Dodge Dart: DEAD?

[Skython]

I think they should have just named it a new SRT-4. Or a new Dodge Neon, it would suit a lot better.

 

[White & Nerdy]

Snip because quote doesn't like box layering

Oversized - hah. Europe considers 4-4.5 liters to be a perfectly reasonable size for a V8, and 6-7 liters to be a "HUGE" V8. Yes, 7 is getting up there, but low 6's aren't "huge". You probably think the current Camaro has way too much displacement, I'd say it's just about right for a muscle car of that type (not too far from the old 396, which was the top engine in the original Camaro).

 

[Mark II Blit]

Fiat didn't have to make any sacrifices regarding their 170 Multiair. It is simply a brillant engine. All the reviews I've read tell the same story of a smooth, responsive engine, with plenty of punch all the way to redline. Much more than your average 2.0. Really, the problems you've summed up are non-existent in the Giulietta, and it's not like you're going to feel that you're "missing" 0.6 liters up front.

 

[Scaff]

Ah, but you live in Europe. For some reason people there like undersized cars with undersized engines.

Or maybe we (as many American's also do) simply lack the blind prejudice being displayed here.

And as I said above, compact weight by today's standards is more like midsize weight (or more) by normal standards. Because it takes into account a bunch of electronic garbage a compact car shouldn't have.

An argument that applies to every car in every segment you can care to mention.

Maybe, but then what kind of sacrifices had to be made in the areas of refinement, reliability, sound/feel, all-important POWERBAND, and of course cost had to be made to reach that level of power.

I own one and can quite happily say none at all, which may explain the awards the engine has been winning.

Nothing wrong with the powerband either...

...not even remotely peaky at all, which gels with my own experience.

Well then, they've gone and done something really amazing. But still, what kind of sacrifices had to be made?

That they have, which would once again explain the awards.

The Alfa Romeo Giulietta uses a new engine which utilizes a system known as Multiair. The system controls the amount of air going into the engine by controlling when air is allowed into the engine and how much the inlet valve opens. The system works by inserting a "tappet" between the cam shaft and the valve and the engine management system can control the amount of oil that is allowed into the "tappet" thus changing the effective opening profile of the inlet valve. The system can also change the overlap of the inlet and exhaust valves as well as changing the amount of lift and this allows the engine to maintain a steady pressure in the inlet manifold which is used to increase the amount of torque the engine produces while maintaining the efficiency of the engine. The system is said to increase torque by 20% while reducing emissions by a similar amount

This is also where principle comes in. It shouldn't be called Dart. The Dart should be a compact RWD-V8 muscle car. Call it Colt, call it Neon, call it Caliber, just don't call it Dart!

Which I strongly suspect is actually your main issue, funny how not all Dart's had a V8 however, the majority sold being fitted with 6 cylinder engines....

Outside of the GT, the sixes easily outsold the V8s, but the V8 was unquestionably popular.

Source - http://www.valiant.org/dart/index.html

Also, image enters it as well. No matter how good it is, a 1.4T is just missing something, and I suspect peer groups at the younger end of the scale (HS/college) will consider anyone unfortunate enough to have one of these an uncool Euro-wannabe (the Cruze has a similar issue, but it isn't even quick.)

That is you opinion and also have bugger all to do with the validity of the 1.4tb as an engine.

Oversized - hah. Europe considers 4-4.5 liters to be a perfectly reasonable size for a V8, and 6-7 liters to be a "HUGE" V8. Yes, 7 is getting up there, but low 6's aren't "huge". You probably think the current Camaro has way too much displacement, I'd say it's just about right for a muscle car of that type (not too far from the old 396, which was the top engine in the original Camaro).

Actually like most right-minded people we care more about the overall package and its performance that engaging in a willy waving contest over displacement.



Scaff

 

[E28]

Oversized - hah. Europe considers 4-4.5 liters to be a perfectly reasonable size for a V8, and 6-7 liters to be a "HUGE" V8. Yes, 7 is getting up there, but low 6's aren't "huge". You probably think the current Camaro has way too much displacement, I'd say it's just about right for a muscle car of that type (not too far from the old 396, which was the top engine in the original Camaro).

Our engines are smaller but more powerful in a lot of cases...

A 4.7 litre Aston Martin/Jaguar V8 produces the same amount of power as a 6.2 litre GM L99... A 5 litre version of the AJ-V8 can produce 540hp...

