Topic: Test Drive: 2013 Dodge Dart SXT 2.0

[Autos_Editor]

Equipped with the standard 2.0L engine, the Dart is slower and thirstier than many of its competitors, says Greg Wilson.

Read More...

[JohnM]

The Dart is probably a big improvement over Chrysler's past efforts but I still don't see a reason for this car or the company to exist.

They don't appear to do anything better than the competition and there is nothing unique in their lineup.  Ditto Mitsubishi (even though I have a soft spot for the Galant (2000GTX) of old as well as their older Colts.

But once you go 10+ years without being a leader or highly competitive in any area, its tough to claim you deserve a place at the table.

Cheers,
John M.

[jjac28]

ugly interior and whats up with the funny gauges? so the 1.4l engines is better but more expansive,well for the same amount of money you can get a better car somewhere else.
chrysler has a long way to go to catch up to its competition but the car is still a huge improvement over their previous compact car offering.

[Rupert]

  Firstly, 'the company does not lead in any segment'...tell the Minivan competition that. There is a lot to like for the 'mainstream' here; reading between the lines. Wish that was not necessary. Why?...well the majority (won't say vast but suspect it is very close to) of drivers will never test the 11sec to 60 accel rate...but will be very pleased with the 2000rpm highway cruise speed and quiet cabin to boot. Will it hold top gear against a headwind or reasonable shallow slope? What is a couple of second spread to 60mph...to most, nothing. Nothing compared to nice handling...stable highway cruising and directional stability. Decent trim by the sound of it. 17" alloys...all for 18+Gs. Simple non turbo 2L. 4cyl. CVVT...whatever...Tigershark engine. Does it have a chain or belt valve drive? All in a package that is gratifyingly SANS over exagerated folds and creases. Being one of the affore mentioned majority; I am not so sure that I mind a bit of extra weight at all and if the fuel consumption is not at the top of the list, it is about what an 06 Accent got overall, over many miles of combined gas consumption. Whilst being in a larger, heavier body with more comfort. Yes a lot to like...for me anyway. Also, if the Tigershark 2L engine (if that is the name) has the same reliability and life charachteristics of the slant six of yore...it should do well. Certainly for those who shy away from complexity. Still, the proof of the pudding is in the eating over time.
   The dials...well maybe the alternative ones should be used exclusively. Better still...ditch the tach and just put a larger round analouge gauge. Keep the stylists away...simple numbers and pointer with highway speed at the top...how can you go wrong? As I said before there is a lot to like here...nice handling for the likes of...well...me and the others in between the brackets above. I like it and it could be my favourite of the new cars.
   

[JRM]

I've seen a couple of these around town recently (obviously not selling very well).  I didn't like the looks of them in early pictures, but have to admit they are not a bad looking car in the flesh.  Too bad they are so heavy.    A trimmer sized version would have gone over better, I believe. 

[mixmanmash]

I think this is a fail for Dodge.  The 1.4T in real world doesn't deliver the fuel economy.  The car is way too heavy.  I would put my money elsewhere.

"Outboard rear passengers have a fold-down centre armrest with covered storage and two cupholders but a centre driveline hump and a protruding centre console discourages anyone sitting in the middle seat."

That is not a driveline hump.  This vehicle is not AWD or RWD. The hump is usually there for structural strength.

[mixmanmash]

  Firstly, 'the company does not lead in any segment'...tell the Minivan competition that. There is a lot to like for the 'mainstream' here; reading between the lines. Wish that was not necessary. Why?...well the majority (won't say vast but suspect it is very close to) of drivers will never test the 11sec to 60 accel rate...but will be very pleased with the 2000rpm highway cruise speed and quiet cabin to boot. Will it hold top gear against a headwind or reasonable shallow slope? What is a couple of second spread to 60mph...to most, nothing. Nothing compared to nice handling...stable highway cruising and directional stability. Decent trim by the sound of it. 17" alloys...all for 18+Gs. Simple non turbo 2L. 4cyl. CVVT...whatever...Tigershark engine. Does it have a chain or belt valve drive? All in a package that is gratifyingly SANS over exagerated folds and creases. Being one of the affore mentioned majority; I am not so sure that I mind a bit of extra weight at all and if the fuel consumption is not at the top of the list, it is about what an 06 Accent got overall, over many miles of combined gas consumption. Whilst being in a larger, heavier body with more comfort. Yes a lot to like...for me anyway. Also, if the Tigershark 2L engine (if that is the name) has the same reliability and life charachteristics of the slant six of yore...it should do well. Certainly for those who shy away from complexity. Still, the proof of the pudding is in the eating over time.
   The dials...well maybe the alternative ones should be used exclusively. Better still...ditch the tach and just put a larger round analouge gauge. Keep the stylists away...simple numbers and pointer with highway speed at the top...how can you go wrong? As I said before there is a lot to like here...nice handling for the likes of...well...me and the others in between the brackets above. I like it and it could be my favourite of the new cars.
 

