bugs and ordered himself a handsome black-over-silver 1979 Dodge Omni with red vinyl interior, auto, air, stereo(!), wheel covers and a clock to replace his 1974 Super Beetle. He quickly learned that the Horizon’s issues weren’t just first-year bugs.
Now mind you, they were stylish, comfortable well designed cars, and my parents actually liked them. When they were running. Not surprisingly, they were replaced with two Nissans (1983 Sentra and 1984 Stanza) that were like a breath of fresh air after the Omni & Horizon.
I would love to find that Omni someday, though. It was sharp.
This is a very informative article on a car that I never paid much attention to. I always thought of the Omnirizon twins as just a knock-off of the VW Rabbit, right down to the engine! The comparison with the Imperial isn’t particularly fitting though. These were never marketed to the same people in their day. Perhaps a 1960 Valiant?
I agree. I liked the piece, but I didn’t really understand the Imperial to Omni comparison. It isn’t like one replaced the other and a comparison to a ’60 Valiant would have been just as striking.
The only point of comparison to the imperial was to point out just how drastically different cars were within 15 years.
To turn the analogy on its head, imagine what the Omni would have looked like if Ex had designed it!
I loved these! Especially toward the end when they had the high back bucket seats and I think maybe even a driver side airbag. Someone in town had a light blue one with blue interior, probably a very late 80’s model. Looked good.
My Dad had a 76 Rabbit which we used to say was rabid. He replaced it with an 84 Horizon. 2.2 with a 5 speed stick. The Rabbit was more fun to drive and handled better but the Horizon was more comfortable and a lot more dependable. He and Mom took it from Atlanta to Los Angeles once with my sister and cousin in tow. I rode with him and my brother and his wife from Atlanta to Central PA. and back, it was not to bad considering both my brother and I are over 6 Feet tall. I bought an 87 Omni 2.2 5 speed in Nov. 86 when I was driving 60 miles a day. It was dependable also and trimmed better than the 84, really pretty nice for an econo car. Both of them would get 37-40 Hwy MPG. I sold mine to my Dad to replace his 84 when mine had about 80K miles on it and he sold his 84 with about 120K on it to neighbor when he bought mine. I bought a 92 Saturn to replace the Omni from a friend who worked for Saturn. The Omni had much better power than the Saturn but the Saturn felt so much more secure at 80 plus MPH. The Omni seemed a light in the front end if you got it over 75. After Mom passed away the same neighbor bought my old Omni from Dad. Would love to have a Scamp or Rampage pick up version of one of these. Really all I need and I am sure better mileage and Comfort than probably anything else out there if you do not need to haul a lot.
In terms of auto evolution, I think that the industry reaches periodic plateaus of development during which you get gradual development of existing technology, which is where things have been since roughly the early ’80s. During the past 25 years there’s been a continuation of various trends (computerization and aerodynamics chief among them) in formats largely established in the ’70s.
Plateaus aren’t a bad thing for consumers. You get mature technology that is reasonably reliable and gives good overall performance for the time. Periods of seismic development shift can end up being painful and expensive for everyone concerned and make people nostalgic for the previous plateau.
Trying to predict the next big shakeup is a foolhardy endeavor — looking at people in the ’60s talking about the future of the automobile is mostly good for a laugh — but I’m assuming it’s going to be hybridization/electrification (probably more the former than the latter, barring a major breakthrough in energy storage technology for which people have been waiting more than 50 years). To what extent that will impact the way cars look or whether it will unseat the current four-door sedan/CUV/five-door hatch paradigm I don’t know, although I doubt it. American cars of the ’50s didn’t look dramatically different just for having OHV V-8s, automatic transmission, power steering and power brakes.
Absolutely, it is interesting to see people perceive that cars are currently plateauing/stagnant, while the interventionist safety technologies are getting into even low-priced cars – lane departure control, automatic braking etc – and it seems that limited automatic driving is only being held back by legal issues, all the technical pieces exist. Limited meaning stop outside a parking garage and let the car go and find its own space, as I don’t think the systems are reliable or sophisticated enough to be unleashed on the open road/city streets even if they are as good as or better than the average distracted driver!
If the next seismic shift is driverless cars, you bet we’ll be missing the last(current) plateau. Whoever’s in favor of that has clearly never played a video game laced with computer controlled traffic, like Grand Theft Auto, and seen the immediatey obvious flaws of intermixing human controlled vehicles in a dense environment with them. The persuit of this fantasy is about as good of an idea as flying cars was, the only difference being that the laziness of human nature actually is trying to rationalize it and give it a go. Its shocking this is tied up in the courts though, lawyers will make a guaranteed killing.
