Did you recently rush to buy a new vehicle before tariff-related price hikes? A reporter is looking to speak with shoppers who felt pressure to act quickly due to expected cost increases; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com for more details by 4/24.

2013 Dodge Dart SXT Rallye Long-Term Road Test

Edmunds.comEdmunds.com Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 10,316
edited September 2014 in Dodge

image2013 Dodge Dart SXT Rallye Long-Term Road Test

We recently used the Edmunds long-term 2013 Dodge Dart for a 700-mile family road trip.

Read the full story here


Tagged:

Comments

  • duck87duck87 Member Posts: 649
    Is the issue with the engine refinement (vibration, harshness, powerband), or is it just the loud exhaust? I think the 1.4L engine used here and in the Abarth don't actually have a muffler, you're *supposed* to hear it as it's more sporty (it's rorty compared to the NA engines). Although it's now beating a dead horse, the transmission is the biggest loser in this car, and the seats seem to have been a failing with Mopar products of late.
  • emajoremajor Member Posts: 332
    Brent, we need some more info for that 30.8 mpg result to mean anything. Average cruising speed? Use of cruise control? Headwinds or crosswinds? If you were doing 80 mph into a headwind, you can't expect to hit the EPA numbers. I've got a 35mpg-rated subcompact that will easily get 40mpg at 65mph but drop to 30 mpg at 80 mph & a headwind. That said, it's nice to see another compact car on the market that can eat up highway miles. A few years ago if you wanted a stable, substantial, quiet compact you had the VW Jetta and that's about it. Several good choices now.
  • titancrewtitancrew Member Posts: 17
    30.8 mpg is pretty disappointing when mid-sized cars in Edmunds long-term fleet have gotten better than that on the highway. The Camry and Sonata comes to mind.
  • quadricyclequadricycle Member Posts: 827
    I'm not surprised, or disappointed, that you got 30mpg. You did after all fill it up with two adults, two small children and their car seats, and a lot of luggage. Although the 1.6L makes 160 horsepower, it does so with a turbo at the high end, stay out of that range and you've got your 37mpg highway rating, ride it a little harder to get the extra weight on board up to speed and you have your average.
  • gslippygslippy Member Posts: 514
    Weight makes a big difference at highway speeds, despite popular opinion that it's just aerodynamics.

    And I'll agree with the other posters, what was your speed? There is a constant theme at Edmunds of testers griping about highway MPG while going 75-80 mph. Even with the extra weight, if you stuck to the speed limit you'd be a lot closer to the EPA rating.

    BTW, the EPA highway test cycle averages 48 mph; it's not the same as 'keeping up with traffic'.
  • duck87duck87 Member Posts: 649
    Weight doesn't really make that much of a difference if you're not accelerating or decelerating, except maybe more frictional losses. Things like the aero, friction reduction measures and gearing make significantly more of a difference at steady speeds. The average EPA # is only part of the issue, the accel and decel cycles simply don't reflect how most people drive and that's where most of the energy will go.
  • zaxpeedzaxpeed Member Posts: 1
    When they did their epa I'm pretty sure there was only the driver and not added weight of 3 other occupants and full trunk! and going around in cruise control in an oval track or something similar?
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles