[Allpar News System]

The Dodge Dart is, correctly, advertised as getting up to 41 mpg, highway. That mileage comes on the Aero model, with the 1.4 liter turbocharged engine and a manual transmission; with an automatic, it’s 40 mpg. Move up to the Dodge Dart GT, though, and gas mileage drops precipitously. That is not entirely unexpected, since the focus of the GT is performance, but the magnitude of the drop might surprise some potential buyers. The automatic-transmission Dodge Dart GT is officially rated at 21 city, 30 highway, using 4.2 gallons per hundred miles (combined). With a manual transmission, the Dart GT comes in at 23 city, 33 highway. That mileage does beat the V6-powered Dodge Avenger, which is presumably similar in straight-line performance though not agility, and is rated at 19/29. The full-size Chrysler 300C V6 checks in at 19/31.

Dart is officially a compact — barely. The car..

View the original, full post

 

[cGmC11]

Ouch!!!...the now unveiled 2014 Mazda3 has optional the 2.5l with the same 184 horsepower will get close to 2014 Mazda6 26 city/38 highway

 

[Erik Latranyi]

The 9-speed cannot get here fast enough for Dart.

In fact, I think it will come too late.

 

[DaveMB]

It better get to 60 in 6 seconds flat....

 

[Jared]

The 9-speed cannot get here fast enough for Dart.

In fact, I think it will come too late.

Ditto... on the 9-speed and unfortunately on the second part.

Is it me, or is something really amiss with this car? Something that we can't put a finger on.

It better get to 60 in 6 seconds flat....

That would be wonderful, but sadly almost impossible. You're looking at mid-7s with the manual. Probably around 8 with the auto. I think the torque curve will be much better though because you're not waiting for anything to spool. This would make it a smoother performer vs the 1.4.

 

[Erik Latranyi]

Is it me, or is something really amiss with this car? Something that we can't put a finger on.

Jeep Cherokee, the second jointly developed vehicle, has issues.

Fiat came into the picture in 2009. Four years later.

 

[Jared]

Jeep Cherokee, the second jointly developed vehicle, has issues.

Fiat came into the picture in 2009. Four years later.

Yeah.... FIAT eh? Hope not, but you might be right.

The car formerly know as the Dart R/T should have been better than this. Even when you're paying for tech and handling: it may have that, but the competition kills it on gas mileage and performance. I'm just saying if I'm cross shopping the GT vs the rest, it seems like there are better options. Even the Avenger R/T could be considered a better option at this point. Why would I want to buy it? Just sayin'

I wonder if internally, this car was the victim of some bad compromises a la what happened to the 07' Sebring.

This car really has me scratching my head.

 

[Erik Latranyi]

Yeah.... FIAT eh? Hope not, but you might be right.

The car formerly know as the Dart R/T should have been better than this. Even when you're paying for tech and handling: it may have that, but the competition kills it on gas mileage and performance. I'm just saying if I'm cross shopping the GT vs the rest, it seems like there are better options. Even the Avenger R/T could be considered a better option at this point. Why would I want to buy it? Just sayin'

I wonder if internally, this car was the victim of some bad compromises a la what happened to the 07' Sebring.

This car really has me scratching my head.

Look, one of the non-problems with the Dart is its size. It is larger than most cars with which it will be compared. That larger size means more weight, hence, lower fuel economy.

That makes comparisons to vehicles, like the Mazda 3, difficult.

 

[Stratuscaster]

Comparing MPG based on displacement and power output without considering weight and gearing doesn't produce a valid comparison.

 

[barracudafett]

Comparing MPG based on displacement and power output without considering weight and gearing doesn't produce a valid comparison.

Who looks at that, it is far more accurate on the internet to bench race with only half the facts. Prime example the Challenger vs. Camaro or mustang

 

[AutoTechnician]

Comparing MPG based on displacement and power output without considering weight and gearing doesn't produce a valid comparison.

Let's compare it to an extremely similar car: The 2013 Sonata. It's as tall, as wide and as heavy as the Sonata, with the same transmission, yet gets 5 MPG worse. Granted Hyundai added direct injection to the 2.4, but the Dart has Multi-Air II. The Dart also uses a 3.2:1 final drive, while the Sonata has a ~2.88:1. You could use the final-drive ratio as an excuse

..but if you compare it to the 2010 Sonata, which has a 5 speed automatic with a just 2% different effective top-gear ratio and a 175HP port-injected 2.4 VVT, it STILL gets 2 MPG worse highway. So even with that Multi-Air II wizardry and a better transmission, you gain 9HP at a cost of 2 MPG. Something is seriously lacking in Chrysler's power-train tuning/optimization/design department. I don't know if even the 9-speed will fix the Dart's economy problems considering they can't even match Hyundai using an extremely similar engine/transmission combination.

 

[ehaase]

The Dart 2.4 gets the same mpg as the Buick Verano 2.4.

 

[Jared]

Comparing MPG based on displacement and power output without considering weight and gearing doesn't produce a valid comparison.

Seriously, who looks at that? Consumers - and EVEN the manufacturer - compare it to the Civic, Corolla, Elantra, etc. Look, the problem is the car has been marketed poorly. Slick commercials that don't get the proper message across.

