Allpar Forums banner

1 - 20 of 61 Posts

Registered
Joined
650 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Rumours have it that a Dodge will be built alongside the Tonale, with the 2.0T engine馃槉
 

Registered
2014 Jeep Compass
Joined
512 Posts
I mean, I doubt it because the assumptions currently are that any new Dodge/Chrysler products will be out on the Stellantis designed chassis by 2024 at the earliest but hey-yo, that's assumptions here.
So, maybe? They do need more platform sharing, no matter the platform.
 

Administrator
1974 Plymouth Valiant - 2013 Dodge Dart - 2013 Chrysler 300C
Joined
36,419 Posts
Rumours have it that a Dodge will be built alongside the Tonale, with the 2.0T engine馃槉
That would help fill in the gaps. I have no problem with one Dodge made in Italy. After all, think of all the Maserati V6 engine blocks we've made for them!
 

Super Moderator
1966 Crown Coupe, 2016 200 S AWD, 1962 Lark Daytona V8.
Joined
21,818 Posts
The older Hornet concept was a smaller Nitro-looking vehicle. I think a stocky, robust look would be popular, although it would need some updating.
The Hornet name is OK, a nod given to AMC nostalgia FWIW.

 

Registered
Joined
1,257 Posts
I think we already saw what a "stocky, robust" look small Dodge sells like in the Caliber.
While the sales at the end were dismal, the Caliber had a lot going against it. It was a fine vehicle in very particular trims and engine choices. However, the junk interior and mostly poor powertrain choices killed it rather fast. Caliber averaged over 90K sales per year in it's first 3 years. That is absolutely plenty if it is sharing a platform with another vehicle.

This is supposition, but I think a good Stelvio or even KL based Dodge CUV could have made at least 50K sales as well (50K on top of what either of the "base" vehicles would sell normally). It's exactly what a lot of people want in a CUV. 2.0T has the power capability to make a solid R/T model (or even SRT). The fuel economy model could be a hybrid of some sort, or even just a 2.0 eTorque. And the 3.6 should fit. The 9 speed would work out way better in a lighter (than jeep) vehicle with extra power (so the 9th gear might actually be useful).

But again, on a shared platform, Caliber sales are a perfect start for a smaller CUV that is also designed for some spirited on-road fun.
 

Super Moderator
1966 Crown Coupe, 2016 200 S AWD, 1962 Lark Daytona V8.
Joined
21,818 Posts
Our family had 2 Calibers after the Horizons and Neons rusted out. The Calibers were more refined cars after the bankruptcy.
They shared a lot with the Compass and Patriot platform, known as the PM/MK triplets.
They were a good car (like a baby Durango), but not a great car when introduced. We saw the first ones in January 2006. Daimler was cutting costs and was apathetic about the car and it showed.
I am enthusiastic about Stellantis. I really think that it will be good management and product.
 

Registered
Joined
1,724 Posts
While the sales at the end were dismal, the Caliber had a lot going against it. It was a fine vehicle in very particular trims and engine choices. However, the junk interior and mostly poor powertrain choices killed it rather fast. Caliber averaged over 90K sales per year in it's first 3 years. That is absolutely plenty if it is sharing a platform with another vehicle.

This is supposition, but I think a good Stelvio or even KL based Dodge CUV could have made at least 50K sales as well (50K on top of what either of the "base" vehicles would sell normally). It's exactly what a lot of people want in a CUV. 2.0T has the power capability to make a solid R/T model (or even SRT). The fuel economy model could be a hybrid of some sort, or even just a 2.0 eTorque. And the 3.6 should fit. The 9 speed would work out way better in a lighter (than jeep) vehicle with extra power (so the 9th gear might actually be useful).

But again, on a shared platform, Caliber sales are a perfect start for a smaller CUV that is also designed for some spirited on-road fun.
I think Giorgio is too expensive, otherwise it would have already been used for a Dodge. It has been made clear, it is an Alfa and Maserati only platform.

As for CUSW, they already made an Ottimo Cross, but never sold it as a Dart.

Dart had an even worse wrong engines problem than Caliber. The premium only 1.4T wasn't right for an economy model. Both Giorgio and CUSW were too big for a Caliber replacement. SUSW would have been better, but now I am glad we don't have to look to Fiat for a platform.

I think it can actually be argued Caliber didn't have a wrong engines problem, it had a wrong transmissions problem, and it lacked a 230 HP 2.0T running on regular. A 5 or 6 speed auto with all engines would have done wonders.

