Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





2013 Dodge Dart

hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,255
Will it/does it live up to the excellent reputation of the '60s and '70s Valiants and Darts?
«13

Comments

  • Remains to be seen but as a Caliber replacement, it looks like a winner.

    I hope the Belvidere Assembly plant puts out a strong product. Years of Neons, Compasses, and Calibers have not helped their image. The Dart should be a major improvement.
  • iluvmysephia1iluvmysephia1 Posts: 5,713
    edited January 2012
    will be put on a similar chassis as the Alfa Romeo Giulietta, so there's good automotive "genes" involved immediately with the car. Bodes well for it's success.

    2011 Kia Soul Sport 5-speed

  • rayainswrayainsw Posts: 2,554
    One of the very interesting things [ to me ] about this new Dodge is the fuel tank capacity - giving [ assuming 35 - 40 mpg highway is actually attainable ] range. with a gallon or so 'in reserve', of 500 to nearly 600 miles...
    - Ray
    Had a tank that size in a couple of 1970s Volvos - that did NOT manage nearly those MPG...
  • This is the oldest CR that I have and it shows the frequency of repair for the Dodge Dart 6 and 8 for years of 72 to 76 ( the 8 had insufficient data for 76).
    I had a 63 DD slant 6 convertible I bought used in 1970 and it's front suspension was noisy. I spent most of my time taking the paint down to bare metal and having it repainted. It was a good looking model BUT I always thought it would have looked better if the track was wider.
    The Dart had many black circles for suspension, trans(manual), clutch, body integrity, and brakes. I remember one odd problem with the clutch to trans arm that broke. I could start it in gear and it would take off. With careful shifting (no clutch) I got to where I wanted to have it fixed. Sold it to my nephew who loaned it to a friend who while driving it stopped too quickly in front of a truck loaded with tires that couldn't stop in time and it was totaled.
    Those cars didn't get very good mileage. (pre fuel injection years)
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 15,073
    at the car show.

    when are they supposed to actually hit the showroom?

    2013 Acura RDX (wife's) and 2007 Volvo S40 (mine)

  • iluvmysephia1iluvmysephia1 Posts: 5,713
    edited February 2012
    what'd'ya think of the 2013 Dodge Dart? Looks really good in the pics, especially the red one with the sport tires and wheels. The interior even looks intriguing to me and I'm not an interior guy-at all!

    image
    2013 Dodge Dart

    This would be the one I'm talking about right here with the red paint and fancy wheel getup. Not bad. Love a test-drive of one.

    2011 Kia Soul Sport 5-speed

  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,758
    edited March 2012
    I saw one (black) yesterday at the Greater Twin Cities Auto Show. It was gorgeous! It might get me to change my plan to get a hatch when I buy my next car next year. Depends on how it drives, fuel economy, passenger room etc.

    I priced out the Dart at dodge.com. I discovered in order to get even a modicum of equipment, I'd need to get the SXT trim--the SE looks really basic, even AC is extra. For an SXT with the 2.0L 160 hp base engine, 6MT, and the $700 package that adds cruise plus some other goodies like audio controls on the wheel and trip computer, MSRP is $19,900--not sure if that includes destination charge but it wasn't itemized. That puts it in the ballpark with the likes of the Mazda3i Touring and Golf 4-door, which are tops on my shopping list as of now. Those will be tough cars for the Dart to beat. One plus is the SXT is available in Redline Red Pearl with a tan interior, which I prefer. The Mazda3i Touring hatch isn't available in red. That Header Orange color looks fun too--would be easy to find in a parking lot!

    Here's what the red SXT looks like:
    image
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,758
    I just read a first-drive report on the Dart in C/D (June). They were very impressed and predicted the car would shake up the compact class... although the car is mid-sized in interior volume. They especially praised its handling and brakes.

    They reported the car would hit dealers in June with a few of the trims and powertrains, including the 2.0L base engine and the 1.4L turbo with 6-speed transmissions. Other trims and the 2.4L engine will come later.

