Fabulous Flops: Chrysler 2.2L and 2.2L Turbo I

[A Horse With No Name]

The 2.2 was a throw away car in the eighties and few are left.

[Drew Dowdell]

Who wants to put all that work into an engine just to get good power and reliability out of it? It should come from the factory that way.

[A Horse With No Name]

Who wants to put all that work into an engine just to get good power and reliability out of it? It should come from the factory that way.

Pretty much this.

[Guest Jeremy Mitchell]

My first car was an '85 Omni GLH (naturally aspirated) and had a lot of fun with it. It was easy to work on, parts were cheap, and it just kept on running. I never experienced rust or 'rot' because I live in Wyoming where it's high and dry.

 

A couple years after getting my first Dodge Omni, I had a ride in an '89 Dodge Lancer with the 2.5L "Turbo I" engine. Everything changed after that point and I was addicted to these cars. The torque that that car put out was unlike anything I had ever experienced. The fastest car I had ever been in previous to that was an '85 Chevy Impala with the police "Interceptor" package (9C1). It had a 350 with 700R4 transmission and I thought that was fast..

 

I have had many many 2.2/2.5 turbo Mopars over the years and I have had a TON of fun with them! Isn't that what it's all about anyways? To say that the 2.2/2.5 engines from Mopar were lemons or flops is just wrong. I delivered pizza in several of these cars for 10 years and had no problems getting to work everyday and making money doing it. I have also embarrassed many V8 cars and other turbo 4-cylinder cars doing it.

 

These cars have been reliable, affordable, and easy to work on period. Not to mention a TON of potential under the hood for making power.

[Guest Jim]

with all due respect, the author of this article is clueless. the 2.2 was one of thee best motors Chrysler ever made...this article is EXTREMELY misleading.

Absolutely.

The internet is a great place for information...but it also allows any moron to pose as an "expert", and that clearly is the case here.

 

Not the most oil-tight engines ever built (though in-line with others of the era), but quite durable, and easily the most durable of the 80's turbo engines. I personally put 250+K on a turbo I car (with the original turbo), and that is not an unusual occurrence. Find me a Buick turbo or SVO that did that? The Turbo IV CSX is, according to some sources, is the 1st production vehicle to use a VNT turbo...though this hasn't stopped other mfgs like Ford from trying to claim they were the 1st. The Turbo III in the Daytona R/T and Spirit R/T was a DOHC made 224 HP with a Lotus-designed 16V head. Very impressive in its day!

 

In fact, those last 2 are the only real black spots on the 2.2/2.5's reliability. Fortunately, they make up a small percentage of the Chrysler Turbo's made...

The Garrett-made VNT turbo proved to have issues and was quickly removed...though there is some discrepancy as to what actually was wrong with it.

The Turbo-III had early head cracking problems, and needed special attention payed to the timing belt tension and procedures, which few people actually do, and the belt breaks and causes other issues. This engine had some very advanced features with tremendous output per-displacement for the time. 

 

Now...the cars they went it? Well...Chevy made Citations and Cavilers while Ford made Tempo's, so they were inline with their domestic counterparts.

[Blake Noble]

God. I think it'll be the year 2025 and I'll still be getting hate mail from the Chrysler 2.2 fanclub over this article.

 

So I'll say it: I'm sorry the 2.2 sucked and probably sowed the seeds for Chrysler's second bankruptcy. There. Can we kiss now?

 

... That was a joke, Chrysler 2.2 Fanclub. Just in case y'all couldn't tell.

[G. David Felt]

God. I think it'll be the year 2025 and I'll still be getting hate mail from the Chrysler 2.2 fanclub over this article.

 

So I'll say it: I'm sorry the 2.2 sucked and probably sowed the seeds for Chrysler's second bankruptcy. There. Can we kiss now?

 

... That was a joke, Chrysler 2.2 Fanclub. Just in case y'all couldn't tell.

Nahhhhhhh, I am sure some idiots of the 2.2 Fanboy club will never let it die till they die!