But that's not even what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the GT itself. My question is, if I'm looking at getting a sporty car, why would I bother with the GT, when even the car parked next to it on the dealer lot, the Avenger R/T has more power, almost comparable handling, more size and discounted for even less of a price with similar mpg?

The Dart needs the 9speed.

 

[marlon_jbt]

Let's compare it to an extremely similar car: The 2013 Sonata. It's as tall, as wide and as heavy as the Sonata, with the same transmission, yet gets 5 MPG worse. Granted Hyundai added direct injection to the 2.4, but the Dart has Multi-Air II. The Dart also uses a 3.2:1 final drive, while the Sonata has a ~2.88:1. You could use the final-drive ratio as an excuse

..but if you compare it to the 2010 Sonata, which has a 5 speed automatic with a just 2% different effective top-gear ratio and a 175HP port-injected 2.4 VVT, it STILL gets 2 MPG worse highway. So even with that Multi-Air II wizardry and a better transmission, you gain 9HP at a cost of 2 MPG. Something is seriously lacking in Chrysler's power-train tuning/optimization/design department. I don't know if even the 9-speed will fix the Dart's economy problems considering they can't even match Hyundai using an extremely similar engine/transmission combination.

Let's compare it to an extremely similar car: The 2013 Sonata. It's as tall, as wide and as heavy as the Sonata, with the same transmission, yet gets 5 MPG worse. Granted Hyundai added direct injection to the 2.4, but the Dart has Multi-Air II. The Dart also uses a 3.2:1 final drive, while the Sonata has a ~2.88:1. You could use the final-drive ratio as an excuse

..but if you compare it to the 2010 Sonata, which has a 5 speed automatic with a just 2% different effective top-gear ratio and a 175HP port-injected 2.4 VVT, it STILL gets 2 MPG worse highway. So even with that Multi-Air II wizardry and a better transmission, you gain 9HP at a cost of 2 MPG. Something is seriously lacking in Chrysler's power-train tuning/optimization/design department. I don't know if even the 9-speed will fix the Dart's economy problems considering they can't even match Hyundai using an extremely similar engine/transmission combination.

Or somebody is lying...

 

[UN4GTBL]

Seriously, who looks at that? Consumers - and EVEN the manufacturer - compare it to the Civic, Corolla, Elantra, etc. Look, the problem is the car has been marketed poorly. Slick commercials that don't get the proper message across.

But that's not even what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the GT itself. My question is, if I'm looking at getting a sporty car, why would I bother with the GT, when even the car parked next to it on the dealer lot, the Avenger R/T has more power, almost comparable handling, more size and discounted for even less of a price with similar mpg?

The Dart needs the 9speed.

Agreed.

The only thing the Dart has are features.

 

[Dave Z]

Side note, the source for the data is the EPA web site. But yes, it's a real disappointment to me. Dart 2.0 is a nice car -- quick enough pickup, low enough price, great cornering and ride, good economy. The 1.4 stick is a good rural car, the 1.4 DDCT is a good car overall... let's see what this thing feels like and the final acceleration figures before we condemn it too much.

Where'd that 8 seconds come from?

 

[marlon_jbt]

Side note, the source for the data is the EPA web site. But yes, it's a real disappointment to me. Dart 2.0 is a nice car -- quick enough pickup, low enough price, great cornering and ride, good economy. The 1.4 stick is a good rural car, the 1.4 DDCT is a good car overall... let's see what this thing feels like and the final acceleration figures before we condemn it too much.

Where'd that 8 seconds come from?

But it is the automaker's responsibility to report these numbers according to the EPA test cycle.

At least that's how I understand it...

 

[Jared]

Agreed.

The only thing the Dart has are features.

Ya know what? I think, when they were engineering the RT, they miscalculated the competition they would be up against in MY 2013/2014. *or* they engineered it anticipating a 9 speed tranny they didn't have yet.

Either way, when it comes, the 9 speed will probably change everything with this car. We all sort of knew that the 6 speed was a kind of stop gap.

 

[suzq044]

Pesonally; I think the people looking at the GT, aren't going to be people who are looking at the MPG to be top of its class. Those that are looking for MPG will see the Aero, and 1.4L models. The 2L is there for those who don't want a turbo. I don't think its as big of a deal as people are making it to be. It's the performance model of this car until the SRT eventually comes out; aggressive gearing & suspension + all the heavy Limited interior options, and then some. So..

 

[Jared]

Pesonally; I think the people looking at the GT, aren't going to be people who are looking at the MPG to be top of its class. Those that are looking for MPG will see the Aero, and 1.4L models. The 2L is there for those who don't want a turbo. I don't think its as big of a deal as people are making it to be. It's the performance model of this car until the SRT eventually comes out; aggressive gearing & suspension + all the heavy Limited interior options, and then some. So..

Ordinarily I would totally agree with you suz, but those numbers are pretty hard to ignore.

That said, I'm probably projecting because we need to see how it comes out in the road tests, or when people we know get behind the wheel and actually drive it.

Maybe it's performance as a "performance car" will justify the lower mpg. My hunch is it won't, but I'm not an expert.

If a car like a Focus SE or a Mazda3, or a midsizer that weighs less and has better MPG like an Accord 4-banger or a Sonota OR even an Avenger R/T - which can beat it in price and comparable MPG - can out perform it - and I won't say it will yet - that's bad engineering.