Allpar Forums banner
81 - 100 of 123 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,688 Posts
For an SRT4-like performance, FiChry might want to take a page out of their own 1.9L I4 JTD Twin-Turbo Diesel, while working close to BMW's Twin-Power Turbo Petrol engines and employ the Sequential/Twin-Scroll Turbo to max-out the Tigershark engine for the modern-day SRT-4 Dart. Even if they don't officially call it an SRT-4, if they amp up the engine anywhere near the 2004 Neon SRT-4 territory that would need a special model name; at least that's what I think.

A similar arrangement might likely put out performance in the range of Subaru's 305HP. Not sure that's what's in the Tigershark if the FiChry Tuners would attempt such a thing. But I would think that a Twin-Scroll Turbo set-up on that car would about be the upper limit, short of a competition-built I4.

http://www.bmw.com/com/en/insights/technology/efficientdynamics/phase_2/technology/engines.html

... yeah; posting this is sacrilege, I know.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
40,814 Posts
Cudapete said:
The original Dart did wonders for Dodge's reputation for outstanding reliability and engineering excellence, mostly from the /6 variant though. This is why I don't quite understand the lack of marketing linking the new Dart to the near epic reputation of its predecessor. In reality, the basic 60/70's Darts were very boring cars....but very boring cars that sold very well to a diverse demographic. It could be anything from a plane jane grocery getter, take grandma to church on Sunday, to king of the drag strip in GTS form. I think the 68 Hurst Hemi Darts still dominate the A stock automatic class today. IMO, The key to the success of the new Dart is finding this broad market appeal. The GT is a step in the right direction of doing this. Just a step though....we need a true GTS (for grandma's Sunday trips to church) LOL!
Wouldn't it be nice if they could market on that. But the lack of continuity of the Dart name from 1977-2012 sure hurts the ability some. Even though I despise the car as an appliance, there is a really good (long and short version) Toyota Corolla commercial showing the Corolla models over the years. That's what happens when you keep a name. Dodge would have to show Dart-Aspen-Omni-Shadow-Neon-Caliber-Dart while Toyota is just Corolla..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,477 Posts
valiant67 said:
Wouldn't it be nice if they could market on that. But the lack of continuity of the Dart name from 1977-2012 sure hurts the ability some. Even though I despise the car as an appliance, there is a really good (long and short version) Toyota Corolla commercial showing the Corolla models over the years. That's what happens when you keep a name. Dodge would have to show Dart-Aspen-Omni-Shadow-Neon-Caliber-Dart while Toyota is just Corolla..
Looking at Caliber within this lineage underscores where leadership really ran off the rails.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,758 Posts
valiant67 said:
Wouldn't it be nice if they could market on that. But the lack of continuity of the Dart name from 1977-2012 sure hurts the ability some. Even though I despise the car as an appliance, there is a really good (long and short version) Toyota Corolla commercial showing the Corolla models over the years. That's what happens when you keep a name. Dodge would have to show Dart-Aspen-Omni-Shadow-Neon-Caliber-Dart while Toyota is just Corolla..
I think that commercial is pretty poor, all it shows is the fads at the time with that generation Corolla placed somewhere in the scene. You basically go from the good RWD Corollas of the 70's and 80's to the bland appliances of the late 80's to 00's and end up with the latest Corolla while 100x better looking than the previous gen still doesnt do anything for me. Those "Coach T" commercials are even worse. While not effective, I'd much rather watch the Dart commercials with Pastrana driving like a nut on dirt roads than either of those.
 

