Shelby CSX

Shelby had his name attached to some Dodge products in the 80's/90's but it is likely he had little to no involvement in developing them except for the GLH Shelby.

It's good in terms of a turbo fwd 80's car.

>>17562722
would it be a car worth buying if miles/wear were low enough as well as price

>>17562713
iirc these had the 2.5 with variable nozzle turbos and were crap. You're better off with the plymouth duster varient that had the mitsu 3.0 with a 5 speed. I'm guessing a 3000gt engine could be forced in.

>>17563064
Depends what you want it for. For a daily they are undertuned for reliability and should make a unique car to drive around. For performance it would probably be better to go Honda or a turbo Mitsubishi eclipse.

File: 1423109493293.jpg (360KB, 895x1210px) Image search: [Google]

360KB, 895x1210px

>>17562713
>Anyone know anything about this car?
I like to think I know a bit
>Is it just one of those jokes Shelby attached his name to?
Nope
>Is it actually good?
actually yes. The cars are fairly rare nowadays as well. Under the hood is a bulletproof 2.2L SOHC 8 valve I4 Turbo. Power was 150 HP for early non-intercooled models. The intercooled models bumped power to 175 HP.
Keep in mind, this was a time when GM struggled to get 175 HP from a 5.0L V8.
The 2.2L I4s proved to be near indestructible and they LOVE mods. It actually doesn't take much to push them to 300 HP, and that's before even considering DOHC 16 valve head swaps.
A larger sister car, the Dodge Spirit R/T got a variant of the engine with a DOHC 16 valve head designed by Lotus. The Spirit was actually the fastest 4 door sedan in the world for a time.

Now. Turbo mopar thread? Turbo mopar thread.

File: 1986 Shelby Dodge Omni GLH-S-05.jpg (169KB, 816x1036px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 816x1036px

>>17563095
>I know nothing about the Chrysler K-cars
Hey dipshit. Read the sticky. They're listed there.
The 4 cylinders couldn't be killed. The Mitsubishi 3.0L 6G72 V6 models were nothing but unreliable problem-children.

>>17564207
>for performance it would be better to go Honda or a turbo Mitsubishi eclipse
Wrong, these are damn good for performance as well, the 2.2L is strong as fuck and makes awesome power with a better turbo and fuel system upgrades, the block is strong as fuck

File: 10547763_966160946730562_3445732457781710710_o.jpg (319KB, 2048x1356px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 2048x1356px

>>17564313
>Turbo mopar thread? Turbo mopar thread.

File: 10661667_915947731751884_1662595314593662903_o.jpg (631KB, 2048x1418px) Image search: [Google]

631KB, 2048x1418px

>>17564378

File: 10694367_945868272093163_2089429663903238606_o.jpg (607KB, 1491x2048px) Image search: [Google]

607KB, 1491x2048px

>>17564386

File: 1405973602587.jpg (59KB, 650x301px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 650x301px

>>17564400

File: 1423109368672.jpg (69KB, 800x532px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 800x532px

>>17564408

File: 1438047574070.jpg (38KB, 600x480px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 600x480px

>>17564416

File: 1462258593555.jpg (173KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 500x375px

>>17564422

File: 1482956590790.jpg (131KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 800x600px

>>17564428

File: 1484518895762.jpg (102KB, 750x562px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 750x562px

>>17564434

File: 1487454430487.jpg (29KB, 520x269px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 520x269px

>>17564440

File: 1487454517349.jpg (43KB, 610x458px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 610x458px

>>17564447

File: 1487455269801.jpg (158KB, 1024x600px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1024x600px

>>17564452

File: 1487455598417.jpg (124KB, 1024x625px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1024x625px

>>17564457

File: chrysler tc engine.jpg (76KB, 652x449px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 652x449px

>>17564461

File: Chrysler_2.2_Intercooled_Turbo_engine.jpg (589KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

589KB, 1024x768px

>>17564467

Noisy, loud, buzzing, bumpy, rattling fwd turbo Chrysler garbage. I had the 88 lebaron gts sedan. It ended up with bullet holes.

File: chrysler-tc-engine-3.jpg (87KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 640x480px

>>17564474

File: RAMPAGE9-2006015.jpg (109KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 640x480px

>>17564477
last one

File: 6421962-1987-shelby-csx-std.jpg (129KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 1280x960px

>>17565604

numbers don't match, does that mean anything?

>>17565609
>numbers don't match, does that mean anything?
nope. Doesn't mean a thing. COngrats on finding a CSX, they're fairly sought after in the turbo mopar community.

>>17565609
BUY THAT BEFORE YOU REGRET IT NIGGA

>>17562713
>Is it just one of those jokes Shelby attached his name to?
Yes.

>Is it actually good?
No. It had relatively good performance compared to other cars at the time, but you have to remember that we're talking about '80s shitboxes here.