As long as the quality is excellent. However, it seems like the newer C class cars such as the Civic are raising the bar on the suspension expectations now. I would hate to see the new "Dart" already be behind before it is even released. The one thing the current Dart had going for it was the chassis and independent suspension setup, it was just the powertrain wasn't a good match.

 

I hope that's what it is, a new Darts in the sedan and hatch form. A Chrysler 100 could be nice to have along the Dart.

 

How do these cars fit with Dodge's "performance" image any better than the current Dart?
Dart has to die (as it is) and any "mainstream" small car has to go to "mainstream" Chrysler.
The new Dart has to be something much more performance oriented of it does not fit.

 

And RWD/AWD since all Dodge products will eventually move in that direction similar to Alfa Romeo.

Having or not having low end models is not the issue.

Mike

 

How did the mainstream Chrysler 200 did when the Avenger was dropped? A base Charger doesn't really fit the description of the "new" Dodge either and they keep it around.

 

And there's the problem - the base models still carry a lot of the sales even in a "performance/sporty" lineup.

 

I don't think that the Dart is going away "purely" because it does not fit Dodge's "sporty" image. Someone just posted an article for the GT Turbo from Motor Trend and they complimented its "sportiness/quickness". I feel that this move is more-so to maximize profits by shuffling production and capacities. If an updated Dart a la Viaggio and Ottimo comes back within a year (say mid 17' as an 18'), with an extra 25-40 ponies and an "upgraded suspension" that in itself would justify the delay to the buying public, as they can say that they went back to the drawing board and "re-engineered" the "All-New Dart".

We have to remember guys,... we are the minority and our idea of Sporty, is not the general public's idea of Sporty. Sporty doesn't have to be best-in-class, although that would be nice, it just has to get out of it's own way.

And on another note, we have to stop letting Debbie-downers bait us. We cannot realistically and in good conscious keep comparing the Dart and 200 to the sales-leaders. For one, we don't even have the capacity to pump out the vehicles that make us the most bread. Secondly, these cars have generations, I'll repeat "generations" of vehicles to establish a fan-base. For a more realistic idea of what these cars could become (if we stop playing name-roulette every generation), look at the sales numbers for the first generation Fusion. If I recall, it is right at 140k,... The 200 sold 117k in 2014 and 177k in 2015... Who knows what could happen in 10years.

Again, my .02.

 

And on another note, we have to stop letting Debbie-downers bait us. We cannot realistically and in good conscious keep comparing the Dart and 200 to the sales-leaders. For one, we don't even have the capacity to pump out the vehicles that make us the most bread. Secondly, these cars have generations, I'll repeat "generations" of vehicles to establish a fan-base. For a more realistic idea of what these cars could become (if we stop playing name-roulette every generation), look at the sales numbers for the first generation Fusion. If I recall, it is right at 140k,... The 200 sold 117k in 2014 and 177k in 2015... Who knows what could happen in 10years.

Again, my .02.

200 only sold 177k because of extensive incentives.
Fusion started out in the 140k per year range, then after a few years it was in the 200k range and is now in the 300k range. It was a consistent, constantly improving product that did this even while the market for midsize cars has fallen.
I expected better of Chrysler than the current 200. It's a good car, but no where near class leading. I guess maybe it is better to give up than build a car that was behind the competition in design even when new.

Dart and 200 didn't need Toyota or Honda volume to be a success. However they needed probably 125k to 150k to be there. And the cars weren't up to that task due to compromises in design. Like I said, I expected better of Chrysler. In 10 years, we'll have probably been through the Dart and 200 replacements and saw the "outsourced" cars didn't do well either.

 

Hmmm, but a low end model to be successful has to provide the most value for the low price. FWD arguably is part of the formula to provide more value in a low end car, and the number of successful low end cars that are FWD vs RWD in the last couple decades pretty much echos that.

FWD certainly can be sporty, so don't accuse me of saying because its FWD it can perform at all.