[hyperv6]

If done right the Turbo could be very potent. Head Studs and custom head gasket on my buddies modified GLHS would let run reliable 10 seconds in the 1/4 mile runs back in the early 90's. He was told it could not be done and he was able to do it and keep it very street able.

 

It was still a crappy car but it could be made very fast and very reliable even with NOS.

 

He sold the car and got back into Big Block and I am not sure where it is today.

[Guest Guest]

Who is this Clown ? Mr. Know it all ! Still runnibg strong ! Beats most Mustang GT's with ease also !

[Guest Guest]

Who are You Mr. Know it All ? Or the shell answer man ? The 2.5 89 Turbo Lebaron Convertable I have out runs most Mustang GT's and it gets 21 MPG while doing so ! , The AC is still cold and it is fully loaded also ! . I'd like to see Detroit or Japan do so much for such a low price again ! . You don't know $h! about cars if you slam 2.2 and 2.5 engines ! , another thing is anti freeze was not the head gasket problem with 2.2 engines it was oil leaks from the head gaskets due to a bad gasket design that was quickly fixed by gasket makers ! . If your a mechanic ? You are talking out your asshole ! , All of my mechanic friends will tell you that my Lebaron runs it's ass off ! . My older brother also a mechanic and a service manager will tell you the 2.2 was a great engine ! . Judging early to mid 80's us cars while they were still learning fuel systems is what only an asshole would do anyway ! .  Why not praise Chrysler for stepping out with 4 cylinders and being the leaders when Detroit had totally lost it's way ? ! , the Pinto and Vegas were cars that required special cam tools just to replace the head gaskets on them . Then You rail on the man who made the slant 6 ? , Why not GO slam Henry Ford for being a Nazi and paying Hitler $ 200,000.00 a year for slave labor instead ?,  At least You could find something with some meaning before you go run off with diarear of the mouth next time ! ?

[Guest The Mechanic !]

Still driving my 89 Lebaron 4 cylinder turbo and it's 2015 ! , Is Mr. Know it all who wrote this $h!ty article still driving his same 89 4 cylinder turbo car ? ! , I bet he has had 50 fords sence then and that I smoked every one of them in the 1/4 mile and on the Hi-way ! .

[Guest Guest]

I am a retired ASE and GM Certified Mechanic, ASE Certified Machinist and an advance engine performance plus an electrical specialist and the 2.2 and 2.5 Chryslers were great cars ! . 4 to 5 hundred thousand miles easily with just a little bit of care ! , The turbo models usually had mostly turbo seal and bearing failures, it usually was not an engine failure until the oil ran out of the engines exhaust via the leaky turbo seals due to bearing failure, a more expensive turbo and an intercooler would have prevented this and would have also raised the cars price up considerably  , a simple mechanical oil pressure gauge on the turbo oil feed line could have prevented this failure from happening or even a oil pressure to ground the coil out switch installed in this line . A manual fan switch also could help prevent heat and the head from cracking as well ! . The problems were all very minor ones with very easy fixes if done by a competent mechanic. Did you know GM could not fix their cars either ! ? and that all we did at GM was recall work and engine and transmission replacements ? I did most of the computer nightmares at GM and made their cars and trucks run that would not out of the factory run during the 80's . I remember when the GEO's came out and everyone was afraid of them and I said send me to the schools for them , I went and I never needed what I learned there because they were all great cars that did not usually break down ! . I worked mostly on Chevys and Fords for the new and used car departments and one thing I remember was that no 2.2 or 2.5 Chryslers were coming in needing work from the used car dealer ! , My friend was a salesman for a Chrysler dealer and he would take us out at night n the turbo lebarons and those cars flew !. I saw Chryslers later on in private shops that I worked at most usually only needing a carb base replaced or a mixture control solnoid , a water pump or a timing belt , I noticed they all has over 100,000 miles on them usually ! , That kind of miles was unheard of back then out of an American 4 Cylinder car ! , 50 or 60,000 was tops back then usually and 2.5 chevys like Citations may go 100.000 with 3 or 4 piston changes and a lot of engine noise ! .  You need to Go slam Ford and Chevy for their lousey Pinto's and Vegas ect... before You slam on 2.2 and 2.5 K Cars ! . The Chevette was not too bad other then it's broken seat mounts , broken crank bolts and bad computers and the large rust holes in the floor boards after a few years ! . Pinto's were not too bad on low power and oil burning unless you got hit from behind and it exploded with you in it ! .  2.2 turbo bad ? Tell Me ? Just Where would performance be today in American cars without it ? ! , It would be no-where today without the 2.2 and 2.5 Chysler Turbo Cars of the 80's ! , I Drag race a Big Block Chevy but I drive a 89 Lebaron 2.5 turbo car on the street and I could not be much hapier with anything else ! , Not many Mustang GT's out there can pass my lebaron in the 1/4 mile or on top end ! . I cannot even remember one that has ever beat me ! .

