Conditional

http://www.amazontrails.com/fiction/semperfi6.htm

1. "Bre will you sit down, they'll be all right and Jack will show up, she probably is over at the E club with some of the DI's having a beer."

2. "She would have called if she was gonna be late. Where's my car keys? I'm going to the hospital to see Ronnie."

I don't understand why isn't #2 like this:

3. "She would have called if she is gonna be late. Where's my car keys? I'm going to the hospital to see Ronnie." (I don't know if she is late or not, so doesn't it make more sense with 'is' even though it contradicts the conditional rule? With 'was', I'm saying she is not going to be late?)

If only 'was' is correct, does it convey what I want to say though?

Thanks.

Shouldn't it be "where are my car's keys?"

People do not talk ungrammatically. The grammar of the written language, SWE/SFE, is much different than the grammar of spoken English. Language science knows this and has proven it time and again.

In speech, we often say; "Here's/where's/there's + plural noun". In fact studies prove that this pattern predominates even with plural nouns.

"She would have called if she was gonna be late.

This is fine. The first part focuses on this particular situation, hence the speaker uses "would have called". If the speaker didn't want to focus on this particular situation, but rather on what is known about 'she', they could have used,

1. She would call if she was gonna be late. OR 2. She always calls when she is gonna be late. OR 3. She will call if she is gonna be late.

All express that she is that type of person, a thoughtful enough person to call if late.

So in real natural English, 1 , 2 or 3 is fine.

"She would have called if she was gonna be late. Where's my car keys? I'm going to the hospital to see Ronnie."