    All the photos I've seen of the car including those in the C/D article have a neon red band around the instrument cluster. I really hope that isn't standard, at least not in the SXT trim. I think it looks tacky.
  • dodgeman07dodgeman07 Posts: 574
    The widest interior of any "compact", that grabs my attention. Shoulder room greater than my Lacrosse! The new Dart has nearly full-size width and that is a big selling point to North American consumers. I heard Dodge is calling it "Compact U.S. Wide" which has not been associated with this class in past.

    Anyway, the car looks like a winner. I hope to drive one this summer!
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 15,073
    I'm looking forward to it.

    Hmm, a wider compact? Chrysler owns the rights to AMC, so maybe they should dust off the "It's small, but wide!" ad campaign from the last one, the Pacer?

    2013 Acura RDX (wife's) and 2007 Volvo S40 (mine)

  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,758
    Somehow I don't think Chrysler wants the Dart to be associated in any way with the Pacer.

    Although as teenager I thought the Pacer looked kinda cool--spaceship-like almost. Now I realize there's a difference between "cool" and "weird".
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,344
    The Dart is literally an Italian car in disguise. You can even order it with the Fiat Abarth turbo motor. Most of the road tests I've read have been reasonably complimentary but not glowing with praise. I would think the 2.4L motor would be the best choice overall. The Dart is entering an extremely competitive niche so it's not going to be an easy success.

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,758
    The C/D article pointed out how Dodge didn't ruin the Italian underpinnings.

    I dunno, though, in these days of $4 gas the 1.4L turbo or even the base engine might be a better bet than the 2.4L. Unless you need that "rush of power". There's supposed to be a later-availability "40 mpg" variant. I wonder what powertrain that will have?

    I think 160 hp with the 6 speed stick will be plenty quick for me. My wife's Sonata has 162 hp with a 4 speed slushbox and it's got enough pep. I don't drag-race as much as I used to. :)
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 15,073
    I would be fine with the 2.0 or 1.4t, especially with a stick, but probably fine with an AT also.

    2013 Acura RDX (wife's) and 2007 Volvo S40 (mine)

  • dodgeman07dodgeman07 Posts: 574
    edited April 2012
    One of the numerous reviews posted online this week said the 41mpg hwy variant would have the 1.4L Multiair Turbo engine.

    I also found it interesting that the only slushbox available with the Multiair turbo was the 6-sp dual dry clutch and it wasn't avaiable for preliminary road tests. I realize early "First Drives" don't always provide accurate information though.

    One thing is clear though, this car will have the roomiest front seats of any compact on the market. Shoulder room greater than the 2011 Buick Lucerne! That's a wide-body!
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,344
    Well of course you should test drive the various motors--I got the feeling from one review at any rate that at highway speeds the small engine is very "busy"--that could get on one's nerves. I had a brand new Scion with a 1.5L and it was a great car all around but man that engine was very noisy at 70 mph.

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,758
    Yes, that concerns me about the 1.4L. But with a 6-speed tranny, the revs should be pretty low on the 2.0L at moderate highway speeds. I rarely go over 70 mph, as I have to get out of town before even hitting a speed limit that high, and that's as high as it goes in the Midwest.

    For example, the revs on the 2.0L Mazda Skyactiv with the 6MT are only about 2000 RPM @ 65 mph. On my 2.0 Sentra with CVT, it's 2000 @ 70 mph. But with a 1.4L... we'll have to see.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,344
    also small turbo motors can be "peaky" and some drivers don't care for that. (what I mean is, you have to keep the engine "on cam" or the torque will fall off rapidly).

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

  • dodgeman07dodgeman07 Posts: 574
    That is no longer the case. Modern turbo engines produce abundant torque at low RPMs. They are not "peaky" nor do they need to be kept "on cam" at high RPMs to produce good power/torque.