Man, you're probably in the minority.  While Chrysler maybe the leader in minivan sales, it's only so on value (cost with the discounts).  The competition has better products.

Not having enough acceleration is dangerous IMO, especially for passing, merging, lane changing, left turns...  As for the weight, you can still have all the creature comforts and keep the car light, as well as provide better fuel economy.  This things average economy is worse than an Altima, Mazda6 or Accord which are much larger and probably more comfortable cars.

What they should do for the instrument cluster is have an old man package with a cluster out of an 80s Crown Vic.

Or better yet, make it a screen and you can upload or customize your favourite display.

I expect this thing to be heavily discounted to move the volume.

[pcsp]

Not sure I agree with JohnM's comment about "not deserving a place at the table". Dodge is now a player. The car exists to make sales. Those looking at the inferior 200 now have options. The Dart's shortcomings would preclude it from my consideration, but the average consumer will (and have) give it a chance. As has been pointed out, it has redeeming qualities. There certainly is a place in the market for a refined, attractive, well equipped, well priced, reasonably efficient small sedan (though bloated). The consumer needs choices and Dodge is providing one.

I really appreciated the article's comparisons and the lack of BS in getting to its central point.

[nlm]

They don't appear to do anything better than the competition and there is nothing unique in their lineup.  Ditto Mitsubishi....

I know what you mean but their lineup isn't a complete failure. I think the Charger is unique in terms of a 4-door muscle car; whether there is a substantial market for such a vehicle rather than a buik-esque sedan is another point, but its unique nonetheless. As for Mitsu, one truncated word: Evo. Sure they are going to discontinue it and its sales do not make the company but it is regarded as the better oem 'rally' car and is arguablly the best value for your money for all-round performance so that is kinda sorta unique?

Anywho I think the Dart is a nice effort and a substantially better design than its predecessor. Probably not enough for sales though.

[Rupert]

  Not having enough acceleration is not ever mentioned in the report. It may be at the bottom of the list to 60 mph but not by any amount that matters. Also the accel from 60 to 80 say is not reported upon. So, all in all, comparrison to 'safety' is not applicable IMO. Using the accel boost in Tubo configs. results in poor fuel ecconomy, as reported many times on this forum. Come to think of it, even going back to the slant six years, I can't think of any situation experienced, where acceleration was needed to 'get out of trouble'. Braking...yes.
   As for the jibe at being old...well...it happens, but I suspect that simple analogue full round dials, are a young man's prefference also. These things don't change with age. Maybe some dials are designed by youngsters what know now't.

[mixmanmash]

They don't appear to do anything better than the competition and there is nothing unique in their lineup.  Ditto Mitsubishi....

I know what you mean but their lineup isn't a complete failure. I think the Charger is unique in terms of a 4-door muscle car; whether there is a substantial market for such a vehicle rather than a buik-esque sedan is another point, but its unique nonetheless. As for Mitsu, one truncated word: Evo. Sure they are going to discontinue it and its sales do not make the company but it is regarded as the better oem 'rally' car and is arguablly the best value for your money for all-round performance so that is kinda sorta unique?

Anywho I think the Dart is a nice effort and a substantially better design than its predecessor. Probably not enough for sales though.

While the Evo maybe better than the STi, I'll put my money with Subaru as it's more reliable.  Mitsubishi = fragile.  How many people have had issues with the AYC pump that Mitsu won't cover even under warranty?

[Fobroader]

They don't appear to do anything better than the competition and there is nothing unique in their lineup.  Ditto Mitsubishi....

I know what you mean but their lineup isn't a complete failure. I think the Charger is unique in terms of a 4-door muscle car; whether there is a substantial market for such a vehicle rather than a buik-esque sedan is another point, but its unique nonetheless. As for Mitsu, one truncated word: Evo. Sure they are going to discontinue it and its sales do not make the company but it is regarded as the better oem 'rally' car and is arguablly the best value for your money for all-round performance so that is kinda sorta unique?

Anywho I think the Dart is a nice effort and a substantially better design than its predecessor. Probably not enough for sales though.

While the Evo maybe better than the STi, I'll put my money with Subaru as it's more reliable.  Mitsubishi = fragile.  How many people have had issues with the AYC pump that Mitsu won't cover even under warranty?

