1984 Dodge Charger Reviews

1984 Dodge Charger 2.2L NA from North America

Model year1984
Year of manufacture1984
First year of ownership1999
Most recent year of ownership2004
Engine and transmission 2.2L NA Manual
Performance marks 7 / 10
Reliability marks 8 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 9 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.0 / 10
Distance when acquired78000 miles
Most recent distance178000 miles
Previous carDodge Aries

Summary:

Wicked fun, reliable, and economical sports car

Faults:

Replaced the radiator in 2003.

Replaced the original enginer at 138,000.

AC stopped working in 2001.

Replaced alternator brushes at 148,000.

Replaced power steering rack in 2004.

Replaced hatch struts in 2003.

General Comments:

Wonderful little sports car, very fast 0-60 time, but very easy on gas, I often got 34MPG, once 37MPG on a long trip.

The 5-speed transmission is very durable and shifted well, even in very cold weather. Shift rod linkage wasn't the best, but not too bad.

Engine was unbeatable, very good torque and just wanted to go and go.

Handled pretty well considering what it was, improved with "Shelby" suspension components I salvaged from the Shelby Charger - quick ratio steering rack, stiffer springs front and rear, and larger sway bar.

Interior headroom for rear passengers was not good if you were tall. But driver's position was very good for me at 6'.

Lots of cargo space with the fold down rear seat.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 16th February, 2005

17th Feb 2005, 06:59

Your Charger has the same chassis and powertrain as the Dodge Omni.

So that means the Omni is a "sports car" too, right?

18th Feb 2005, 19:25

Isn't it unbelievable what some people consider to be "sports cars"?

I guess they're not hurting anybody and they're making themselves feel better about what they are driving.

But it sure does look silly to see it in print.

21st Apr 2005, 19:56

Park an Omni beside a charger of the same year and see how similar they are! they are based on the same platform other than that there are very drastic differences. please compare it to the Sports cars of its era! if the charger is not a sports car I am not sure what is!

22nd Apr 2005, 16:54

It doesn't matter whether it is a real "sports car". It is a decent compromise between performance, economy and practicality.

Having owned and used mine daily since new for 21 years I know it goes well, with more than enough acceleration from the 2.2 with the 5 speed. It is much better than the similar looking 4 cylinder Ford Mustang of the same era.

You can drive at 75mph with the windows open and don't get buffeted by wind, which is great for a fun drive in good weather.

Also, you would need to have a new hybrid or a diesel to get better highway gas mileage (5.1 l/100km as quoted by Transport Canada).

The hatchback is practical enough to hold a bicycle or skis or some 8 foot 2x4s or even a rented concrete mixer, with the hatch shut.

It has no dollar value, but it works for me and that's what matters.

1984 Dodge Charger MAGNUM 2.2L carb from North America

Year of manufacture1984
First year of ownership2002
Most recent year of ownership2004
Engine and transmission 2.2L carb Automatic
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Dealer Service marks 2 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 9 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.2 / 10
Distance when acquired20000 kilometres
Most recent distance70000 kilometres
Previous carDodge Omni

Summary:

Quick fun ride with lot's of power just needs to be let out!!

Faults:

Floor roted out had to get it welded up!

Door pins wore out door almost fell off.

New gas tank.

General Comments:

I love this car it looks sharp and the mods that can be dune to it is very cool.

It's a quick littel car and can win race's against civics!!

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 8th January, 2004

19th Jan 2004, 18:03

The only thing "magnum" about your Dodge is the empty beer cans in the back that haven't fallen through the floor yet.

11th Feb 2004, 09:22

Narrowly running a 17.5 second civic isn't something worth bragging about. I've seen garbage trucks pull past civics in frantic merge situations.

Average review marks: 7.6 / 10, based on 2 reviews