Dodge Dart: DEAD?

[Cano]

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.

This basically sums it up. And while I don't like the name either because, well, I like the old Darts too, I think Dodge could hit the nail in the head with this one. The stylingis a bit bland and odd but I won't pass judgement on it util we see the complete car. Loos like a Fiesta with a Golf VI front in it.

And yeah, interested to see what the SRT4 will be capable of doing. Let's hope the italians let the crazy goons at SRT to tune up their Multiair system, I'd love to see where it could be taken with the same methods that made the SRT Neon such a little monster.

 

[Joel]

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.

Well, I don't particularly see the problem honestly. Gas isn't hilariously cheap anymore, and you can get power out of 4 or 6 cylinder engines that far surpasses V-8's from only a few years back. The 3.5L V6 Ecoboost in the F-150 makes more power and comparable torque than a 6.8L V10 from the 10th gen ('97-2004) F-150. The 5.7L V8 Hemi in the Ram makes comparable power to what Ford gets out of the 3.5L V6 Ecoboost.

I just don't see why a V8 is necessary when the technology is leading towards less cylinders, better fuel economy, smaller engines, and more power. I'm sure they'll always make V8's for Mericans like you, but the rest of the world will move on.

 

[E28]

Well, I don't particularly see the problem honestly. Gas isn't hilariously cheap anymore, and you can get power out of 4 or 6 cylinder engines that far surpasses V-8's from only a few years back. The 3.5L V6 Ecoboost in the F-150 makes more power and comparable torque than a 6.8L V10 from the 10th gen ('97-2004) F-150. The 5.7L V8 Hemi in the Ram makes comparable power to what Ford gets out of the 3.5L V6 Ecoboost.

I just don't see why a V8 is necessary when the technology is leading towards less cylinders, better fuel economy, smaller engines, and more power. I'm sure they'll always make V8's for Merica.

Some americans really need to move away from their big engine obsession...

When are they releasing more pictures of the Dart anyway?

 

[Tornado]

America really needs to move away from it's big engine obsession...

And that is where I draw the line.

 

[RocZX]

When are they releasing more pictures of the Dart anyway?

They will release interior teaser pic on Dec. 13th but the whole car will be show at the North American International auto show( Detroit Auto Show) on January 9 or 10.

 

[buickgnx88]

Some americans really need to move away from their big engine obsession...

Eh, to Ford's credit the V10 was actually used in the HD F-250 and F-350 trucks, along with the Econoline. It was never offered in the half-ton F-150. It was mainly meant for people who needed the power, but didn't want to bother with a diesel.

 

[YSSMAN]

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).

You must be:

A) Not old enough to remember those vehicles

B) Never driven one of those vehicles

C) Know little of American automotive history, 1981-2011


I mean, we could discuss the atrocities that were the Chevrolet Beretta/Corsica, Dodge Spirit, and Ford Tempo... But it is probably better that we choose not to remember them. Or we could discuss how adding a V6 to the Chevrolet Cavalier Z34 and Dodge Shadow actually decreased performance of the vehicle relative to their four-cylinder options, but yeah, its probably better not to remember that either.


So, I generally have to ask... What compacts are you talking about? Nearly every one of the compact cars I can think of that had an "edge" used a small-displacement, high-output four-cylinder engine that lacked any kind of NVH development whatsoever.

 

[Cale]

<3

 

[YSSMAN]

Oh, don't get me wrong... I do my absolute best to remember the Beretta GTZ/GTU... But anything else?


Nope.

 

[psntomaz]

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).



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).



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



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.

Incase you didnt know, the SRT8 Grand Cherokee does the Ring in about 8 min and some seconds from what i heard on a Video. it wasnt done by SRT and im surpised the person who driven it didnt acknowledge the Record.

 

[Nish]

Oh, don't get me wrong... I do my absolute best to remember the Beretta GTZ/GTU... But anything else?


Nope.

Hey, don't tread on my Berreta GT either . That 3.1L is the little engine that wouldn't die, also the Beretta GT was a better handling car than the RWD car's surrounding it (Camaro namely). Mine had body matched white rim's and more rubber width than I expected it to have.
http://www.sportcarwallpaper.us/wp-content/gallery/chevrolet-beretta/chevrolet-beretta-8.jpg
That's not my car but a good example of it, my tread seemed to have a slightly lower profile and the metal along the edge of mine were also white.

 

[Tornado]

Or we could discuss how adding a V6 to the Chevrolet Cavalier Z34 and Dodge Shadow actually decreased performance of the vehicle relative to their four-cylinder options, but yeah, its probably better not to remember that either.

Well, in the Shadow's case, that's not exactly a fair comparison. Not everyone can put up with the idiosyncrasies of a Turbo K, and the V6 was an option was an option for the Shadow for refinement rather than performance. I think it was cheaper too, if I recall correctly.

 

[White & Nerdy]

You must be:

A) Not old enough to remember those vehicles

B) Never driven one of those vehicles

C) Know little of American automotive history, 1981-2011


I mean, we could discuss the atrocities that were the Chevrolet Beretta/Corsica, Dodge Spirit, and Ford Tempo... But it is probably better that we choose not to remember them. Or we could discuss how adding a V6 to the Chevrolet Cavalier Z34 and Dodge Shadow actually decreased performance of the vehicle relative to their four-cylinder options, but yeah, its probably better not to remember that either.


So, I generally have to ask... What compacts are you talking about? Nearly every one of the compact cars I can think of that had an "edge" used a small-displacement, high-output four-cylinder engine that lacked any kind of NVH development whatsoever.

Funny thing, I was actually thinking of the Pontiac Sunbird SE (which I have a moderate amount of experience with), and I don't remember that many issues with it that wouldn't also have been present (and possibly worse) on the four-cylinder variant. It might have had a somewhat lumpy idle, nor did it rev as smoothly as a modern Starbucks-on-wheels, but I actually like that since it sounds throaty and powerful instead of like a weed whacker. Maybe my standards are just set too low, I wouldn't be surprised, but it seems to me like that car is perfectly adequate for basic transportation with a bit of fun - even if you can't surf the internet through your onboard navitainment system.

 

[YSSMAN]

Well, in the Shadow's case, that's not exactly a fair comparison. Not everyone can put up with the idiosyncrasies of a Turbo K, and the V6 was an option was an option for the Shadow for refinement rather than performance. I think it was cheaper too, if I recall correctly.

Right, but it is antithetical to his argument. The addition of the six-cylinder to all of those cars, as well as the Spirit, Topaz and others came as a detriment to the performance of the vehicle. Whether we choose to recognize it or not, four-cylinder options have been worthy of attention for the better part of three decades. Of course, those were the days when GM, Ford and Chrysler were all out of their damn minds.

Funny thing, I was actually thinking of the Pontiac Sunbird SE (which I have a moderate amount of experience with), and I don't remember that many issues with it that wouldn't also have been present (and possibly worse) on the four-cylinder variant. It might have had a somewhat lumpy idle, nor did it rev as smoothly as a modern Starbucks-on-wheels, but I actually like that since it sounds throaty and powerful instead of like a weed whacker. Maybe my standards are just set too low, I wouldn't be surprised, but it seems to me like that car is perfectly adequate for basic transportation with a bit of fun - even if you can't surf the internet through your onboard navitainment system.

Wait... Your frame of reference is the Pontiac Sunbird?

C'mon, guy. I'm from Michigan and take more pride than almost anyone in our American automotive industry, but those are the kinds of cars that we need to forget. That 3.1L V6 was an absolute atrocity, regardless of what it was put in. There is nothing fun about an iron-cast engine that weighs more than the titanic bogging down a car that already lacks chassis rigidity and has the overall refinement of a grizzly bear's bedroom. Equipped with the old Quad-4... Maybe, it could have been a bit of fun. But, that goes completely against your argument.

 

[White & Nerdy]

In my experience, it was quite a strong engine considering that the 1980s weren't far gone at the time. And, IIRC, it was in the Beretta as well, which was lauded a few posts above (despite being probably heavier than the Sunbird and several orders of magnitude uglier). And said Sunbird would totally embarass the new Cruze in a race because it isn't hauling a bunch of navitainment equipment. It even had decent handling IIRC, at least as much as a FWD car can have decent handling.

 

[itsbenjibrand]

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/12/06/2013-dodge-dart-aims-for-center-of-compact-sedan-segment/

My opinion: Don't just dig up a name from the past because you think it's cool. If I wanted to buy a new Dodge Dart, I would want a RWD V8 powered coupe. When I hear the name "Dart", I don't think of a FWD 1.4L compact car.

👎 to Dodge for that.

Not every car in Dodge's line-up can be a rear-wheel drive V8. Lets get real, a good product line needs a good mix of small, medium, and a few large size vehicles.

It looks like a sporty car that will compete with the likes of the Honda Civic, Toyota Corolla, Nissan Sentra etc.

Though in regards to the name, they should have called it the Neon.

Dodge has a history of wrecking the legacy of car names. Were it not for the 2008 revival of the Dodge Challenger with its muscle car look, we would've remembered it as a 1980's 4-cylinder s:censored: box.

I mean, we could discuss the atrocities that were the Chevrolet Beretta/Corsica, Dodge Spirit, and Ford Tempo...

Anyone who says the Beretta/Corsica is a good car is out of their mine. My father owns a Corsica. It sucks, its in the back of the driveway rotting away because it is an unreliable piece of junk. He drives a 2003 Intrepid now (not much better).

 

[Tornado]

In my experience, it was quite a strong engine considering that the 1980s weren't far gone at the time.

It was a strong engine because it was a big engine. It was basically a boat anchor.

And, IIRC, it was in the Beretta as well, which was lauded a few posts above (despite being probably heavier than the Sunbird and several orders of magnitude uglier).

The Beretta also had a bit effort put into its development for the performance models, and wasn't altogether terrible when it was new but sold for 20 years anyway.

And said Sunbird would totally embarass the new Cruze in a race because it isn't hauling a bunch of navitainment equipment.

The only, and I repeat, only, J Body that the Cruze LTZ wouldn't walk is the Sunbird Turbo GT (which, hilariously enough, was a turbo four cylinder that made more power than the V6 they replaced it with). Not the Z24. Not the Sunbird V6. The Turbo 122 four cylinder. This is despite the Cruze being heavier. This is despite the Cruze not being a performance model. This is despite the Cruze having less than half the displacement of the LH0 V6.

And then you would get to a turn and the Sunbird would fall to pieces because they were complete garbage with the chassis stiffness of spaghetti even in Turbo GT form.

It even had decent handling IIRC, at least as much as a FWD car can have decent handling.

Stop being such a fool.

 

[itsbenjibrand]

Stop being such a fool.

Forgive him, he's stuck in the 1980's .

 

[White & Nerdy]

The only, and I repeat, only, J Body that the Cruze LTZ wouldn't walk is the Sunbird Turbo GT (which, hilariously enough, was a turbo four cylinder that made more power than the V6 they replaced it with). Not the Z24. Not the Sunbird V6. The Turbo 122 four cylinder. This is despite the Cruze being heavier. This is despite the Cruze not being a performance model. This is despite the Cruze having less than half the displacement of the LH0 V6.

ORLY?

What engine does the Cruze LTZ have?

If it's the 1.4T, I'm afraid you're wrong. According to Consumer Reports, a Cruze 1LT with the same engine (and presumably less weight because fewer features) did 0-60 in 9.8 seconds - pretty slow, all things considered. Sources elsewhere say about 9.1 for the Sunbird V6 - not record-smashing, but entirely to be expected with less weight and more power.

And then you would get to a turn and the Sunbird would fall to pieces because they were complete garbage with the chassis stiffness of spaghetti even in Turbo GT form.

Didn't seem to have that many problems with corners as I recall. But then I doubt the Cruze is that good in the curves either, seeing as how it hauls around a bunch of luxury navitainment excess. And it seems like it would definitely be easier to enhance a car's rigidity (and it still wouldn't weigh as much as a Cruze) than to remove hundreds of pounds of luxury electronics without it ruining something else.

Stop being such a fool.

Oh by the way, I took the liberty of removing your font & color tags. They're annoying as all get out.

 

[itsbenjibrand]

The Cruze is up 20 years in terms of research and innovation W&N, it has modern day suspension, made of better materials etc. The Cruze would beat the Sunbird 10 times out of 10.

 

[Tornado]

ORLY?

What engine does the Cruze LTZ have?

If it's the 1.4T, I'm afraid you're wrong. According to Consumer Reports, a Cruze 1LT with the same engine (and presumably less weight because fewer features) did 0-60 in 9.8 seconds - pretty slow, all things considered. Sources elsewhere say about 9.1 for the Sunbird V6 - not record-smashing, but entirely to be expected with less weight and more power.

9.3. 9.3. 9.0. 8.9.

Weighs several hundred pounds more, has the same horsepower, quite a bit less torque, and a crappy automatic. And I see you've ignored the fact that the Sunbird with the Turbo 122 was still the fastest one they ever made by a good margin; just like the Dodge models with the Turbo K were always far faster than the ones with the Mitsubishi V6.



Also, once again, the Z24 was the performance model and the Cruze doesn't have one.

But then I doubt the Cruze is that good in the curves either, seeing as how it hauls around a bunch of luxury navitainment excess.

And, you know, chassis design that is 30 years newer and at least a hundred fewer pounds on the front of the car.

And it seems like it would definitely be easier to enhance a car's rigidity (and it still wouldn't weigh as much as a Cruze) than to remove hundreds of pounds of luxury electronics without it ruining something else.

You don't seem to realize that most of that weight gain is rigidity. Not luxury items. Not electronics. Chassis stiffening.

Oh by the way, I took the liberty of removing your font & color tags. They're annoying as all get out.

Good for you. My statement still stands. It isn't 1982 anymore. The idea that a FWD car can't handle is a foolish one.

 

[White & Nerdy]

snip links

Then either the Consumer Reports driver wasn't using full throttle because that might hurt the environment (it is Consumer Reports you know), or GM is using ringers in its press fleet. Several reasons: Consumer Reports, which buys its cars like anyone else instead of borrowing them, would end up with the slowest figures (which they did), and everyone else's numbers would be absurdly fast for a car with that power-to-weight ratio (which they are). If you've got another explanation, I'd like to hear it.

Weighs several hundred pounds more, has the same horsepower, quite a bit less torque, and a crappy automatic. And I see you've ignored the fact that the Sunbird with the Turbo 122 was still the fastest one they ever made by a good margin; just like the Dodge models with the Turbo K were always far faster than the ones with the Mitsubishi V6.

True, but then those are plenty big enough for 4cyls anyway. Also, how were the 4cyl turbos on response, powerband, and of course sound?

Good for you. My statement still stands. It isn't 1982 anymore. The idea that a FWD car can't handle is a foolish one.

They can sort of handle, but physics don't change. FWD really is a sub-optimal platform for just about anything: when they have to handle both the acceleration/braking and the steering, the front tires overload rather easily and the result is hideous understeer transitioning into even worse oversteer when you finally pass the limit. RWD is just a better overall design, and more predictable on limit.

 

[YSSMAN]

... or GM is using ringers in its press fleet... If you've got another explanation, I'd like to hear it.

Inside Line bought their car in much the same way, and they consistently got a near-nine second figure. What is your point? The performance of the vehicle in a straight line is not the point, and GM has never argued it as such. The goal is fuel economy, plain and simple.

True, but then those are plenty big enough for 4cyls anyway. Also, how were the 4cyl turbos on response, powerband, and of course sound?

If you're such an expert on the way that the old, front-wheel-drive cars were "hard edged," shouldn't you be aware of this? They were trashy, non-sensical vehicles in the best way '80s technology could be. I assume that you've never seen one of the old turbo cars, let alone ridden in one?

They can sort of handle, but physics don't change. FWD really is a sub-optimal platform for just about anything: when they have to handle both the acceleration/braking and the steering, the front tires overload rather easily and the result is hideous understeer transitioning into even worse oversteer when you finally pass the limit. RWD is just a better overall design, and more predictable on limit.

[/facepalm]

So, you complain about how front-wheel-drive coupes aren't "hard edged" enough anymore (using the Pontiac Sunbird SE as a benchmark is laughable in itself), and then you completely write off the "hard edged" platforms you advocate for. This leads me to two separate conclusions:

1) You don't know what you're talking about

2) You really don't know what you're talking about

Furthermore, it is by those two conclusions that I may surmise that you have no idea what a proper FWD performance car is, and have little to no way of comparing it to any kind of RWD option made available in the last two decades. To be frank, your position is laughable, and it demonstrates your inability to become informed on the subject and form a cohesive argument that demonstrates your knowledge on that given subject.

If you want to state it as "your opinion" that you would prefer a RWD vehicle to that of a FWD one, that is fine. If you want to state that it is "your opinion" that smaller cars should be carrying larger displacement engines again, that's fine. But for both circumstances, I'd suggest that you have a significant reason for believing it as such.

 

[White & Nerdy]

Inside Line bought their car in much the same way, and they consistently got a near-nine second figure. What is your point? The performance of the vehicle in a straight line is not the point, and GM has never argued it as such. The goal is fuel economy, plain and simple.

Then how do you explain the massive disparity between the results they got and the results CR got with a car that actually should have been slightly faster?

If you're such an expert on the way that the old, front-wheel-drive cars were "hard edged," shouldn't you be aware of this? They were trashy, non-sensical vehicles in the best way '80s technology could be. I assume that you've never seen one of the old turbo cars, let alone ridden in one?

Yes, most of them sucked. But the new ones suck too, just in a different way. And yes, I have ridden in one of the old turbo K's. Well, not really a K, but something close too it - a 1987 Chrysler New Yorker Turbo. As I recall, straightline performance was at least adequate, but the owner of said Chrysler never tested its handling in my presence - or at all. That was more a luxury car than a compact, but it seemed at the time that it had a strong engine, and a different car with that engine probably wouldn't be too shabby at all.

[/facepalm]

So, you complain about how front-wheel-drive coupes aren't "hard edged" enough anymore (using the Pontiac Sunbird SE as a benchmark is laughable in itself), and then you completely write off the "hard edged" platforms you advocate for. This leads me to two separate conclusions:

1) You don't know what you're talking about

2) You really don't know what you're talking about

I never said the new ones were any better. FWD is hardly the platform of choice for hard cornering, but if you're going to use it for such, best not be carrying who knows how many pounds of leather upholstery and GPS equipment. The older ones had a harder edge, and I much prefer the cheap, rough type of suckage - the type that costs maybe $1500, will do stupid looking burnouts, and is a reasonable platform for modification to the "500 pounds of leather and over-programmed nannies" type of suckage - the type that lets you manage a 20GB music system in your center console while texting, road raging, and eating a Big Mac, but can't go very fast at all (in some cases) and can't lay rubber because you can't turn the :censored:ing traction control off.

Furthermore, it is by those two conclusions that I may surmise that you have no idea what a proper FWD performance car is, and have little to no way of comparing it to any kind of RWD option made available in the last two decades. To be frank, your position is laughable, and it demonstrates your inability to become informed on the subject and form a cohesive argument that demonstrates your knowledge on that given subject.

Pray tell, then, how manufacturers have managed to defeat physics and make FWD work?

 

[Joey D]

Pray tell, then, how manufacturers have managed to defeat physics and make FWD work?

You've heard of LSD, yes?

And then you have Ford's Revoknuckle and GM's HiPer Strut, both similar in concept.

But really all you have to do is show up at an autocross and you'll see FWD cars work really well.

 

[AMCNUT]

I never said the new ones were any better. FWD is hardly the platform of choice for hard cornering, but if you're going to use it for such, best not be carrying who knows how many pounds of leather upholstery and GPS equipment.

I would be inclined to think that the X# of pounds resultant from a larger engine that is hanging on or in front of the front axle on a FWD car would be a greater detriment to its handling than a bit of leather and a CD player, which weighs FAR less and is located much closer to the center of the vehicle.

You seem very fixated on leather and CD players as the ultimate enemy of vehicular performance. Just sayin'.

 

[JJ72]

Then how do you explain the massive disparity between the results they got and the results CR got with a car that actually should have been slightly faster?

drive train efficiency. better tires and hence traction etc.

I never said the new ones were any better. FWD is hardly the platform of choice for hard cornering

Most recent WTCC champion racing cars will like a talk with you. So as in BTCC, so as in STCC.

Pray tell, then, how manufacturers have managed to defeat physics and make FWD work?

LSD, chassis rigidity, and Multilink rear suspension.👍

and you know, FWD packaging tends to be lighter too, since you don't need a long driveshaft. It seems rather silly to complain about weight but in the same time suggesting a huge lump of inefficient V8 as a more favorable option.

 

[Eric.]

Up to a certain horsepower level, FWD doesn't have to be off-pace of RWD. Depends how much the car pushes on throttle, you'll utilize a little different racing line than a RWD equivalent. FWD is almost always worse for drag racing since a RWD benefits from the weight shift.

 

[YSSMAN]

Then how do you explain the massive disparity between the results they got and the results CR got with a car that actually should have been slightly faster?