·
Say no to kool-aid
Joined
·
3,922 Posts
Moparian said:
I think that commercial is pretty poor, all it shows is the fads at the time with that generation Corolla placed somewhere in the scene. You basically go from the good RWD Corollas of the 70's and 80's to the bland appliances of the late 80's to 00's and end up with the latest Corolla while 100x better looking than the previous gen still doesnt do anything for me. Those "Coach T" commercials are even worse. While not effective, I'd much rather watch the Dart commercials with Pastrana driving like a nut on dirt roads than either of those.
Yeah, I hate the Corolla commercials. I mean showing the evolution is cool and all, but it'd be cooler on a car that wasn't so bloody bland. Then of course, like you said, just showing fads, the whole thing is cheesy as sin. More over, just like with many Honda commercials, it doesn't try to actually sell you on the car. Buy it because it's a Toyota! YEAH!!! And there are people dancing. Alas, Toyota and honda really don't need to advertise their midsized and compact cars, they sell themselves just fine, and they darn well know it. So instead they give us these commercials.

As much as we denounce the "Journey slip n slide" commercial, it is ultimately of the very caliber (haha) of most Toyota and Honda commercials. However, Chrysler does not have the luxury of cars that sell themselves the way Toyonda does. In order for Chrysler to succeed, it needs to work hard to overcome the perception it has. Any marketing screw up is hugely damanging to Chrysler, as it is the weapon it must use to combat a lot of public hate.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
33,703 Posts
Toyota should have shown the 60s and 70s Corollas with the rusted fenders flapping, and the starter cranking incessantly as the engine refuses to start when cold. That was the reality of those cars. Or show them mashed up into a metal block, as was typical in moderate accidents.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,789 Posts
As if American cars of the 60s and 70s were any different. Most of those old iron-behemoths rusted into pieces before anything mechanical even had a chance to break.

All vehicles from all makes had pretty poor reliability in the 60s, but the reality was by the mid-late 70s, Toyota and Honda had cleaned up, and were producing extremely reliable and durable vehicles. Those are the vehicles that gave them the reputation that have now. Good on Toyota's marketing team for realizing it, and actually using that brand-equity to sell new vehicles.

Chrysler's marketing is clueless in comparison, and just keep releasing these weird commercials that don't really advertise the vehicle. They remind me more of something that would impress peers in a film/advertising class, rather than actually be effective.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
40,814 Posts
While I think Chrysler had a superior product to the Corolla much of the time, the fact Toyota stuck with the Corolla name built equity. Dodge ran from the name of their small car at most redesigns (only the original A body Dart and Neon survived to a second generation). Imagine if the Dart name had been used on the small Dodge car since the 1960s. Fads in the ad or not, changing names every few years confuses people at a minimum and may actually drive some away.

The Corolla ad may not be "selling a car" but it is selling the point the car has been around a long time and implying you will be able to buy the same car in the future. Why do you think the cars "sell themselves"? It takes years of a consitently named product that meets expectations of the purchaser. And the Corolla does that for the car as an appliance group.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
33,703 Posts
AutoTechnician said:
As if American cars of the 60s and 70s were any different. Most of those old iron-behemoths rusted into pieces before anything mechanical even had a chance to break.

All vehicles from all makes had pretty poor reliability in the 60s, but the reality was by the mid-late 70s, Toyota and Honda had cleaned up, and were producing extremely reliable and durable vehicles. Those are the vehicles that gave them the reputation that have now. Good on Toyota's marketing team for realizing it, and actually using that brand-equity to sell new vehicles.

Chrysler's marketing is clueless in comparison, and just keep releasing these weird commercials that don't really advertise the vehicle. They remind me more of something that would impress peers in a film/advertising class, rather than actually be effective.
Well, I will challenge the accuracy of your statement. None of my vehicles EVER had the rust present that my neighbor's 1975 Corolla exhibited. It's no exaggeration to say that the fenders flapped in the breeze, nor that it was FAR less crashworthy than American cars. Having responded to about 100 auto accidents in that timeframe, I can attest that the foreign cars were vastly inferior in a crash and caused more injury and death. As far as reliability, I started driving 35 years ago, and only had my first breakdown in 2003, when an original fuel pump died at 210K miles in an 11-year old car. That was my fourth car, and I had already driven about 470,000 miles at that point. My 1966 Plymouth was NOT rusted away at all when I sold it in 1983, nor my 1972 Dart which I sold in 1985. Same goes for all the cars in my family and circle of friends.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,858 Posts
AutoTechnician said:
The Charger and Challenger ads are okay. The Dart ones are pretty bad honestly. Two of them tell me 41 MPG while drifting, despite the 41 MPG models not really being "sporty", while all the others say absolutely nothing about the car.
Yes! Advertising it gets 41 mpg, but when you drive it, it is not fun makes a customer think bait-switch.

