Perspective: The new Dodge Dart
Special Comment By Daniel Stern
My inbox rang off the hook the day Chrysler announced there will be a new Dodge Dart. I’ve been involved with Dodge Darts since my literal day one; my parents’ 1970 Dart brought me home as a newborn, and I was inconsolable, at two years old, when they traded it in on a new Chevrolet Caprice. My grandpa’s last car was a Dart. Every driving license test I’ve ever taken has been in a Dart (OK, the first was in my father’s ’62 Lancer, now mine and not a Dart only by dint of nameplate). I’ve owned many Darts, and presently still do. I’ve been wondering for years when they’d dust off the Dart name and apply it to something new.
Naturally I spend time online with other Dart guys, and a fair lot of them aren’t happy about the Dart name being applied to Chrysler’s new Neon/Caliber replacement with Fiat underpinnings, which looks broadly similar to other similarly-sized cars of today and doesn’t resemble the Darts of old. No chrome bumpers, no concave backglass, no rear wheel drive: they’re pissed.
It would be easy to dismiss their anger by pointing out—correctly—that opinions on the new Dart versus the old Dart don’t matter because those of us who have such an opinion are statistically nonexistent; i.e., practically nobody cares. But that’s not nice even though it’s true; everyone has a right to an opinion. That said, my fellow Dart guys, with all due respect, are wrong. They don’t get it. At least not yet. I think all but the hardest-core among them eventually will, and here’s why: I went and saw the new ’13 Dart at its unveiling at the 2012 North American International Auto Show. It looks like a real winner, and gives every appearance of being a thoughtfully designed car with very up-to-date powertrains, nice specifications, attractive options, and high build quality. And from where I sit, it merits its name.
In the first place, “Dart” is a hell of a fine name for an automobile, especially one from a single-syllable brand that also starts with the letter “D”. Really, who doesn’t love how “Dodge Dart” rolls off the tongue? And it’s not as though this is the first time the name has been applied to something other than an A-body, though leaving aside the first three years of Darts, all previous non-A-body uses of the name have been outside the US/Canadian market. In other countries, there have been F-body, K-body, M-body, and **-body Darts building on the brand equity, goodwill, and loyalty built up by the A-body.
The appearance and design argument — “It doesn’t look like a Dart!” — could easily be dismissed by just pointing out that the Darts of old were built between 36 and 52 years ago, and virtually nothing built today looks like anything built back then. We don’t live in 1966. Butlet’s dig a little deeper: those fond of the old Dart say the new Dart looks like all its competitors. Fair enough; this is pretty basic: for any given set of design requirements and priorities, at any given state of the art of materials and production science and technique, there’s a finite number of ways to make, finish, and assemble a door handle, a front fascia, a taillamp, or whatever. It’s why cars of the ’80s (’70s, ’60s, ’50s, ’40s, etc.) are readily identifiable as such no matter what make or model they might be. Likewise, it’s why back when the old Darts were new Darts, the parents and grandparents of those who presently complain were themselves lamenting that a ’66 Dart looked like its Valiant, American, Nova, and Falcon competitors. That’s just the way it works, excepting the odd radical design that departs from convention.
Beyond that, this is Dodge’s compact sedan—as was the A-body Dart. That’s a match. And the new Dart has particularly high-spec basic and optional engines. MultiAir? Turbocharger? Yup and yup. The old Dart likewise had particularly high-spec basic and optional engines, compared to its other-brand competitors. So at least spiritually and conceptually, the new Dart is a well-fitted match for the old Dart. But the new Dart also reflects recent and cumulative advances in the states of the automotive arts, as well as a welcome commitment by Chrysler to make cars that are better than they have to be. The safety performance of the new Dart is galactic, Warp-9 leaps better than that of the old Dart. So’s the fuel economy, and the emissions are so clean they wouldn’t even have registered on the best test equipment available when the old Darts were new. Want to see extra-well at night? Order the optional HID BiXenon headlamps. Don’t want to spend the money? The basic headlamps are BiHalogen projectors, not as powerful as the BiXenons but several enormous notches above the cheap, minimal halogen reflector headlamps Chrysler has supplied as basic equipment on virtually everything in the past. Want to be extra-well entertained while driving? Spring for the upgraded sound system. Don’t especially care? You still get a very decent system as basic equipment. On and on down the line, this is how it works.
It’s too early to tell, and as with any mass-produced item there are bound to be some shortcomings of one kind or another, but it really looks like the new Dodge Dart will probably make friends just about as fast as the old one did. And those of us who drove (or drive) old Darts will still get a special thrill to hear the phrase “Dodge Dart” in general conversation again.