[Guest Dave Gerstner]

Your "Shelby Charger" photo is actually a 1987 GLHS, which made 175HP on 107 as you state. The Turbo IV was not the Spirit R/T motor. The Turbo III was. It had a Lotus twin cam head. The Turbo IV (which was actuall built before the Turbo III) had a variable nozzle turbocharger and was used in the Shelby CSX VNT and some Shadows. As for reliability, you're wrong. I've had 4 2.2's run over 150K with no problems and I still drive one. The 2.2 Turbo (I or  II) would embrass many V8's. Yeah, the cars were cheap rattle boxes but the engine was definitely not a flop. You'll still see many of them at the strip and road course to this day.

[Guest Guest]

boughta 86 k off the floor ....only had a pick up coil go out which killed the fuel pump .it drove me crazy running it down ...BUT the car was great , peppy ,great mileage ,roomly .my wife totaled it twice and we bought it back the 3rd time she smashed it  i took all the drivetrain and put it in another shell .i think they have a hate thing with chrysler .my 2.5 in the dakota ran excellant and no problems ..the lebarons i bought for the kids also ran grat ..but the turbo line did coke up ..but where fun cars i was aware of the head gasket problem [outside corner ]  but never had any go bad ...sorry to say it was one fine automoblie.maybe they where thinking of that mr.bitchy 2.6.. now that was a terrible design .lol THAT THING GOT A HEMI !!

 

[daves87rs]

LOL...this thread will never die......   

 

Never was a huge fan of the K cars.....engines were okay if you cared for them. Pretty much true of any small big 3 4 banger in the 80s....(coming from the guy who rocked a 100hp 87 Cavalier.)

 

Now the rest of the car was a different story.......

[Guest Aires_Guy]

Black Noble, you apparently wrote this just to start trouble, and you are picking on the wrong motor.  At 522,000 and still going strong, my Dodge Aires K car is still the go to car in my family for smooth, reliable transportation.  Sure, it's not pretty like the horsey brand cars, it's also not expensive to keep on the road like your obviously favorite horsey car either.  It just keeps going and going.  I think that's where Energizer got the idea for their bunny commercials; from my Aires.  

Out of pure respect for her, I had the body gone over and the eventual rust repaired properly, then had the car repainted at 368K miles.  Still looks great, BTW. 

No, it's no race car. No, it won't beat everything else on the road except in longevity. The motor itself has never been cracked open. Regular oil changes, antifreeze changes at 50K intervals, brakes, belts and hoses when they start looking crappy.   Replaced the trans about 150K ago. I don't see that as a problem either.

 

No, I'm fairly sure you just wanted to cause trouble by writing this. 

[LostinNewMexico]

LOL. This dribble has more holes in it than the author's head. Sorry but I owned a 1984 Daytona Turbo, '86 Turbo Z, '87 Shelby Z. My brother owned a 1984 Daytona Turbo, '85 Turbo, and now has my Shelby Z. My mom owned a Turbo Lazer. My brother and I never lost a race to Z28 Camaro, Trans Am, or 5.0 Mustang and we had far less problems with our cars than any of the competition. Want a list of all my friends who had to replace engines under warranty on their GM and Ford products in the eighties.