But the fact Dodge is moving to all performance brand and is moving to all RWD/AWD as well, echos that also.

Yes, I'm NOT saying FWD cars can't perform, they can, but if you're designing from the ground for performance as the priority, RWD/AWD makes a lot of sense. If your designing from the ground up to be the less expensive and make the most efficient use of space or smaller/lighter, FWD makes a lot of sense.

 

If the Dart wasn't "Dodge enough" then kill the base Chargers and Challengers and every other model, too.

Was the edict that Dodge could ONLY be performance-based?

 

The confusion is that Dodge is moving to RWD/AWD and will be more performance oriented throughout the lineup. It's not about "base models".

This is why a FWD Dart will no longer fit.

Mike

 

I think the only way in which the Dart wasn't Dodge enough, was that it didn't accelerate like a hellcat in a straight line run. Or if it did, it didn't feel like it. Downside to all that sound deadening: it also deadens your sense of speed.

 

So if true, is it possible the "new" Dart could be so efficient as to replace Fiat 500's and save the company money?

 

The car should return under the Chrysler brand. They need a tall hatch like FCA's Trekking trimmed models and also a more "lux for the bux" sedan the way the Tipo is marketed elsewhere.

 

The point that's being missed, and is very important, is the market. This market has been dominated by Civic, Corolla and Sentra (with Subaru being in there too) for 35 years. Of course consumers are not going to be swayed by a Dodge/Fiat, especially anyone who has seen the erratic nature of marketing of US firms in the small car market. Let's face it, they have never put all their effort there, have always fell short. No US entry in this arena will succeed, unless it is seen as superior, and superior over a number of years. End of story.....

I'm old enough to remember (early '70s) when Japanese cars were very poor quality, so much so that the VW Beetle kept selling well despite not comparing well with them in other ways..but...they did not sit still they really improved their products in the mid '80s, and never stopped doing so......
However, VW let their quality go to crap with the Rabbit/Golf, took years to recover from their bad rep here which they've gone and ruined AGAIN....
Fiat.....what can I say.....never had a good rep here....never.....
history:
Ford: Escort....Fiesta.....Festiva.....etc....
Dodge/Plymouth...Horizon/Omni had potential...cheap bits did not make make as many repeat sales as they could have....Neon....had potential....but neglected the cheap bits...same as Horizon/Omni....arrogant Daimler drops it with no replacement right before fuel prices spike up (great timing)
GM....Cavalier......Cobalt.....all had quality problems....

They never understood the value in a brand that people could trust, and kept changing the names, the look but the poor quality, remained! The Japanese figured this out and built their brands on quality, a car you could trust.

the common thread....the US firms seen unwilling to practice the simple strategy that works so well for the Japanese......CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT.....LISTEN TO YOUR CUSTOMERS...OR THEY LEAVE.....

 

The point that's being missed, and is very important, is the market. This market has been dominated by Civic, Corolla and Sentra (with Subaru being in there too) for 35 years. Of course consumers are not going to be swayed by a Dodge/Fiat, especially anyone who has seen the erratic nature of marketing of US firms in the small car market. Let's face it, they have never put all their effort there, have always fell short. No US entry in this arena will succeed, unless it is seen as superior, and superior over a number of years. End of story.....

I'm old enough to remember (early '70s) when Japanese cars were very poor quality, so much so that the VW Beetle kept selling well despite not comparing well with them in other ways..but...they did not sit still they really improved their products in the mid '80s, and never stopped doing so......
However, VW let their quality go to crap with the Rabbit/Golf, took years to recover from their bad rep here which they've gone and ruined AGAIN....
Fiat.....what can I say.....never had a good rep here....never.....
history:
Ford: Escort....Fiesta.....Festiva.....etc....
Dodge/Plymouth...Horizon/Omni had potential...cheap bits did not make make as many repeat sales as they could have....Neon....had potential....but neglected the cheap bits...same as Horizon/Omni....arrogant Daimler drops it with no replacement right before fuel prices spike up (great timing)
GM....Cavalier......Cobalt.....all had quality problems....