 

[Scaff]

Our engines are smaller but more powerful in a lot of cases...

A 4.7 litre Aston Martin/Jaguar V8 produces more power than a 6.2 litre GM L99...

And sometime Europe does both....

....7.7 litres and 1000bhp.

Also keep in mind the AJ V8 (the engine to which you are referring) was developed in association with Ford Europe and US, in fact its true to say that the most successful European V8 ever (the Rover 4.2 V8) was American in origin, starting life as a Buick engine.


However this is getting a little off-topic.


Scaff

 

[axletramp]

Wow, someone around here appears to misunderstand that engine technology (therefore size) needs to move forward. I'm also guessing he's logging into this forum using a 1980's style PC which doubles as his room heater and outside wall because 'all those fancy new computers and devices are way too small, fast and convenient'.

F1 engines in 2014 will be 1.6 litres - that'll 🤬 with his Nascar mentality!

 

[Nish]

I'd just ignore him, look at his psn name then treat him as such.

By the way.
Under its hood, Dart will offer three 16-valve four-cylinder engine choices: A pair of new 2.0 and 2.4-liter engines codenamed Tigershark or a Fiat-developed 1.4-liter turbocharged MultiAir four-cylinder. The 2.4-liter Tigershark engine will also feature Fiat?s MultiAir technology, the same combustion-optimizing design used in the Fiat 500.

If you don't like the 1.4L don't get that model.

 

[White & Nerdy]

I guess that's fine, but there are still image problems with the smaller engines. Here's what they say about you:

a. "I want to be Euro-chic because I think that's cool, even though it isn't."

b. "I care about the environment so much I bought a brand new car, but I got one with a thimble-sized engine so people will still think I'm a Mother Earth Hero."

or c. "I can't math. I bought this car to save money on gas, not realizing that the extra initial cost over a used car or a less advanced new one will cancel out any fuel savings for years to come."

Also, the very existance of super-small-displacement American cars looks to me like our auto industry losing its soul, becoming just like the European industry but for (sometimes) more aggressive styling. It seems like the typical method of building a small car anymore is to lard it up with excess electronics and luxury garbage, then use undersized engines and expensive technology to regain the fuel economy lost to extra weight - while driving the price even higher. Tell me, why does an entry-level car need GPS, iPod connectivity, 500 electronic nannies, power everything, heated leather blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah...

Dodge has apparently managed to make it light ("By modern standards", which probably means still heavy by the standards of 5 years ago), so that's good, but I still wonder how much all this costs. And whether or not they'll let you fully disable the stability control (most compacts don't that I know of, unfortunately).

As to Europeans being able to make engines that are both smaller and more powerful than American muscle car engines: you forget, technology costs money, sometimes a lot of money. A muscle car isn't supposed to cost a lot of money, it's supposed to provide ruling-class performance for middle-class money - although currency inflation and bloat/feature creep have kinda ruined that anyway. So if it can perform admirably with two-valve heads on a large engine, and (in the Mustang's case) a live rear axle getting that power to the ground, why add upgrades/features that won't provide enough benefit to justify the extra cost?

 

[Azuremen]

I'm just confused as to how someone can be so misguided. Holy cow.

The number of ridicolous assumptions and leaps in logic just amaze me.

Smaller cars are simply the result of people realizing we don't have super cheap gas anymore, and that they actually like having a small car in city situations because it makes parking vastly easier. Next to no one needs an SUV or any of that nonsense, and most people can do with a compact or mid-size sedan at largest.

A lot of price increases are the result of inflation as well, and you can get plenty of cars that have few features. And when you complain about weight and talk about wanting large displacement, you tend to be arguing opposing things.

 

[White & Nerdy]

I never said we couldn't have small cars.

As to "large" displacement and light weight being mutually exclusive, it wasn't always that way. Before feature creep really took hold, it was possible to get a V6 compact weighing well under 3000lbs. V6 compacts didn't last long, but the tendancy for cars to grow and gain weight is still going today, so now a "compact" with a basic I4 can weigh OVER 3000lbs, or at least close to it, and one with a V6 could probably come close to the weight of an early "cute ute" (Forester, Rav4, etc.). While some of this is undoubtedly due to the balooning number of airbags they carry (which are acutally helpful, though I'm not exactly sure when they fixed all the problems that used to make them dangerous), the rest of it is probably due to the decision of someone somewhere that an entry-level car should work just as well for a night out on the town as it did for the trip to and from work. Hello, feature creep!