Realistically, driverless cars are really some ways off, although that may come eventually. What John is talking about is more like the gradual adoption of things like radar/lidar-based cruise control and the like.
I think there’s going to be a bigger market for stuff like self-parking cars (how many people, even enthusiasts, enjoy parallel parking?), but I doubt that would mean driver-controlled cars are going away in our lifetimes — at least not because of that. Look at it this way: A lot of people assumed 60 years ago that manual transmissions would be going the way of the hand crank within a few years and it still hasn’t happened. (And even if the three-pedal car disappears, it’ll be because the manual transmission has been replaced with dual-clutch boxes instead.)
I think I see some of what Paul’s trying to convey here, that in 1960, pretty much all of automotivedom was still RWD, mostly front engined, rear wheel drive, with exceptions for those who went mid engined, or rear engined – and of course, the few FWD vehicles, namely European makes.
Those FWD models tended to be cars like the 2CV, the Mini, and of course, SAAB. Then in the 1960’s, developments on what would become the modern FWD car were developed, and made. They were both transverse mounted with separate transaxles bolted on end of the engine, the Simca 1100/1204, and the Autobianchi Premula,
with the 1100/1204 being the first truly modern hatchback, with the Fiat 128 heralding in the fully modern FWD production car we know today with radial tires, OHC motors, McPherson strut suspensions, power disc brakes etc. While some of these were seen in the Simca too, but not all of them in one vehicle, and was considered quite revolutionary when the 128 debuted in 1969.
It has been said that both the Honda Civic, and the VW Rabbit/Golf emulated one or both cars for inspiration when they brought these out in the early to mid 1970’s.
As had been said, the Omni/Horizon twins emulated some of these design elements, especially from the Rabbit when it was in development.
That said, by the early 1980’s, most automakers had gone mostly, or totally FWD for all small to mid sized cars.
So I think the evolution of the paradigm shift in power train layouts, and size seem to have slowed down in recent years, that is, cars aren’t getting smaller, but in some cases growing again, but remaining FWD, and with OHC motors as the US automakers finally shook off most of their older, stodgy designs that were often years out of date.
The assembly process for a modern FWD layout is inherently cheaper and simpler to do so as well. When the whole powertrain can be mated to the car as an assembly with the entire front suspension, essentially only requiring the mounting the subframe itself and struts to the main unibody, that saves enough in process tooling and component cost to make a substantial difference on the grand scale. I have no doubt in my mind that that’s what keeps FWD the darling of the big low priced automakers, old school BOF had similar attributes that kept that layout stagnant for so long.
Front wheel drive also has huge packaging advantages over RWD, which is also a major reason most mainstream sedans are made with it.
The whole argument of which is better, front or rear wheel drive is moot anyway. People toolin’ along in their Camry LE with the Big Gulp while texting wouldn’t even know what wheels are doin’ what, nor would they care. They want a comfy ride that doesn’t cost the farm, one, you know that will take the kids to MikeyD’s and not visit the gas pumps too often.
And that is about 90% of the car business, ladies and germs.
Well the packaging efficiency aspect has been eroded quite substantially in recent times. The AWD option that many platforms are now set up for require a driveshaft tunnel, albeit without as much intrusion for front seat occupants(no longitudinal transmission), and center consoles are wider and bulkier than ever.
Otherwise I’m right with you, if the average customer doesn’t care then it’s a given to go with whatever’s more profitable to build. Automakers clung to RWD for as long as they did for exactly the same reason. I think either have their attributes, so I wasn’t trying to spark up that debate.
Unfortunately, those packaging and assembly advantages are eventually outweighed by service difficulty and expense inherent to most FWD setups. But, there is money in it for the manufacturers, both from the efficiency and from the CAFE boost from space and weight savings. There is no money to be made by providing a car that some poor family man can easily wrench on and keep on the road when it is 20 years old.
It is not like that is not the way that many RWD cars have been assembled for many years. They use sub-frames and the car is dropped on the sub-frame with the engine, trans, suspension and steering all mounted to it. Out back if it has an IRS then that too is usually mounted to a subframe and goes in as a unit. So the only added step is to pop in the drive shaft. The MN/FN cars are a perfect example of a RWD car that used that process quite some time ago. The current Camaro uses a similar set up. The Fox cars were dropped on their front sub-frame with the engine, trans suspension and steering as an assembly.
The MN12s weren’t Ford’s most profitable cars either though. There’s more individual components needed per car for RWD than FWD, Driveshafts, separated differentials, transmission crossmembers and all the necessary hardware needed for them come immediately to mind and those add assembly time and cost money in materials. Plus the new Ponycars are niche vehicles, and they’re generally being priced as such now a days, the bread and butter sub-compact to midsize segments are where FWD is there to stay, simply because it’s more profitable.
I recall the Omnirizon being slapped with a “Not Acceptable” rating by Consumer Reports for years, for failing a strange “directional stability” test that involved cranking the steering wheel all the way in one direction and seeing how long it took for the steering to center itself. The Omnirizon was unique in not self-centering and instead swinging back and forth and therefore failed. It seemed like a ridiculous test, since it simulated something that would never happen in real life driving, except in the event of an epileptic seizure. I think that the Omnirizon finally passed the test or something like that, or more likely, a slight change in caster angle.
An Omnirizon has for years been a daily sight in my town parked at, of all places, a bank branch. It probably belongs to an employee. It is in very good condition with only slightly oxidized paint. It is a favorable statement about the durability of the Omnirizon and would make a good ad for the bank, supporting a “look how thrifty we are!” message.
I’ll count myself lucky that my sole experience with these cars was as a passenger in a UK spec Talbot Horizon rental in 1984. That seemed like an OK car relative to our 1977 Honda Accord.
One note on the ergonomics of this little piglet. When I met my wife, in 1995, she was still driving one of these. When I drove it, one detail showed me how well designed it was. The turn signal lever was more than a finger’s length away from the steering wheel! You actually had to take your hand of the wheel to signal. Like no other car I can remember. Maybe that pesky inch-metric issue was afoot?
That was because they used a parts bin turn signal lever unit with the dished steering wheel other models didn’t have. The dished wheel on later models was because the steering column wasn’t collapsible. Chrysler was trying to spend as little as possible on them after the first few years.
Please forgive me if you’ve heard my story. I’ve posted bits and pieces here and there with other CC stories.
My first two cars were Dodge Omni’s. The first was an ’85 I bought in 1991, with a cheap price and a salvage title. Apparently after it had been t-boned by a Lincoln the previous teenage girl owner loved the car so much she convinced her daddy to rebuild it. He must have went to the cheapest autobody shop he could find. The result was four different shades of red, crooked pinstriping, and snow in the drivers seat every winter. Between that and a carburetor that never worked right, it ended up being a long two years.
For my high school graduation, I received my parents’ 1989 Omni America. Mom was tired of shifting and they bought themselves a new ’93 Sable. Five speed, AM/FM radio, 2.2L fuel-injected. What a difference. Still a quick little car, especially with the five-speed. It didn’t have air or cruise, but by then it did have those nice standard cloth bucket seats. That with the tall five-speed lent itself to many road trips to Madison and Milwaukee and the Twin Cities.
I put 62,000 miles on that little car in three years. But by ’96 I was a know-it-all 21 year old, and I just had to get out of that hatchback. It didn’t have air. It didn’t have cruise. It didn’t even have a tape deck. So like a moron I traded it at 122,000 trouble-free miles for a ’91 Spirit with 89,000 miles on the 2.5L 4-cylinder. $5500 in 1996 bought me a cushier ride, a little bit of interior room, air/cruise/tilt/cassette. And an automatic transmission that promptly blew up eight months later. While I still owed $4600 on it.
I sure miss that old Omni. Last I heard it was being driven by a high school girl, but that was years ago. I’m sure its long gone now. Still have the key to the hatch on my keyring, though. It helps remind me when I get the new car jones. Which is why my Cavalier, the first new car I ever bought 11 years ago, now has almost 200,000 miles and still sits in my driveway.
Right on, another ’89 America lover! Loved the long-throw shifter in mine!
A lot of bias in this CC IMO, too much touting the “superiority” of European design…
My first car was an Charcoal Grey ’89 Omni America. It was a super basic econobox, equipped with a 5 speed, 2.2L TBI, no air, no power anything, rear defroster & radio delete. It still ranks as my favorite car, and I kick myself to this day for getting rid of it. With over 200K miles when I sold it in 2000 it had served me (and my grandfather before me, who bought it new) very well. Perks were that it was quick, good in snow, cheap and easy to service and run, it would haul 4-5 people comfortably and 7 people uncomfortably, was very reliable, and got a consistent 40 MPG.