148 HP 5 sp manual only
158 HP CVT or 5 sp manual
172 HP CVT or 5 sp manual
285 HP 6 sp manual
 

Registered
Joined
14,005 Posts
  • Like
Reactions: James A and David S

Administrator
1974 Plymouth Valiant - 2013 Dodge Dart - 2013 Chrysler 300C
Joined
36,419 Posts
I think it can actually be argued Caliber didn't have a wrong engines problem, it had a wrong transmissions problem, and it lacked a 230 HP 2.0T running on regular. A 5 or 6 speed auto with all engines would have done wonders.
Maybe a better transmission would have helped but I drove it with the manual transmission, too... the sewing machine was all very nice but it was a step down from the nimble Neon. WGE had lots of power at high revs but lacked at normal driving speeds.
 

Registered
Joined
1,724 Posts
Maybe a better transmission would have helped but I drove it with the manual transmission, too... the sewing machine was all very nice but it was a step down from the nimble Neon. WGE had lots of power at high revs but lacked at normal driving speeds.
Lots of power at high revs but lacking at normal driving speed sound like a Honda. Not being nimble is the fault of the Mitsubishi chassis.

EngineKNeonHorsepower
WGE (2008)
Horsepower
(TigerShark/Hurricane)
GMEGSEPrinceKNeonTorque (Lb-ft)
WGE (2008)
Torque
(TigerShark/Hurricane)
GMEGSEPrince
1.8[email protected]148 @ 6,400 rpm[email protected]125 @ 4,400 rpm
124 @ 5,500 rpm
2.0[email protected], [email protected]158 @ 6,400 rpm160 @ 6,400[email protected], [email protected]135-141 @ 5,200145 @ 4,800
2.2110129
2.4[email protected]172 @ 6,000 rpm

184 hp @ 6,250
[email protected]165 @ 5,200171 @ 4,800
2.5100136
1.3 Turbo[email protected][email protected]
1.6 Turbo148, 163 178, 208, 222, 247, 266 @5500177, 177, 182, 203 @1700-4500
2.0 Turbo270 @ 5,250295 @ 3,000
2.2 Turbo146,175, 224168, 200, 217
2.4 Turbo[email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected]
2.5 Turbo152210

Certainly the 1.8 was an improvement, but not a US engine in the Neon. The 2.0 WGE produced more power at lower rpm, but the torque came at higher rpm, this was fixed with the Tiger Shark. The old 2.4 was a low rpm engine.

The old NA 2.2 and 2.5 clearly belong to a different era. The 2.2 turbos II, III and IV and 2.5 turbo I had the torque all the NA 4 cylinders lack. GSE 1.3T is a turbo I/II replacement, and in different tunes could replace all the NA engines. The 1.6T Prince could replace Turbo I-IV engines and the GSE with better low speed torque and HP. The 2.0T is an SRT4 2.4T replacement, but it doesn't have quite the low rpm torque of the 2.4 motors.
 

Registered
Joined
14,005 Posts
@Dave Z is correct. The company has not had a good 4 cylinder engine since the Neon. After the Neon, every version of the 2.4 was loud, obnoxious and never up to what the North American market wanted, regardless of the transmission.
 

Super Moderator
Joined
38,040 Posts
@Dave Z is correct. The company has not had a good 4 cylinder engine since the Neon. After the Neon, every version of the 2.4 was loud, obnoxious and never up to what the North American market wanted, regardless of the transmission.
Which is sad, because the same basic engine design as the GEMA 2.4 was used by Mitsubishi and Hyundai with somewhat better results - no matter who was in control of Chrysler.
The "Neon based" 2.4 was a decent engine, though the DOHC design was probably a waste in many applications (like the automatic minivans).
 

Administrator
1974 Plymouth Valiant - 2013 Dodge Dart - 2013 Chrysler 300C
Joined
36,419 Posts
I think Hyundai and Mitsu managed the 2.4 simply by putting in extra layers of sound insulation. In the Chrysler 200, the 2.4 was, if you ignored the fact that it was a 2.4, quite a nice engine. It was mostly gearing and sound insulation.

The Neon based 2.4 was very nice, and I noticed that for all the whining about PT Cruiser acceleration, it was (a) faster than the 鈥渟prightly鈥 Mini, and (b) almost identical in fuel economy and acceleration to the Chevy HHR, so the issue was more the weight of a five-star-safety-rating chassis than the engine efficiency.

Adding VVT to the Neon engine, which Fiat did so I know it's possible, would have been much better, but Daimler had its vision of DaimlerChryslerHyundai, so we got the Hyundai block. They wanted high horsepower numbers for whatever reason, so we got those. David S and I agree that it had to be put into "high stitch" (sewing machine noise joke) mode to generate enough power. It's not a terrible engine, but the noise is not what most people want.

Side note, my daughter has a 2.4 Sebring with 138,000 miles, and we both refer to "high stitch" for the acceleration sound... it's not terribly slow. The Camry Four from that period was probably worse. Back then, FWIW, aside from reliability, Chrysler did pretty well in comparisons to Toyota, if you drove one and then the other. It was Toyota鈥檚 worst period since they learned to combat rust in the 1980s.
 
1 - 20 of 61 Posts
Top