    Take a look at the offerings from Ford, VW/Audi, BMW, and now Fiat/Dodge. Modern turbo engines are world's apart from the old-style versions of the 1980's and 1990's that did require high RPMs to get decent performance.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,344
    edited April 2012
    I'm just repeating what some of the reviews said. (quote on one about the Fiat Abarth motor: "picking up steam north of 4000 rpm and revving strongly to redline."

    Since torque is related to displacement, not the # of cylinders, low rpm = not much boost = not much torque. The BMW, Audi, etc are bigger engines, not 1.4L.

    But yeah, turbo motors are a lot better and boost comes on smoother and earlier than in years past--that's a good point.

    Also, I haven't even driven the damn car, so I'm only speculating. More to come when I get a test ride!

    My MINI is a relatively modern blown motor and it's a dead duck below 2500 rpm BTW, and it's faster than the Fiat Abarth.

    Some people say there IS a substitute for cubic inches, and that substitute is forced induction, and I agree----to a point.

    I'd say "north of 4000 rpm" is a bit peaky----no, or am I being picky?

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,758
    No, I don't think you're being picky. I can't remember the last time I had one of my cars (2.0L, 2.4L) north of 4000 RPM. Maybe one day several months ago when I was racing my daughter to the ER. I don't put the pedal to the metal like I did when I was... uh... much younger.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,255
    edited April 2012
    Will the Chevy Cruze and Sonic 1.4 turbo last as long as the naturally aspirated 1.8? Same question could be applied to the 1.4 T vs. the NA 2.0 in the Dart, ot the !.6 T vs. the NA 2.5 in the '13 Fusion. Maybe with synthetic oil they'll both easily go over 200,000 or more miles, in which case it wouldn't matter. Or, maybe not. Does anyone here know whether sufficiently greater strength is designed into these small turbo motors to compensate for the additional stress?

    Also, how do the maintenance schedules compare?
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 15,073
    for me, the 2.0 sounds like the best option for a long term relationship.

    2013 Acura RDX (wife's) and 2007 Volvo S40 (mine)

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,344
    I think turbo motors have a harder life in general, yes. They are often given some special internal components, sure, but not necessarily what one might term "re-inforcement".

    With turbos you're often operating at higher heat ranges, and one presumes (one hopes) that most drivers have the pedal to the metal--or in the case of european engines, their boot in the boschware.

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

  • dodgeman07dodgeman07 Posts: 574
    10 year/100,000 mile powertrain warranties are the norm these days and the engines are bench-tested and proven to last far beyond that. Most of these turbos operate at low boost pressure also, there is not that much additional stress on the engine unless unless run at high RPMs for extended periods of time.

    Small displacement gasoline-powered turbo engines appear to be the wave of the future and with good reason. You can get good performance and good fuel economy - usually not at the same time though!
  • dodgeman07dodgeman07 Posts: 574
    edited May 2012
    ...is up on youtube. Very nice report (starts at 1:15 of the video ) and is worth 4 minutes of your time.

    Link to MT Review
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,344
    Odd review--nothing of real substance in it that you couldn't just read about. Why did they bother to drive it? Well I guess it wasn't aimed at gearheads.

    I did laugh at the comment that with a 160HP turbo engine "your kids couldn't get into too much trouble". Oh, yeah? Really?

    Now that I don't know any more about the car than before I watched the video, i guess I'm gonna have go find one and post my own review :P

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,255
    If you post your review, we'll be sure to read it.
  • dodgeman07dodgeman07 Posts: 574
    You'll be waiting a couple months. They won't be on dealer lots until around the 4th of July. In the meantime, there are several reviews up on youtube.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,344
    I know a Chrysler dealer so I'll keep my eye on it. I kinda like reviews that show what the car is to drive in everyday use, and to really amplify the good parts and show the unacceptable. I think I'll like the car though, especially the turbo.

    And I promise, no BAD car review music!

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

«13
Sign In or Register to comment.