Nice article!

 

Obviously, the Dart SRT-4 will be a much "greater" vehicle in many facets, but what does $20k in 2003 dollars equal today? I think that was the biggest draw of the original SRT-4; it was extremely fast for what it was, but it was very inexpensive.

 

From www.dollartimes.com/inflation/inflation.php?amount=20000&year=2004: $25, 290.17

I think a vehicle that just outperforms the original SRT-4, for $30k, will do wonders. The 2013 Mazdaspeed3 optioned out put it close to $28k, so with UConnect, a decent stereo, and a REAL LSD (coupled, of course, with the ability to meet demand see:Hellcat), I think the thing will fly off the shelf.

Dodge needs an SRT product nearly everyone can afford (well, people looking at new cars anyways), and to make it just bonkers enough to justify not getting a boring sedan for people. That's the market they can tap into besides the enthusiasts foaming at the mouth for a sport compact.

Unless SRT has a product that will beat an RS, STi... don't bother. It can't be a "me too!". It has to be on top, period. It has to have bragging rights. It has to, despite being a Dodge, domestic, whatever-slight-thrown-at-it, kick [I should have my mouth washed out with soap for using such terms], bar none.

 

$20,000 in 2003 is equal to $25,732.17 in 2014 according to the CPI inflation calculator. YOUCH!

I would imagine that the Dart is getting an engine upgrade across the board. So you'd be able to get perhaps an R/T or GT with 260HP that would give you the same flavor of the original SRT4 for around $25k. Meanwhile, we will also have the halo SRT Dart for 35k that sets the benchmark at 350HP.

 

It better perform for that money the way the Hellcat has.

 

But here is the question, will they produce & price this car so they can get buyers to move up to Charger/Challenger?
If so, it would be a waste of time & resources to even build the car that would closely compete with it's larger counterparts unless they can sell enough of them to loyal customers without getting buyers to move up the Dodge lineup to make more profit.

Chrysler/FCA has done this tactic before & something I don't want to see happen. It's great you get a choice, but having too many choices also causes a downside over time & it is where the cars & eventually new car buyers themselves suffer for it.

 

And let's not forget that the Dart for the 2010's (and beyond) likewise has a somewhat larger footprint and is heavier than the competition. The whole drive train must be up to snuff with those obvious hurdles to cross, not merely have an interesting engine. I think FCA would have to compete against any name, any form-factor (whether sedan or hatch, after all it's the competition's best in segment against our best in segment - and we don't yet have a hatch. So, 'our' offering has to stand-up against all scrutiny and be that much more compelling).

I was thinking about the Neon SRT-4, that it hit that difficult to achieve sweet spot back in the day. This segment has World Rally wannabe's already in their places and some others with established credibility ... any Dart SRT4 will be new again, even though it's been done before with our name on it. Neon SRT-4 vs Dart SRT4 will be a bit of a challenge to make equal or better than before - I think it has to turn the heat up on what the Neon SRT-4 has already done.

 

Will they make a profit on it? That will determine if it is built or not.

 

But here is the question, will they produce & price this car so they can get buyers to move up to Charger/Challenger?
If so, it would be a waste of time & resources to even build the car that would closely compete with it's larger counterparts unless they can sell enough of them to loyal customers without getting buyers to move up the Dodge lineup to make more profit.

Chrysler/FCA has done this tactic before & something I don't want to see happen. It's great you get a choice, but having too many choices also causes a downside over time & it is where the cars & eventually new car buyers themselves suffer for it.

 

Would it make more sense to make a new car not named Dart or move the Dart on the SWUS Platform? Would that bring the weight down enough to compete better and slide the size of the Dart to the lower spectrum of a compact car?

 

I think the Dart SRT is a different market, I just don't know if the money exists in that market for a Subaru WRX fighter. That entire "scene" has taken a major hit. Dodge has brand equity on the Muscle car side. I'm not sure it has the same street cred if its coming in at 35K. I know it is in the plan right now. However, I'll believe it when I see it. The original Neon SRT-4 almost never happened.

 

I think the weight issue will not be one if it is that fun to drive. Look at the Fiat Abarth. Generally loved by the media because of the fun it is to drive one. I think if the Dart SRT can match that, then it'll be fine.

The hellcats are fun to drive, just not the same type of endorphin rush there. lol

 

I think the weight issue will not be one if it is that fun to drive. Look at the Fiat Abarth. Generally loved by the media because of the fun it is to drive one. I think if the Dart SRT can match that, then it'll be fine.

The hellcats are fun to drive, just not the same type of endorphin rush there. lol

Good points.

If the Dart SRT can make media people, like Jay Leno, stand-up and notice, as the Abarth Fiat500 did, then I think it will be a winner. That's not to say Jay Leno is the Touchstone for that sort of thing, but his Car Buff status and name recognition does supply some credibility that would be better to have than not.

Frankly, because the field has established names (Golf GTi, Ford Focus xx, Mazdaspeed3/Mazda3, Subaru WRX STi and so on) a Dart SRT might appeal to FCA fangurls & f an boi's for a year or two then Peter-out. We, as enthusiasts and f an boi's, have to be prepared for that. I don't think the Dart is yet selling at a 100k-per-year clip; so it might be couple-year flash. I hope not. But a price-tag notching over $30-odd-thousand per unit could be a tall order to maintain. I'm thinking it ought to be a Pocket-Viper to have hope to sustain.

 

I don't know if they have the capability to beat the RS...maybe you could do it with a manual transmission. I just don't know how much more the 9 speed can take. I think if you can get a nice HP number at a lower price it would be a success. Go for the affordable performance angle. Very few people want to buy a 40K econobox that comes from FCA. If the emblem says BMW..maybe. Not Dodge. Ford has a lot more money and capacity. They can do thinks like the Raptor and the RS. FCA is a different story. Think GLHS.

 

If the Fiat small car people and SRT engineers can't come close to beating the Focus RS - Lord help them!

 

You could say the same about Hyundai & Kia a few years ago.

You just have to let the product speak for itself, in this case. I don't think they were expecting the SRT Neon to sell as well as it did. I think having the Caliber ride on the coat-tails of that, probably didn't help (no offense to current owners of the Caliber & SRT variant). I think people are waiting to see SRT Neon price for something that [back in 03-06] would've been insane. I expect a competitive price, a fast, fun and well equipped machine for the price it will be.

The big thing for the SRT Neon was that it was a huge amount of perceived value for the price.
The Dart SRT should have the same perceived value. For that to happen, it needs to have a lot of performance at a small pricepoint (like the Hellcats or Neon).

 

FCA can definitely do this, they just have to sell it in Europe as well - as a Lancia Integrale.
Who do you think originated the AWD 300hp homologation special?

 

6 month old thread, but I don't see anything new on the Dart SRT. Any new rumors or speculation?

Ford pricing "leaked" recently on the RS, $35,730, 345HP AWD. Gives the Dart SRT some more "focus" I would assume...

 

6 month old thread, but I don't see anything new on the Dart SRT. Any new rumors or speculation?

Ford pricing "leaked" recently on the RS, $35,730, 345HP AWD. Gives the Dart SRT some more focus I would assume...

Pretty sure the DSRT is dead as we know it. Probably wont see light of day until it switches to the Alfa platform and moves RWD. They could do it as a last hurrah before the new model debuts but I doubt it.

 

Agreed. Ford nailed that coffin tight. No business model will let them do it.

I disagree about WRX at least. Last one I was in was quite some time ago but it was very nice for the period.

 

I don't know. It seems dead on the web, as any articles out there are from late Spring/early Summer 2014...but the insider news, as we can see on Allpar in the Dart section, has commentary that shows the SRT version to still be in play. Even mentioning that Gilles is talking an AWD version...of the car itself, not necessarily an AWD SRT version.

I'd say any delay in it's launch had to do more with the 'what to do with SRT as a brand' question, and not the fact that FCA didn't plan on bringing a hot version of the Dart to market. I bet we'll see one at the end of 2016 and if it is priced right, say between 25 and 30K, they'll have a winner. Viper and SRT Dart...good bookends for the performance division.

 

The car exists.... hidden away somewhere in Auburn Hills if it hasnt been scrapped already. It has nothing to do with SRT as a brand, but the cost. Dodge doesnt have a AWD system that can perform up to SRT standards.

 

I need to update the Dart section

 

OK, how about moving away from the turbo and go blower? I know turbos and 4 cylinders work well, but the same problem exists with the 4 cylinder engine, you have to wind them up to get any power out of them, and by then, if the competition is a little quicker on the pedal and spool-up, game over. I know Whipple has done several with the PT Cruisers, back when they were hot, but has anyone considered using one instead of turbo? A whole lot less heat under the hood, fuel injection deletes the backfire through the carb/TB blowing a blower off the engine, and actually better fuel mileage given the power occurs at lower rpm ranges thus less rpm thus less fuel used, and oh, so much more fun overall. It would also improve the warranty ability from the factory, all the Neon SRT-4 turbo mods and strength components would easily be integrated into a blower 4cylinder engine, the power is a lot smoother, something new from what the competition has.

 

OK, how about moving away from the turbo and go blower? I know turbos and 4 cylinders work well, but the same problem exists with the 4 cylinder engine, you have to wind them up to get any power out of them, and by then, if the competition is a little quicker on the pedal and spool-up, game over. I know Whipple has done several with the PT Cruisers, back when they were hot, but has anyone considered using one instead of turbo? A whole lot less heat under the hood, fuel injection deletes the backfire through the carb/TB blowing a blower off the engine, and actually better fuel mileage given the power occurs at lower rpm ranges thus less rpm thus less fuel used, and oh, so much more fun overall. It would also improve the warranty ability from the factory, all the Neon SRT-4 turbo mods and strength components would easily be integrated into a blower 4cylinder engine, the power is a lot smoother, something new from what the competition has.

I've posted some links before with this as the focus.

Volvo (and others) have toyed with Twin-Charging an Inline-4. Volvo employed an electric (or was it electronic) Blower to accompany the Turbo.

The Blower is computer controlled and gives boost from 0 to Turbo kick-in point. Then the Blower tapers off quickly, after which engine picks up what the now fully spooled Turbo generates. That engine, then, has a much more productive HP and Torque curve than with Turbo alone.

{ A year-old article, Twin-Charging : http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a8490/parts-department-twin-charging/ } I mentioned Lancia in other posts in other threads. Here's one other reference, but is an unintended index to the brand - it simply turns out they put the idea to work on one of their iconic Rally cars.


{ Triple-Charging : http://www.autoevolution.com/news/v...volvo-unveils-450-hp-triple-boost-2l-4-cylinder-engine-concept-video-87415.html }

 

Then there's that whole "paying for it" thing.

 

They don't have to badge it SRT, either.

 

Exactly. I know of at least one sale they'd have for a FWD Dart R/T with 250ish HP.

 

There seems to be one single thing that everyone seems to forget.

Everything that SRT does is engineered to take a beating and keep on ticking... And unfortunately, the DART can't survive SRT.

 

That's a little more expensive than is necessary for an inexpensive performance car. A blower and a turbo is ten grand and nothing else is being addressed to make it viable or handle the power. So out of complication level and cost, that's more for a streetrod, not a factory SRT vehicle. I mean, it is pretty cool, but nobody could build it within the price cap for a Dart.

 

You could simply Supercharge it. Less Turbo lag effect, but there is parasitic drag. Choose your poison: Lag or Drag?

 

I think with a small engine, bottom end power is more impressive, so I would take drag over lag. I know it is a little backwards to the big V8s and all that, but one thing about the blower and drag stuff is, at idle, it's at idle, and then the blower actually picks up pressure as you push the throttle, so the drag is over come right off the bat, and that is what is so cool about blowers. Yes, it takes power to drive them, but you never feel the delay like with a turbo. Yes, turbos can have more on top, but you can't drive a car there all the time, so being pretty close equal to cost to both develop and parts, give me more bottom end, like an American performance car. Besides, nine gears going forward will more than make up for it. Stick 16psi supercharger to it and have a very nice performing engine. If they can run turbo to 20psi, shouldn't be a durability issue at all.

 

Not trying to argue with you, I agree with you.

An owner pays one way or the other. I'd prefer immediate power rather than spooling up with turbo lag. The industry went with Turbo 4's back in the day likely because of the fairly easy power.

But Supercharging was likely not pursued because of having to go to greater lengths to fit the off-the-shelf units back then (late 70's Inline 4's when Turbo'ing started to take off in consumer cars. In 1980-ish, A friend had just sold his VW Scirocco which he Turbo'd himself when I first met him then. It had been in his possession already for a few years before that). I never understood settling in just that one direction (Turbo), apart from cost, when Supercharging seemed just as viable.

 

just for info, the RS costs about $42-44k. just saying.

 

Says who? Last I checked Ford hasnt released pricing for the RS. The $35k was based upon the leaked configurator.

 

One of the big deals about turbo over superchargers was, one backfire and you basically had to start over, including replacing the hood (if you had one) and the rest of the engine. Once fuel injection was improved and you aren't compressing fuel and air before being shoved into the cylinders, that issue is removed, and then realizing the blower can be pushed down between the heads on a V8 you could get a low profile, they actually become a little more viable. Dyno comparisons also show that blowers are more off the line and lower rpm power where a 4cylinder is more of the dog, but it is also more where a person actually drives and needs the power more regularly where turbos are more slow to respond. Turbos may make small engines act like big blocks, superchargers make small engines perform like big blocks. As far as the lag or drag goes, I do know of a blower design that does reduce the drag to roughly equal to the drag of an alternator or power steering pump compared to what a standard screw or vane type blower does. I have mentioned it in the past, the inventor, pretty sure he would be interested in developing it more if he had some money behind its development. This would make it very viable.

 

Pete Hagenbuch talked about that decision (super vs turbo). Find his interview on Allpar.