They never understood the value in a brand that people could trust, and kept changing the names, the look but the poor quality, remained! The Japanese figured this out and built their brands on quality, a car you could trust.

the common thread....the US firms seen unwilling to practice the simple strategy that works so well for the Japanese......CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT.....LISTEN TO YOUR CUSTOMERS...OR THEY LEAVE.....

Both the Ford Escort and then Focus have been sales successes. The Focus has been constantly improved. Chevrolet's entries have sold well too. And even through name changes (Cavalier, Cobalt, Cruze) they have consistently improved their product. For that matter the Neon was a superior product for it's time and it sold like crazy those first few years. You can succeed in this market if you work at it. Half baked attempts need not apply.

 

Maybe, they won't reintroduce the Dart and with focus the next FWD towards Chrysler.

Wil

 

If you pull out of the market, that perception will never change.

And I might never be back.

 

Dodge Dart length (4,671 mm) is a little bit longer than an Alfa Romeo Giulia (4,639 mm around 1.25"), but Giulia is wider 1,873 mm vs. 1,829 mm (difference around 1.7"). Wheelbase is longer in Giulia, around 12 cm (4.7").
So it is not difficult to guess what architecture will be used, also if one consider that they are working also on next Challenger and Charger on same family of architectures (Giorgio).

I could image that also the next Jeep Cherokee will use also same architecture, but in SUV variant. The actual Cherokee probably will be the base for a Chrysler crossover.

Dodge FWD, probably for a vehicle smaller than the Dart.
FWD cars start to have problems 300 HP, if You don't go RWD (as many manufacturers do). And nowdays people look at 250/300 HP like being few ponies, unfortunately. Also than there is the problem to find a transaxle with enough performance, but not too expensive.

 

@Mike V. Not aimed at you specifically but I'm beginning to not to care about where Dodge is going. If FWD don't fit neither do I. I could go on but I'm gonna stop here.

 

How about wait and see what actually happens instead of assuming what is going to happen?

Mike

 

Chrysler_FWD based cars. Dodge_ RWD based cars. Jeep_cars with an optional "Trail Rated version."
This is sarcasm with a little bit of truth.

 

I guess it all depends on your perspective and expectations. The 2013 Dart Rallye is listed as 0-60 in 7.8 seconds. That's faster than my current car, and just fine for me - certainly NOT dismal.

 

And you have to abuse the 1.4 Turbo to get it to perform like that. The power peak is so close to redline, it's not particularly useful power. The 1.4T is great in the 500 Abarth, but it is a dog in the heavier Dart (brutal turbo lag).

 

The Dart is a great car, the 200 is a great car, but they simply do not have the style that is usually associated with Mopar products. Foremost among the things that set Mopars apart from other makes it their image as a lead n style and design. If the dart was simply a better looking car, they would not be able to make them fast enough. same goes for 200. Mopar can build a better car, but what folks come to Mopar for is that style. Mopars have to have bette styling.

 

So where did FCA state they were retiring the Dart or 200 names? Assumptions are rampant....

 

No one has said that the names were retiring specifically. The argument is that since there is no continuity of names, there should be no shock of the lack of continuity in sales.

 

It looks to me like it's shaping up to be:

Chrysler -- mainstream with "classy" image; premium model ("C" or "Platinum") of each vehicle; 300C as "pillar"/flagship.

Jeep-- mainstream UVs with "off-road" image; off-road "Trailhawk" model of each vehicle; Wrangler as "pillar"/flagship.

Dodge-- mainstream with "performance" image; performance model (SRT) of each vehicle; Viper/Hellcats as "pillars"/flagships.

 

I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see the "Dart" show back up here as a Fiat. The 200? They should do to it what Lee did with the K cars. Not enough room, stretch the wheelbase, and tweak the front end some. Then send it to Belvedere.

