GTP Cool Wall: Dodge Dart GT
- Thread starter BKGlover
- 105 comments
- 7,368 views
Joey D
Premium
- 47,285
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
The Nova in the 80's was a rebadged Toyota, they never had a bigger engine than a 112hp 1.6L.
The Caliber was just an awful car and really shows what happens when a car company just flat out doesn't try and wants something cheap to build so they can turn a profit. The concept of the Caliber was good, but the execution was horrendous.
- 40,692
It has 25 more horsepower and 15 less pound feet of torque. It's also heavier. It would be lucky if it was half a second faster to 60.
And the Dart will undoubtedly have an SRT version in a year or two that will be plenty quick as well; much like it took the original Dart 5 years to get a regular production engine anyone at the time would call powerful, and 5 years for the Nova to get the same.
- 6,113
- Texas
I'm not trying to fire up anything, I'm just trying to get an idea on some mindsets. Honestly, I do like it. It's something I wouldn't mind being seen in, something I don't think of many cars. Like the Evo X I like the blacked-out bar in the grille as well. It just works for me in these cases.
As for the "name-shame" malarkey, let us list the cars that people have crucified for this:
new Camaro, new Challenger, 2005 Charger, 2000s Malibu(rightfully), BMWs MINI, the New Beetle, 1996 Mustang, 1999 Mustang. These are only the ones I know of.
EDIT: Tornado just hit it, reports are the SRT-4 IS coming for/in 2014.
As for the "name-shame" malarkey, let us list the cars that people have crucified for this:
new Camaro, new Challenger, 2005 Charger, 2000s Malibu(rightfully), BMWs MINI, the New Beetle, 1996 Mustang, 1999 Mustang. These are only the ones I know of.
EDIT: Tornado just hit it, reports are the SRT-4 IS coming for/in 2014.
- 4,209
- Wasilla, AK
If it's true that this larger, N/A engine has less torque than the hamstercharged 1.4, all that means is that Chrysler Corp. dropped the ball big time. I guess they're still not trying very hard.
And it will still be FWD, still have only four cylinders, and still have limited potential for improvement. And it will still look like a polished turd.
Joey D
Premium
- 47,285
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
Actually most of the rumors point to 300hp and AWD, more or less a detuned, streetable rallycross car.
- 21,286
- GR-MI-USA
- YSSMAN
- YSSMAN
The biggest problem with the Dart is that it had a lot to live up to, but only managed to muster about 7/10ths of what we expected. No one is faulting the rather good chassis supplied by Alfa Romeo, and the overall design of the vehicle is appealing in a very competitive segment. But, Chrysler dropped the ball on the finer details. Sure, it has an available 1.4L Turbo, but it isn't exactly a ringer compared to the base trim engine. Sure, it has a fancy dual-clutch gearbox, but the programming is terrible and it rarely shifts properly. Sure, it has a sporty attitude, but it is a very, very heavy compact car. In the end, the Dart barely manages to stack up to the Focus and Cruze, one of which is positively ancient by comparison. The value quotient isn't exactly there either, which is pretty unfortunate as well, it generally is an area where Chrysler has been able to excel.
I'm not entirely sure where to land on the car. As much as I like the Rallye model inside and out, I can't entirely say that I'd want to spend that $22k on a Dodge that'll be worth a 2/3s of that in little more than a year. Of course, Dodge is the only one offering a "fun" trim on a mid-level compact. They've gotten a lot of things right, it's a clever car. But to get everything right, it's too expensive, and by the time you're done, you're asking yourself why you didn't get a Focus ST, or the new diesel Cruze.
I'm not entirely sure where to land on the car. As much as I like the Rallye model inside and out, I can't entirely say that I'd want to spend that $22k on a Dodge that'll be worth a 2/3s of that in little more than a year. Of course, Dodge is the only one offering a "fun" trim on a mid-level compact. They've gotten a lot of things right, it's a clever car. But to get everything right, it's too expensive, and by the time you're done, you're asking yourself why you didn't get a Focus ST, or the new diesel Cruze.
- 4,209
- Wasilla, AK
Oh, and the ultimate problem:
A member of a certain subculture got hold of one and named it "brushie" because of its color.
The Dart shall never recover from this shame.
A member of a certain subculture got hold of one and named it "brushie" because of its color.
The Dart shall never recover from this shame.
- 40,692
How many 2.4L engines do you know of that get at least 185 lb ft of torque??
Limited potential for improvement, like the Neon SRT-4?
That has little to do with the car, because one owner does not represent the entire group of people who buy it.
Last edited:
- 4,209
- Wasilla, AK
I haven't yet memorized the torque output of every engine out there, but considering that this one is only 15 off, it shouldn't have been that difficult for the people who designed the engine in the first place.
I don't know. What's the fastest SRT-4 that's still street-legal, can run full-throttle on pump gas without knocking, and wasn't built only for drag racing? (I know muscle cars and handling don't usually go together, but I draw the line at putting super wide slicks at one end and pizza cutters at the other).
- 40,692
Dart GT: 2.4 184/171
Jetta 2.5: 2.5 170/177
Kia Forte Koup: 2.4 173/168
Honda Civic Si: 2.4L, 201/170
Mazda3: 2.5 167/168
Nissan Sentra SpecV: 2.5 200/180
Buick Verano: 2.4 180/171
Seems well in line to me. The only engines that make dramatically more torque (by which I mean more torque than the Dart Turbo) without being notably larger are clean sheet designs that are at the moment exclusively found in mid-size cars (IS250, Malibu, Sonata, ATS, Mazda6) due to the high cost.
Dodge themselves sold a kit for the SRT-4 that added 50 hp and 50 lb ft for $1600 when the stock SRT-4 already had ~5.6 0-60 times. That was the 2nd performance tier of 3 available. It ran on pump gas, and would pass emissions so long as you didn't live in a state that used CARB testing.
Last edited:
Cano
Premium
- 20,758
- Cephiro
For the SRT-4 record, there are some of those pushing 600 whp on pump gas and are totally reliable. Hell, there are even a few of those in Mexico, where they have a surprisingly rabid following and are amongst the fastest tuned cars in every part of the country. The freaking block can take an amazing ammount of abuse before you need forged stuff. And that is with one turbo.
- 7,662
- Pasadena, MD
- Minty TS
This kind of thing isn't even surprising from you...
Also, I dropped the name a long while ago, since it was a joke to begine with.
And I voted cool.
I kinda suddenly fell in love with the thing a few months ago. It really surprises me whenever someone says they think it looks boring, even when I would see one passing me I would turn my head to look. Something about the styling just really gets to me, the shape of the lights, the crosshair grill, all of it. There are very few angles I don't enjoy looking at the thing from. Granted, I like the versions without the blacked out grill more, but it doesn't hurt the look much.
Last edited:
- 4,209
- Wasilla, AK
I turn my head and look alright, but not in a positive way. It's more like "wow, look at that ugly heap."
- 40,692
I wouldn't go nearly that far, but I have to say that I don't really think there is much cohesion to the design when you actually see it in person. I had a fair bit of time to look at one in my last month of school since one of my friends was borrowing his dad's when his Jeep blew up, and it doesn't carry in real life as well as it does in pictures. The profile is great, with a nice airy greenhouse (as opposed to the gun emplacement crap that so many cars use today) that evokes the second generation Neon quite a bit.
But the front end sometimes looks kind of droopy (though in most angles you can't tell) because the highest point of the hood near the base of the windshield is so much higher than the headlights and grill (I actually think the blacked out grill helps that a bit, because it makes the lights seem a bit higher even though they aren't); and the back is just weird. I don't understand why they made the trunk that shallow rather than make the rear window stop a bit further forward (it certainly has enough wheelbase for it to not cut into the interior that much), and it give the rear end a 3-series hatchback look to it where it looks like they sliced a foot or so off the back. Except it's not a hatchback, which just makes it more confusing. The full-width led lights also don't fit the design nearly as well on the Charger, and make it look oddly tall when looking straight on at the back, similar to how the Challenger looks from the rear; though looking at ones where the rear diffuser is body colored alleviates that a lot.
But the front end sometimes looks kind of droopy (though in most angles you can't tell) because the highest point of the hood near the base of the windshield is so much higher than the headlights and grill (I actually think the blacked out grill helps that a bit, because it makes the lights seem a bit higher even though they aren't); and the back is just weird. I don't understand why they made the trunk that shallow rather than make the rear window stop a bit further forward (it certainly has enough wheelbase for it to not cut into the interior that much), and it give the rear end a 3-series hatchback look to it where it looks like they sliced a foot or so off the back. Except it's not a hatchback, which just makes it more confusing. The full-width led lights also don't fit the design nearly as well on the Charger, and make it look oddly tall when looking straight on at the back, similar to how the Challenger looks from the rear; though looking at ones where the rear diffuser is body colored alleviates that a lot.
Last edited:
- 4,209
- Wasilla, AK
That's a lot of words to say it's a badly-designed eyesore.
- 3,882
- St.Pete, FL
- NotThePrez
- NotThePrez
I quite like how the car looks from the front, but like Tornado, the rear is kinda oddly-shaped, and the taillights don't really do much to help it. But, it looks more unique than most new 4-door small cars, so for that, I give it a cool.
- 7,703
- Indy
- xXKingJoshXx
Yea, I think I'd rather have a Pontiac Sunfire.
- 34,949
- Indian Falls, NY
- slashfan7964
I'd rather have the Cavalier if you go that route haha. Or better yet, stick with the same brand and buy a Neon haha.
- 4,209
- Wasilla, AK
I think I agree, and considering that GM's stylists really dropped the ball with the Sunfire, that's saying something.
The Sunbird ranges from ugly to somewhat bland depending on which model year you're talking about.
The Sunbird ranges from ugly to somewhat bland depending on which model year you're talking about.
- 4,209
- Wasilla, AK
Hey, even the first ones weren't too bad. Nice profile.
From the front, I think the Dart looks pretty good. From the back, it resembles a baby elephant with a hangover.
I voted "uncool" because Chrysler portrays it as this awesome mega-cool car they designed to be the best, instead of the calculated compromise between international corporations it really is. Until they make that rumored 300hp AWD SRT4, that's the best I can give it.
I voted "uncool" because Chrysler portrays it as this awesome mega-cool car they designed to be the best, instead of the calculated compromise between international corporations it really is. Until they make that rumored 300hp AWD SRT4, that's the best I can give it.
- 7,662
- Pasadena, MD
- Minty TS
I can definitely see the complaints about the back. I've caught it in the right light a few times where it does look a bit odd, but I like the unusual proportions. It took a bit to grow on my the first time I saw a picture of it, honestly, but once it did, those problems stopped really meaning much to me since all I had to do was look at it from a slightly different angle to love it.
- 4,487
- YorkshireLand
- SVTlover
I voted Meh.
It looks pretty good, nice mid size 4 door saloon etc.
But giving it the name of an old school muscle car which is twice the size is a big no no.
It looks pretty good, nice mid size 4 door saloon etc.
But giving it the name of an old school muscle car which is twice the size is a big no no.