 

[Azuremen]

Most of those Compacts you are talking about were American in design, and usually slower than the 4 cylinder counter parts from Japan or Europe. The V6 Probe was probably the worst thing to have been made. Ever. The only decent once I can think of from that era would be the Ford Contour SVT, which was still getting close to 3000 pounds.

V6 doesn't mean more power. That 2.0L Turbo BMW has puts out more torque and the same power my old 3.0L I6 does and manages to return better fuel economy. Sounds dreadful, right?

 

[JJ72]

So glad I don't live in a Nascar Country.

 

[Keef]

So glad I don't live in a Nascar Country.

He's from Alaska. Many people in Alaska don't even know what a car is.

 

[AMCNUT]

I'm pretty sure that if White & Nerdy had his way with compact cars, they'd end up looking like this...








... or like this.



I mean, it's got everything! Big 'ole redneck American looks, a big 'ole redneck American V8, and.... well, that's about it!

* Also, that was not meant to offend normal Americans - you know, the group that consists of almost everyone else...

 

[SlipZtrEm]

It's not trolling.

This will end well.

Sub-2.0 engines are just wrong,

Contradictory statement one.

Miatas are the most effiminate car this side of a New Beetle, so I'm not surprised the typical owner doesn't mind. The Miata was to a normal sports car as a moped is to a motorcycle, and it seems like they're going to make it even worse now.

Contradictory statement two.

Ah, but you live in Europe. For some reason people there like undersized cars with undersized engines.

Contradictory statement three (and as already pointed out, obvious location/word swap is obvious).

And as I said above, compact weight by today's standards is more like midsize weight (or more) by normal standards. Because it takes into account a bunch of electronic garbage a compact car shouldn't have.

Shouldn't... why?

Don't get me started on Hondas. Suffice it to say, that thing sounds like a chainsaw. It was also a hose-it-out track day car with stuff like sound deadening removed.

What's wrong with that? I thought we should be removing weight wherever possible?

Well then, they've gone and done something really amazing. But still, what kind of sacrifices had to be made?

Scaff is better-versed on the topic of Multiair, but really... none. I suppose "cost", but that's hardly a sacrifice since money will have to go into any engine to improve its efficiency over time. Fiat's system has been earning recognition for years now, and one can only hope Multiair starts making its way across the Chrysler line.

This is also where principle comes in. It shouldn't be called Dart. The Dart should be a compact RWD-V8 muscle car. Call it Colt, call it Neon, call it Caliber, just don't call it Dart!

I'll admit Dart wasn't my first choice for a small Dodge (I liked Hornet), but holding on to old names simply because the car they're now attached to is different just seems silly to me. The current Corolla is a completely different vehicle to the original, as an example. The Charger, despite being the second revival of the name, proved successful, even as a sedan, and the American Big Three (Chrysler in particular) need to succeed.

I guess that's fine, but there are still image problems with the smaller engines. Here's what they say about you:

a. "I want to be Euro-chic because I think that's cool, even though it isn't."

b. "I care about the environment so much I bought a brand new car, but I got one with a thimble-sized engine so people will still think I'm a Mother Earth Hero."

or c. "I can't math. I bought this car to save money on gas, not realizing that the extra initial cost over a used car or a less advanced new one will cancel out any fuel savings for years to come."

Here's what this says about you: "I'm incredibly close-minded and can't accept that other people may have different needs from automobiles than my own".

Tell me, why does an entry-level car need GPS, iPod connectivity, 500 electronic nannies, power everything, heated leather blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah...

Because a larger portion of the market wants that than those who don't.

 

[Eric.]

This is also where principle comes in. It shouldn't be called Dart. The Dart should be a compact RWD-V8 muscle car. Call it Colt, call it Neon, call it Caliber, just don't call it Dart!

Also, image enters it as well. No matter how good it is, a 1.4T is just missing something, and I suspect peer groups at the younger end of the scale (HS/college) will consider anyone unfortunate enough to have one of these an uncool Euro-wannabe (the Cruze has a similar issue, but it isn't even quick.)

1) A RWD American sedan with a V8 from the 60s/70s does not a muscle car make. Otherwise every American sedan ever made from that time would be a muscle car.

2) Not many high school kids buy brand new cars. Phew. Glad we solved that one.