 

I see two possible outcomes for the Dart:

1. Produced in China at the Viaggio/Ottimo/Cherokee plant; updated styling; new I4 and I4 turbo engines; possible AWD; possible hatchback bodystyle; possible SRT variant; excellent value proposition for buyers.

2. All-new RWD sedan based on the Alfa Romeo Giulia.

It also wouldn't be surprising to me to see them go with the first option for 3 to 5 years, then switch to the second option at that point.

 

There has long been rumored a D-segment RWD Dodge sedan. I had always assumed that it would be roughly the size of the Giulia, in which case it would make sense as the next Dart.

However, recent rumors suggest that it could be larger, possibly around the size of the upcoming Alfa Romeo E-sedan (BMW 5, Challenger are similar in size). If this is the case (which would make sense-- the larger Alfa won't sell as well as the Giulia and therefore is more likely to need a Dodge variant to justify the development costs), this vehicle would make more sense as an "Avenger."

A RWD Avenger would leave room for a FWD/AWD Dart to stay in the lineup. And Dodge was planned at one point (May 2014) to get a B-hatch and B-sedan, which would almost certainly be FWD/AWD.

Remember they talked about "checkboarding" the Dodge and Chrysler sedans?

B-segment FWD Dodge "Hornet."
C-segment FWD Chrysler 100 (Tipo).
C/D-segment FWD Dodge Dart.
D-segment FWD Chrysler 200.
D/E-segment RWD Dodge "Avenger."
E-segment Charger and 300.

And honestly, I would expect all the FWD models to be imported (probably from China) and maybe the Avenger as well (from the Mirafiori plant in Italy), with the Charger and 300 continuing to be produced in Canada.

 

There is still room in the showroom for the Hornet, but it doesn't fit in the Dodge brand's line-up any longer. Subcompact's are a real hard sell right now, but something based on the refreshed Qubo would catch the attention of millennials. Change the front sheet metal, put in a drivetrain that plays well in NAFTA, and then FCA can brand it as a Chrysler.

 

There could be, as a Chrysler brand vehicle.

The subcompact CUV market is on fire right now actually. The growth has been tremendous and is still growing by double digits. 2015 saw a 175% increase in subcompact CUV sales over 2014.

Mike

 

It'd help if they decided on brand 'definitions, for lack of a better term, and stuck with them for more than a few months at a time. As the US derived makes under FCA, Jeep and Ram are the only ones that have a clear, defined brand. Chrysler and Dodge have fluxed so much it's confusing for anyone who isn't an enthusiast group like we are here. Chrysler and Dodge have been flip-flopping on who's the every-man car and who's the higher-end since what.. 2003? Maybe even before that?

They need to stick with what they decide to define Dodge and Chrysler as. If Dodge is going full muscle/enthusiast, then keep it that way. If Chrysler is getting the 'low priced luxury' then stay with it and give it a lineup to back up that image. 3 cars does not make it seem like they're serious about keeping Chrysler as a brand. They know that though, so I don't need to continue that little rant, lol. Jeep has been around for eons, everyone knows Jeep. It has a defined brand off-road, durable, adventurous. Ram is new but straight forward; Trucks & the Professional line of vehicles. The Italian brands have their own mystique and prestige. Ferrari, Alfa, Maserati, and even Fiat to some extent (being the niche small-car brand they're seen as here. First thing you think of when you hear Fiat is 500.. or the negative acronyms, lol).

Then there's the dealer-body. That's the biggest change that needs to happen; but I'll leave that where it is. We know this. //smallrant. lol

 

I think it's becoming clear. Chrysler, Jeep, and Dodge are ALL mainstream brands, each with a smaller, specialized 'sub-brand' (S/Platinum, Trailhawk, and SRT) and each with a flagship/exemplar vehicle (300C, Wrangler, and Viper/Hellcats) that embodies the spirit and values of the 'sub-brand' and of the larger brand as a whole.