Generally thru the run, they did have some quality issues: anemic 1.6L’s, carbs on the 2.2’s were junk when new, headliners failed no matter what, and for some reason the ’87’s & ’88’s seemed pretty trouble prone. Chrysler’s use of the carbed 2.2’s thru ’87 is something I never understood, as all other 2.2’s (and most other small 4 cylinder cars of the era) gained EFI by ’85…
Also, contrary to what I see here, they did rust. Outwardly, not so much, but where the major seam connected the front floor pan to the lower cowl they disintegrated, especially in the Rust Belt, and Indiana where mine was born and raised. It was what killed mine, though it had been scrupulously maintained & it still ran well.
Overall, a good car for the money and for the time. If I could own mine all over again, or find a good example of an ’89 America 5 speed, I’d own it again in a heartbeat.
A friend bought a new ’84 Omni with a 5 speed, and he let me drive it a time or two. What I remember most is that there was something about the position of the steering wheel that made my arms go numb after maybe half an hour. Otherwise an OK little car, but I really hated that.
In the early ’90’s -those were the days of transition in Eastern-European countries, Omnis / Horizons and other scales of different U.S./Canadian car brands had been imported together with the Western-European carbrands. Used and new. As the market conditions were not defined like nowdays those were the golden days for independent car importers. Till 1993-1995 it was absolutely normal that somebody could choose a Dodge Omni / Plymouth Horizon imported from Florida in Budapest instead of German or Swiss imported Talbot Horizons which lacked most of the features available in its North-American siblings. The Omnis and (Plymouth) Horizons had been attractive with lots of other american small-/boxcars in Eastern-Europe. After all those Wartburg’s and Trabant’s smokey two-stroked decades most of the drivers just wanted “something american” as a symbol of freedom and quality. As the auto industry had not followed up the then existed need for North-American carbrands, later the local governments had signed deals with continental european and japanese automakers so the market had been slowly closed for american cars. Not only Omnis and (Plymouth) Horizons were available. Saratogas, Spirits, New Yorkers were also popular and they ran on the roads in local terms solid numbers. Whithout any kind of serious official background. So till nowdays these models became very rare to see.
In 1981 I bought the 2 door version called a Plymouth Turismo with a 2.2L engine and automatic. The only new car I have ever bought in my life. It was bright red and had Firestone HPR tires. The pity was that in this model year, this was the hottest car that Chrysler sold.
The transmission had a total failure 6 days after the warranty ended but the dealer got it covered for me for a $100 deductible. Until the cam shaft started to wear out in 1992 it was a good little car. I gave the car away in 1993 to the auto shop of a local high school as they never got any FWD donations before for teaching newer tech to the students and I got my 1988 Aries, the head gasket eater.
More good memories, or at least good in retrospect, probably quite miserable at the time. My dad had an ’80 Omni, which he sold his bare bones ’72 Nova to make room for. It was two tone blue with blue vinyl seats, no A/C, few frills, which we drove from upstate NY to South Carolina when I was 5 or 6 an the car was relatively new. My mom still to this day gripes about that trip, with no air conditioning and sticky vinyl seats in a subcompact going that kind of distance in the summer. I didn’t mind though, as my friend and his parents tagged along in their Datsun 310 hatchback, and us boys took turns riding together in each car. They could have been Cadillacs and we wouldn’t have noticed the difference.
That 1980 Omni soldiered on for more than 8 long years when it was given to my cousin, beaten up a bit but not defeated, and my uncle was so impressed he bought an new ’88, which funny thing was nearly unchanged from the old ’80, save for cloth seats instead of vinyl and air conditioning, I believe the slushbox was still a 3-speed. The mill might have been upgraded to a 2.2 by then too, but I don’t remember…I just remember the body was virtually identical. Sadly, the upstate NY salt finally took it’s toll and the floor rusted out in 1990 on the old two-tone 1980…2 years before I would be old enough to drive it. But it made a good run. But then most of Dad’s cars made good runs since he took such good care of them, and he had a healthy mix of Chevy’s, Oldsmobiles, Buicks, Fords, Volvo’s, Hondas, and Mazdas…even a Morris Minor before my time, which had to be the only one ever in our little rural community. The little Omni would end up being his only ever Chrysler product, despite his dad being a Mopar guy, and despite the Omni’s great run.