By the way, I replaced the timing belt on my Shelby Z at 96,000 miles. It far outlasted the 5.0's in several of my friends Fox Mustangs or several Z28's that suddenly lost a cylinder.

 

How about writing an article on the biggest 1980's POS ever...The Pontiac Fiero, or Fire-ero.

[A Horse With No Name]

I see the troll contingent has shown up to defend Chryco.  In all fairness, these were cool cars back in the day.  I have seen Turbo 4's embarrass SS 396 Chevelels and Camaros at the drag strip.

However, Chryco is pretty much out of the passenger car business other than a couple of retro muscle cars while Honda, Ford, GM, Porsche, VW, Audi, Mercedes, Toyota ane everyone else is still going strong.

Chrysler really for all practical purposes died as a company building desirable passenger cars about 1973 or 1974, and they really have never come back. The K cars were total crap boxes, the Omnis and Horizons were rust prone crap boxes that were behind every other car in the day, and the laudable minivans were outclassed by products from Honda, Nissan and Toyota.

In many ways it would serve the memory of Chryco much better if they had actually died in 1974 rather than the endless and embarrassing stream of Lebarons, Cordobas, K cars, Sebrings, Avengers, and Calibers they brought forth.

I actually enjoy watching the endless stream of older Chryco stuff get crushed at my local pick and pull so it is no longer on the highway.  Good riddance and good bye to 44 years of embarrassment to the American auto industry.

On 8/9/2012 at 0:44 AM, Drew Dowdell said:

Okay Hudson... I love ya and you're a long-timer here... but you have got to share whatever it is you are smoking....

Or not, in fear that it will cause extensive, long term or even permanent brain damage.

On 9/5/2015 at 9:31 AM, Guest Aires_Guy said:

Black Noble, you apparently wrote this just to start trouble, and you are picking on the wrong motor.  At 522,000 and still going strong, my Dodge Aires K car is still the go to car in my family for smooth, reliable transportation.  Sure, it's not pretty like the horsey brand cars, it's also not expensive to keep on the road like your obviously favorite horsey car either.  It just keeps going and going.  I think that's where Energizer got the idea for their bunny commercials; from my Aires.  

Out of pure respect for her, I had the body gone over and the eventual rust repaired properly, then had the car repainted at 368K miles.  Still looks great, BTW. 

No, it's no race car. No, it won't beat everything else on the road except in longevity. The motor itself has never been cracked open. Regular oil changes, antifreeze changes at 50K intervals, brakes, belts and hoses when they start looking crappy.   Replaced the trans about 150K ago. I don't see that as a problem either.

 

No, I'm fairly sure you just wanted to cause trouble by writing this. 

You must have done something horrible to a young gypsy girl in a former life to be wiling to torture yourself with an Aires K car for so much as a weekend...522,000 miles....wow...you must be the envy of the trailer park!

[Guest Mark V8]

You must be thinking about the 1.7 VW or 2.6 Mitsubishi engines being a flop !

 

The 2.2 and 2.2 Turbo were very reliable,they ran forever...Just like any car change the coolant 100,000 miles then you wont blow your head gasket !!!

 

My family had a few of these,I had a 2.2 Turbo Daytona my Dad a 2.2 Turbo LeBaron and a Dodge Aries with a 2.2..

 

All cars were reliable,never any problems and lasted over 320,000 miles,my dads daily driver a Aries 2.2 ..

 

My 1984 Daytona had 201,000 trouble free miles,I changed the timing belt on time 100,000 miles and coolant then again at 198,000..Then I bought a new car,I thought I would keep it but wanted the last year of Ram Charger 1993 Ram Charger 5.9 Magnum that I still have ,restored and not daily driven anymore..

 

Parents LeBaron GTS was in use until 1998 when they sold it for a new car and it had 280,000 miles again bulletproof reliable.