There are a wide variety of things to take into consideration. Temperature, humidity, elevation, and just as much driver error. I have no idea if Consumer Reports corrects for these variables, but I know reputable magazines like Car and Driver do. But then again... What is your point? There is bound to be at least some variability in the overall performance of each vehicle that rolls out of Lordstown, OH. Whether it is a fraction of a second or not... Its bound to happen.

Yes, most of them sucked. But the new ones suck too, just in a different way.

I never said the new ones were any better. FWD is hardly the platform of choice for hard cornering, but if you're going to use it for such, best not be carrying who knows how many pounds of leather upholstery and GPS equipment. The older ones had a harder edge, and I much prefer the cheap, rough type of suckage - the type that costs maybe $1500, will do stupid looking burnouts, and is a reasonable platform for modification to the "500 pounds of leather and over-programmed nannies" type of suckage - the type that lets you manage a 20GB music system in your center console while texting, road raging, and eating a Big Mac, but can't go very fast at all (in some cases) and can't lay rubber because you can't turn the :censored:ing traction control off.

So, are you complaining about standard equipment or optional packages? Because in most instances, the optional luxury equipment is just that... Optional.

I'm not sure if you are able to fathom that in the civilized, continental United States, those luxury amenities are a major perk when buying a small car. No longer do you need to spend $40K to get a decent grain of leather, Bluetooth, USB control for the iPod, and voice controlled everything. You can get all of it in a $15K Fiesta, where the system is non-intrusive, and weighs next-to-nothing.

Now... what's this about the traction control not being fully defeatable? It is not the case on every car. Are you in reference to the Chevrolet Cruze? You do realize that both the stability and traction control can be switched off, correct? Perhaps in your rather uncivilized part of the world, burnouts are an amazing thing to accomplish, but in a standard civilian vehicle... What's the point? A little hooning is fine when you have the appropriate vehicle... But in a Cruze? Or a Focus? Or even the Dodge in question... Why?

I mean, unless you're a yob. No one wants to be one of those now...

Pray tell, then, how manufacturers have managed to defeat physics and make FWD work?

Significant changes in chassis design, tire technology, power delivery systems like the RevoKnuckle, HiPer Strut, suspension systems like Delphi's MagnaRide and other independent or multi-link setups... Yadda yadda yadda. You know, standard fare on cars sold in the civilized world.

The point of FWD has never been a focus on performance, but instead for increased fuel economy and room within the cabin. Yet, as the design proliferated, engineers and other wizards of design have been able to make it work... In a substantial way no less. And so, we have gone from the Oldsmobile Toronado, to the Saab 900 Turbo... From the Alfa Romeo GTV to the Honda Civic Type-R. The performance has changed substantially with the march of technology. Where have you been to see any of it?

 

[McLaren]

Pray tell, then, how manufacturers have managed to defeat physics and make FWD work?

Read this.

The answer was a complicated front suspension called "interactive wishbones". It was basically a double-wishbones design, but both wishbones were attached to a "compliance raft" which was in turn mounted to the chassis. Stiff bushings were used between the wishbones and compliance raft to ensure the caster angle not altered by driving force. Soft bushings were used between the compliance raft and chassis so that it provide good vertical absorption. In this way, the Elan satisfactorily eliminated torque steer without sacrificing ride quality. It also isolated road harshness from the steering geometry, eliminated steering kickback. The downside ? it added considerable weight. At 1020 kg, the M100 was clearly overweight by the standard of Lotus.

The chassis and body construction was classic Chapman-style &#8211; a steel backbone chassis clothed in glass-fiber composite body shell and reinforced by GRP floorpan. Thanks to the use of octagonal section steel to construct the backbone, it achieved a torsional rigidity of 9000 Nm per degree, remarkable for an open car of its days. The body shell designed by Peter Stevens not only looked pretty but was also remarkably sleek, with a Cd of 0.34. The Elan Mk2 was compact, measuring only 3.8 meters long but it had wide tracks and relatively wide rubbers to enhance roadholding.

Predictably, the Elan M100 was praised for strong roadholding, performance and fine ride. Autocar magazine described it as the best front-wheel drive car ever seen

http://www.autozine.org/Archive/Lotus/classic/Elan_M100.html

The car was never popular amongst enthusiasts, but Lotus proved FWD could be worked with. Since then, manufacturers have been more than capable of creating cars to make the utmost use of FWD. It's still (& probably never will be) not the preferred layout for a performance car, but there are some out there that can really defy the belief that FWD "sucks".