Oversized - hah. Europe considers 4-4.5 liters to be a perfectly reasonable size for a V8, and 6-7 liters to be a "HUGE" V8. Yes, 7 is getting up there, but low 6's aren't "huge". You probably think the current Camaro has way too much displacement, I'd say it's just about right for a muscle car of that type (not too far from the old 396, which was the top engine in the original Camaro).

Can you quit being a complete disgrace to the rest of us? You can't even get your Camaro history right. Camaro ZL1. 427CID.

 

[JJ72]

The only reason someone can be so fixated about having big engine is because he has a really small manhood.

For the record I drive a 1600cc....

 

[Eric.]

The only reason someone can be so fixated about having big engine is because he has a really small manhood.

For the record I drive a 1600cc....

Most fun car I've ever driven (and I own it) has a ~100hp 1.6.

 

[Terronium-12]

I need popcorn.

The "intelligence" being put on display here is astounding. Keep at it, fella.

 

[Joey D]

I guess that's fine, but there are still image problems with the smaller engines. Here's what they say about you:

a. "I want to be Euro-chic because I think that's cool, even though it isn't."

b. "I care about the environment so much I bought a brand new car, but I got one with a thimble-sized engine so people will still think I'm a Mother Earth Hero."

or c. "I can't math. I bought this car to save money on gas, not realizing that the extra initial cost over a used car or a less advanced new one will cancel out any fuel savings for years to come."

I bought a car with a small, 2.0L engine. And while I do enjoy Euro styling, care about the environment and appreciate good fuel economy, none of those are the reasons I bought my Focus. The main reason I went for a Focus over any other car was that it gave me room to haul stuff and wasn't an SUV. America is severely lacking hatchbacks.

You have to understand, most people don't care what engine their car has. I did to an extent, but if I really care about performance I would be driving around something with way more get up and go. But why would I need it? My car hits 80 from an on-ramp just fine, I can pull out into traffic without risking getting ran over and I can stick with the flow of traffic whatever speed it may be.

There is absolutely no reason to have big engines with today's technology unless you plan on towing extremely heavy loads, and even then you're burning diesel.

A majority of people who are potential buyers for the Dart probably won't care about the engine, as long as the car isn't a dog and gets respectable fuel economy you'll hardly hear any complaints outside the automotive journalism world about the performance.

Obviously Dodge isn't trying to market the car to people who think the way you do, but they do offer several choices for tho people to look at instead. The Charger and Challenger both over big V8 engines and RWD. There, problem solved, looks like they have something for everybody.

 

[hawkeye122]

I supposed you can go take up some words with Tom Chilton and his slow, underpowered, eco-box. Same with Andy Prialux. I'd look pretty uncool if I showed up at school in one of his 3-series with the 2.0.

Tell me, White and Nerdy, have you ever raced on a track in a car that lends itself to steering rather than brute power? Sure, a big V8 would be helpful at say, Fuji, or an Oval, but go to just about any road track in America (There are more than you think) and you'll find them full of people in great Civics, Focuses, Mazda3's, and Miatas. I bet ANY of them could have you in the muscle car of your choice.

 

[White & Nerdy]

I had a massive response typed up here, but I lost it all. Suffice it to say, I can't even remember it all now and I'm not wasting another hour on multiquotes and massive typed responses. It's just that compacts used to have a rawer edge than they do now, and I'm kind of missing that. They also used to be able to pack much bigger engines without any weight issues (in fact, with fewer weight issues than the new ones have with small engines).

The Charger and Challenger both over big V8 engines and RWD. There, problem solved, looks like they have something for everybody.

If I'm going that route, I'll go for the Chevrolet or Ford offering. The Challenger only serves to reinforce the stereotypes about American handling failure, because under the skin it's a full-size sedan, and they picked just about the worst tires possible for it (or at least for the one Car & Driver reviewed a couple years ago). Applying the Multiair technology to the Hemi in the SRT8 has the potential to produce a competitor for the Camaro ZL1, but I'm not sure I want to imagine a 640hp car with the Challenger's handling.

Also, as to the old Camaro ZL1: unless I'm mistaken, that was a rare COPO-special supercar and not an official Chevrolet product. The AMA had a system of displacement limits in place, so the 427 was only able to be officially used in Corvettes and possibly full-size cars until 1970 (which was when the Camaro was first redesigned - and as I recall there was still no official 427).