 

Remember 5 digit odometer,after 99,999 they rolled to 00,000 thus people think a 30,000 or 50,000 mile car is only that,it can be 130,000 or 150,000 or 230,000 or 250,000 miles...Our cars were always detailed bi weekly by myslef,inside the seats were not worn as we were not rough,carpets were clean etc..The could have passed for low mile year old cars,they looked that good and drove perfect too..

 

Again,the odometer was the downfall..If they registered like todays cars people would say they were reliable..I still see K cars roaming the streets today..Dayotna's are rarer as they were rare when new as they were more than a Mustang and Camaro,,

[G. David Felt]

9 hours ago, Guest Mark V8 said:

You must be thinking about the 1.7 VW or 2.6 Mitsubishi engines being a flop !

The 2.2 and 2.2 Turbo were very reliable,they ran forever...Just like any car change the coolant 100,000 miles then you wont blow your head gasket !!!

My family had a few of these,I had a 2.2 Turbo Daytona my Dad a 2.2 Turbo LeBaron and a Dodge Aries with a 2.2..

All cars were reliable,never any problems and lasted over 320,000 miles,my dads daily driver a Aries 2.2 ..

My 1984 Daytona had 201,000 trouble free miles,I changed the timing belt on time 100,000 miles and coolant then again at 198,000..Then I bought a new car,I thought I would keep it but wanted the last year of Ram Charger 1993 Ram Charger 5.9 Magnum that I still have ,restored and not daily driven anymore..

Parents LeBaron GTS was in use until 1998 when they sold it for a new car and it had 280,000 miles again bulletproof reliable.

Remember 5 digit odometer,after 99,999 they rolled to 00,000 thus people think a 30,000 or 50,000 mile car is only that,it can be 130,000 or 150,000 or 230,000 or 250,000 miles...Our cars were always detailed bi weekly by myslef,inside the seats were not worn as we were not rough,carpets were clean etc..The could have passed for low mile year old cars,they looked that good and drove perfect too..

Again,the odometer was the downfall..If they registered like todays cars people would say they were reliable..I still see K cars roaming the streets today..Dayotna's are rarer as they were rare when new as they were more than a Mustang and Camaro,,

Just because you followed the OEM recommended maintenance does not mean this engine was still a flop. This era was the move to 100K mile maintenance free auto's. Lazy Americans that would not follow a 30K mile tune up and other scheduled needs would drive the auto and have it fail repeatedly. 

One only has to look at the web to see all the horror stories and failures about the chrysler, GM and FORD engines of this era.

People tell me all the time they are shocked to see my 1994 GMC SLE suburban still running and yet I do the basic tune ups and required maintenance and it runs like a champ. Would I like a 100K tune up schedule sure. But that is not what the 80's and 90's were about for the American OEM. They still thought 70's as Japan moved to 100K maintenance free auto's.

[Drew Dowdell]

I can't imagine spending 500k miles in a K-Car.

[A Horse With No Name]

47 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

I can't imagine spending 500k miles in a K-Car.

Neither can I.  Good riddance to the whole lot, most of which was made into beer cans a long time ago.

[Drew Dowdell]

1 minute ago, A Horse With No Name said:

Neither can I.  Good riddance to the whole lot, most of which was made into beer cans a long time ago.

Steel beer cans?  

[G. David Felt]

24 minutes ago, A Horse With No Name said:

Neither can I.  Good riddance to the whole lot, most of which was made into beer cans a long time ago.

 

22 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Steel beer cans?  

Isn't that a Texas thing, Steel Beer Cans, turn the dead armadillo over and put one on it's belly out of respect?

Guess the south has to have something that can take being shot at!  

[Guest Eds]

 Blake Noble most of your info is incorrect. They were and still are some of the toughest most reliable engines and transmissions you can buy. HP for HP they are faster than most cars. The Turbo versions are cheap to modify. You can put a Intercooled Daytona with few mods into the low 13's for under $1000.

Also the 'knock' some of you guys were referring to, is simply either worn slider cam's (early cars) or worn lifters...which can be changed for dirt cheap and it's a easy job like most stuff on these cars.