Marketing still does not get it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,109 Posts
Erik Latranyi said:
Yes! Advertising it gets 41 mpg, but when you drive it, it is not fun makes a customer think bait-switch.

Marketing still does not get it.
Have to agree 100%, such a bizarre way to advertise the car. If they focused on the 41mpg they could build some equity on that, but they confuse things by trying to make it look sporty when it's not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,858 Posts
srt4evah said:
Have to agree 100%, such a bizarre way to advertise the car. If they focused on the 41mpg they could build some equity on that, but they confuse things by trying to make it look sporty when it's not.
Pontiac made the same mistake before its demise......going for the sporty image, but not delivering the goods.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,969 Posts
Here's the interesting thing....Darts and Valiants basically sold themselves back in the day. Reliability will still sell today. Glitz will only get you so far. The Dart appealed to a very wide demographic from young families, to hot rodders, to old men in hats. I actually enjoyed the Corolla commercial. BTW - New Yorker was the longest continuously used name plate on an American car, 1938 - 1996, before being discontinued.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,688 Posts
Cudapete said:
Here's the interesting thing....Darts and Valiants basically sold themselves back in the day. Reliability will still sell today. Glitz will only get you so far. The Dart appealed to a very wide demographic from young families, to hot rodders, to old men in hats. I actually enjoyed the Corolla commercial. BTW - New Yorker was the longest continuously used name plate on an American car, 1938 - 1996, before being discontinued.
Agreed ...

I'll repeat from a few weeks ago, Darts and Valiants were competing with the other three manufacturers for the Mobil Economy Run. Back in that day it was the Big Three and AMC.

AMC's Rambler American was notably Top Dog, but really competitive were the Chrysler entries.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,477 Posts
AutoTechnician said:
As if American cars of the 60s and 70s were any different. Most of those old iron-behemoths rusted into pieces before anything mechanical even had a chance to break.

All vehicles from all makes had pretty poor reliability in the 60s, but the reality was by the mid-late 70s, Toyota and Honda had cleaned up, and were producing extremely reliable and durable vehicles. Those are the vehicles that gave them the reputation that have now. Good on Toyota's marketing team for realizing it, and actually using that brand-equity to sell new vehicles.
True, but at least the American cars benefitted from at least one law of Physics - conservation of momentum. They had more mass. Because of this, they better survived crashes and it took longer for the metal to dissolve away in the saline digests of the rust belt...
 

·
Administrator
1974 Plymouth Valiant - 2013 Dodge Dart - 2013 Chrysler 300C
Joined
·
40,211 Posts
Yes, the cars survived crashes better. The people, on the other hand, did not. Especially before shoulder belts were made mandatory.

Crashes were at lower speeds most of the time... and the peak highway deaths in a year? 1972.

As for rust, no, no, no. A modern car is far far more rustproofed. You look at a 20 year old car now and it can look brand new. It was rare to have a ten year old car, at least in the humid East, that didn't have holes all over it, back in the 1970s/1980s.

If all it took was masses of steel, the 1957s should have been ideal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,791 Posts
^ To speak to your rustproofing point:

A neighbour of ours has a 2000 Chrysler Neon. It's never been washed a day in it's life (except for that one day I saw the mother and kids "cleaning" it with windex and paper towels) and there is no body rust except for the spots where the car has been hit/hit something else. The rest of it is rust free. I don't know what the wheel wells or door jambs look like however.
 
81 - 100 of 123 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top