I'd look pretty uncool if I showed up at school in one of his 3-series with the 2.0.

If your parents bought it for you, the displacement wouldn't matter, you'd be uncool anyway.

but go to just about any road track in America (There are more than you think) and you'll find them full of people in great Civics, Focuses, Mazda3's, and Miatas. I bet ANY of them could have you in the muscle car of your choice.

Possibly, but the only muscle car that has trouble with corners anymore is the Challenger. The Camaro and Mustang both have great handling as I recall.

As to what I said earlier this post about raw-edged compacts: it's like I said a few posts ago. A compact car can have any two of these three: speed, fuel efficiency, and luxury. Fuel efficiency is pretty much a given, but whereas compact cars used to have a slight performance bias (or no bias at all beyond efficiency), they're now moving away from performance and toward luxury. And I don't like it. If what I've read here is correct, Dodge has managed to get the balance of the three qualities right about where it should be, or at least as close as possible in this age of soon-to-be-mandatory stability control and soon-to-be-ridiculous CAFE standards. That is, if they send it to production exactly as described here rather than letting "luxury creep" have its way in the intervening time.

 

[JJ72]

It's just that compacts used to have a rawer hey also used to be able to pack much bigger engines without any weight issues (in fact, with fewer weight issues than the new ones have with small engines).

Yes cos they were rolling coffins with the structural integrity of a slinky.

By the way you write your last paragraph it seems you think the dart is alright? I am at lost here.

 

[White & Nerdy]

Yes cos they were rolling coffins with the structural integrity of a slinky.

By the way you write your last paragraph it seems you think the dart is alright? I am at lost here.

I've never heard of older compacts having too many structural issues anyway. I've heard the Ford ZX2 wasn't particuarly kind to your legs in an accident, but I've never heard any others mentioned that way.

I guess the Dart is somewhat OK, since at least these people have figured out how to make displacement downsizing work. Also, it totally embarrasses the Chevy Cruze, since GM apparently hasn't figured out how to make displacement downsizing work.

Still two main issues. One, I'm guessing the probable complexity of the Multiair system could make some upgrades cost- and difficulty- prohibitive. It'll be like the Chevy 409 of old, but with less potential since no matter what you do to it, it can still only process a very small amount of air/fuel mixture for each revolution. Two, I fear manufacturers will use technologies like this as an excuse to displacement-downsize ALL the engines!, to the point where pickup trucks no longer have V8s and muscle cars have very small ones.

 

[rb26x]

I'm pretty sure that if White & Nerdy had his way with compact cars, they'd end up looking like this...

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/838/dsc03967qz.jpg/

... or like this.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/525/v8barstool.jpg/

I mean, it's got everything! Big 'ole redneck American looks, a big 'ole redneck American V8, and.... well, that's about it!

* Also, that was not meant to offend normal Americans - you know, the group that consists of almost everyone else...

Most everyone else? Most kids in my school are muscle heads that would love a car like that 👎

 

[Northstar]

Two, I fear manufacturers will use technologies like this as an excuse to displacement-downsize ALL the engines!, to the point where pickup trucks no longer have V8s and muscle cars have very small ones.

So?

(Language warning)


If they can get just as much(even better) performance from a smaller engine, I say good on them. People seem to have this notion that smaller engine = less power when that just isn't true with todays technology.

 

[AMCNUT]

Most everyone else? Most kids in my school are muscle heads that would love a car like that 👎

I think it's a tenuous link at best to all either of those things 'cars', but to each their own.

Also, I never said that there was anything wrong with being a musclehead - I was actually satirizing the overall size of the vehicle in relation to the engine. I hope you got what I was attempting to say up there...

 

[Joey D]

Most everyone else? Most kids in my school are muscle heads that would love a car like that 👎

They'd love a car like that but never buy one, you know because they're students. Typically young people can't afford to purchase, maintain or insure brand new performance car. Used is another story though.

 

[Slash]

Oversized - hah. Europe considers 4-4.5 liters to be a perfectly reasonable size for a V8, and 6-7 liters to be a "HUGE" V8. Yes, 7 is getting up there, but low 6's aren't "huge". You probably think the current Camaro has way too much displacement, I'd say it's just about right for a muscle car of that type (not too far from the old 396, which was the top engine in the original Camaro).

I can think of several 7.5L+ V8's that were in older vehicles...and some of those same engines to be over 13.1L's lol