[The DUKE2.5]

The guy who wrote this has no idea what he's talking about.In my area I still see 3-4 K cars still driving daily. What other 35-40 year old beater cars are still driving daily?
NONE. All the jap interference timing belt 80's cars are dead or in a garage pieces,the euro junks are dead or in a yard rusting,And there are a few RWD weekend 80's cars around but as far as daily drivers the K car is winning. Today in 2020 I see 2 Lebaron convertibles 1 Reliant Wagon and a 2 door Aries driving locally.I drive all over and see even more standing out on the road due to the 80's chrome style popping out in a field of plastic The 2.2/2.5 Chrysler powered K cars keep going while more modern "Better" cars succumb to the "not worth being fixed" issue due to over-complex design and low durability. Modern engines are more powerful and advanced but the reliability is even worse with CVT belt drive transmissions that barely hit 100k and mpg requirements forcing 0 weight oil which wears the engine faster. Also all the plastic used in modern cars intakes,coolant parts,covers,etc makes them even more fragile and less robust than earlier designs......

[Robert Hall]

Haven't seen a K car on the road in ages..I think they all rusted out around here.

[G. David Felt]

Did K cars actually last past 4 years? They like rusted out and went the way of the Dodo bird, decades ago. None around here unless it is sitting in the garage some place. I see plenty of GM and a few Fords from the 80's on the roads here, but nothing from Chrysler.

[Robert Hall]

The only 80s Chrysler products I've seen on the road in the last 3 years in NE Ohio have been maybe a couple tired, rusty full size vans and a couple rusty 1st gen vans.  

In Arizona between '08-17 I did see the occasional tired, faded M-body Diplomat or Fifth Avenue bumping around, a couple TC by Maseratis (last time I saw one, it was broken down on the side of I-10)  and 1 R-body Newport (saw it three times driving through my neighborhood over 9 years).   

Edited July 16, 2020 by Robert Hall

[A Horse With No Name]

On 7/16/2020 at 11:04 AM, Robert Hall said:

The only 80s Chrysler products I've seen on the road in the last 3 years in NE Ohio have been maybe a couple tired, rusty full size vans and a couple rusty 1st gen vans.  

In Arizona between '08-17 I did see the occasional tired, faded M-body Diplomat or Fifth Avenue bumping around, a couple TC by Maseratis (last time I saw one, it was broken down on the side of I-10)  and 1 R-body Newport (saw it three times driving through my neighborhood over 9 years).   

Yeah, the whole geenration of FWD applaice Chryco stuff seems to have crossed the rainbow bridge...

[Drew Dowdell]

From the mail bag.... occasionally I get these e-mails regarding this 10-year-old article in protest to @Blake Noble's conclusions.... usually, they're just one-line retorts calling us stupid... but I got this one last week and it was very well written.

Dennis says:

"I would disagree with your review of the Chrysler 2.2 - I had cars with both the 2.2 and 2.5 - my mom had an 83 Plymouth Reliant with the 2.2 and auto trans - she drove it until she quit driving at about 160,000 miles - when we sold it. I did have the head off once I believe, or maybe just the valve cover gasket - the main thing on this car is that it needed to be tuned just a bit out of specs for it to run right - if set within specs it would not run well at all until warmed up. Frustrating thing is that the mechanic showed me that it made very little difference in emissions tuning it to the place where it would run great. The car was comfortable, had one a/c repair at about 100,000 miles, roomy, and I thought it was an attractive car - hers had a nice dash and interior - unlike the ugly cars of today. I did try to keep this car well maintained - so that helped no doubt. But at over 160,000 miles, it was running great, not burning oil, and got great gas mileage. The 2.5 engine was very smooth, but I would take the slightly better gas mileage of the 2.2 over the smoothness of the 2.5. And the 2.5 still sounded not-sporty at a stoplight in my 87 Daytona"

Dennis, we love to disagree with people and we love when people disagree with us.  It's part of what makes this site fun.  So please consider signing up and join in the fun.