I just find it really strange that there was a hot hatch version of the Horizon in the U.S.A.
The Talbot Horizon we got in the U.K was typically bought by genteel retired middle class types. The sort of man who wore a trilby and smoked a pipe, and used the Horizon to potter off down to the allotment or the bowling green. Talbot had zero image here. Historically they were the descendants of the Chrysler-purchased British Rootes group, but the British were never really convinced by the range of slightly French pseudo-Simcas offered under the resurrected Talbot name (Sunbeam, Alpine, Solara, Horizon)
1.6 was the biggest engine we got. For those who couldn’t handle the power there was a 1.3 and a 1.1. Rust problems were legendary, and they were worthless secondhand, a true throwaway car.
Was a 4-door saloon / sedan or 5-door estate version of the US Horizon ever considered?
Or would such variants basically be classified as Chrysler K platform models on the basis they were derived from the US Horizon?
Also is there any truth in claims the platforms used by the later Neon and Sebring along with a few other models were distantly related to the Chrysler K platform?
The difference is less about TIME than it is about INSPIRATION:
–The Omni/Horizon is classical, simple, and austere.
–The ’60 Imperial is romantic, complex, and opulent.
But yes, both are reflective of the times they were produced in. Which you prefer is determined by what kind of person you are. Remember: “It takes all kinds of dogs to make a world.”
My brother had a Horizon – what a rotter !!!
…less than 200 examples left on the whole continent.
I couldn’t resist looking up mobile.de to see if there’s any Talbot Horizon left. Yep, a finest and most immaculate 1982 specimen with automatic gearbox (!) listed for €2,490.
What’s interesting is the sales centre listing this Talbot specialises in high-end and exotic vehicles.
https://suchen.mobile.de/fahrzeuge/details.html?id=218977161&damageUnrepaired=NO_DAMAGE_UNREPAIRED&isSearchRequest=true&makeModelVariant1.makeId=23800&makeModelVariant1.modelId=2&pageNumber=1&scopeId=C&sfmr=false&fnai=prev&searchId=47197fc7-7cf3-9105-68f9-a43dc6fe9305
Regarding the Imperial being paired with the Horizon in the opening picture – imagine what the Horizon would have looked like if Exner had designed it!
A better comparison would have been seeing a New Yorker Brougham next to a Omnirizon in a 1978 Chrysler showroom, like seeing a batwing Impala next to a Corvair in a 1960 Chevy showroom.
Particularly since they dropped the C-body post sedans along with the station wagons and Dodge/Plymouths for 1978. All ’78 New Yorkers and Newports were hardtops (at least structurally, there was the “St. Regis Formal Roof” option for coupes with fixed opera windows) and the four-door hardtop was the last of its’ kind from or even available in America.
I had a ’83 Plymouth Horizon from about ’85 to ’90. I really liked that car as it took me just about everywhere cheaply and in relative comfort. A 5 speed manual meant that I got really good mileage for the time from a 2.2 liter engine with decent, for the time, acceleration. Silver with a grey interior it held up pretty well. Eventually I could hear a new noise when I shifted into 5th gear and I got worried. About 146,000 miles I decided that was enough and sold it to my cousin and bought a 1990 Honda Civic wagon.
Two traveling memories I have are driving through North Carolina I found I could place my left foot on the leftmost dash airvent and stretch my back. Probably not the safest but it sure allowed me to continue driving. The second memory is driving to work one day when the clutch pedal lost all tension. I coasted to the light which turned green and then right into the gas station / garage parking lot. I told them I lost the clutch and he could not believe the car didn’t have to be towed it was already there!
I just want to add that I had no idea how similar these were to the VW Golf. I drive a Golf currently and now understand where my instant appreciation for it comes from.
I realized after reading this yesterday that I hadn’t seen an Omnirizon in quite a while but the CC effect struck today and I noticed one just now parked on Hollywood Boulevard. Even more remarkable is that it had Virginia plates and looked packed to the gills, meaning it’s owner drove it cross-country to California.
My mom’s 1st car was a 1983 Horizon (an ’84 is below but it’s the same color). I was around 4 or 5 yrs old when it got replaced by a ’97 Mercury Tracer. I know we had it at least up to Halloween of 1998 b/c we have pictures of it from around that time. That’s been 21 years! No telling what’s become of it now (we got rid of it when the transmission cable broke).
Identical twin to my mom’s ’86.