My friend had a Ralliart that was pushing 400 horses.....he said that was the upper limits for the block and the he was past the safe limit of the stupid flappy paddle transmission, wont have that issue with the STi. Getting back to the Dart, 11 seconds to 100.......c'mon, what is this, 1978. Im sorry, but that to me would sound dangerous trying to get into traffic or trying to pass a semi on a undivided highway. Dont know what it is about the Dart, really dont like the looks, especially when you see the Alfa Romeo.

[toolatecrew]

There are more than a few around here and with the bigger wheels in the right color its actually not bad looking. Certainly not ugly but its not a true standout like say the new Forte.

Problem is that being an improvement over a dreadful predecessor doesn't break the cycle. The cycle of big rebates ,cheap prices and low rates to move metal. I do not deny that many manufacturers use finance rates etc at times. But the Chrysler product does not go to the head of the class in any area enough to take sales away from competition based on value at close to MSRP.

I've read several longer term tests of the DCT T4 (Edmunds has one going) and the drive train is pretty well universally panned. Fuel economy is proving to be poor.

They are definitely last among domestic brands in terms of achievement in my books.

[dkaz]

11 seconds? Where does it say that?

I thought everyone was complaining about 8 or 9 seconds. If 11 seconds is true, that's terrible. My old 76HP Civic Wagon did about that.

[SaskSpecV]

I really appreciated the article's comparisons and the lack of BS in getting to its central point.

Agreed, very refreshing.  Though the Dodge press representative likely does not share our approval...

I kinda like the Dart, but it seems to be a muddled offering.  Based on a much smaller Fiat, but then bloated up to within a hair of midsize sedans.  Length is 184 inches - largest of the compacts; and its width (72 inches) and weight (~ 3200 lbs) are at least that of some midsizers.  Maybe Dodge should focus on the upcoming 2.4L engine and try marketing it as a slightly smaller, cheaper midsize sedan?

[hemusbull]

It's a mistake not to use now close to dysfunctional Lancia skin. Creating North American unique look isn't good for the tastes at least in Canada. And 1.4 Turbo is a wrong engine for this heavy vehicle. Isn't the other domestic Cruze with the highest weight in compact segment?

[Vanstar]

Not sure I agree with JohnM's comment about "not deserving a place at the table". Dodge is now a player. The car exists to make sales. Those looking at the inferior 200 now have options. The Dart's shortcomings would preclude it from my consideration, but the average consumer will (and have) give it a chance. As has been pointed out, it has redeeming qualities. There certainly is a place in the market for a refined, attractive, well equipped, well priced, reasonably efficient small sedan (though bloated). The consumer needs choices and Dodge is providing one.

I really appreciated the article's comparisons and the lack of BS in getting to its central point.

Sales? It is a total dog. I have seen a grand total of TWO on the roads here and both were rentals. A quick search of the local dealers shows hundreds in stock. The car is 250 kg overweight. It is not an any way competitive with the likes of Kia, Hyundai and Honda, all o which sell for similar (or less) money and get much better fuel economy.

Epic fail for Flatsler.

[WRX_Pilot]

Nothing to write home about, but I am interested to read a review of the top of the line GT with a 6-speedas stick and to see what the TFT gauges are like. 

[Rupert]

2013 Dodge Dart SXT 2.0. Click image to enlarge

The Dart 2.0 does have some redeeming characteristics, though. Once up to speed, it’s surprisingly quiet and offers a firm but comfortable freeway ride, with the engine revving lazily around 2,000 rpm in sixth gear at 100 km/h. The 2.0L engine features dual rotating balance shafts to smooth out engine vibrations. Handling, thanks to a fully independent suspension (front MacPherson struts/rear bi-links), a wide track, low centre of gravity and standard 225/45R-17-inch tires (Kumho Solus KH25 all-seasons on my test car) is nimble, stable and quick. The electric steering has a nice balance of steering effort and steering feel – the Dart goes where it’s pointed and tracks well on the freeway. It also has a nice tight turning circle for easy maneuvering and parking (36.5 ft.)

Braking too is above average, according to Consumer Reports’ tests. With standard four-wheel disc brakes, the Dart 2.0 stopped from 60 mph in the dry in 127 feet. The Cruze took 139 ft, Focus 141 ft, Civic 136 ft, Elantra 136 ft, Sentra 129 ft, and Mazda3 139 ft.

The above passage describes what most people want in a car of this type I suspect. A couple of seconds to 60 mph is meaningless. If your life is hanging on a couple of seconds then perhaps a revised driving attitude is required. I like the idea of a bit more weight and size wise it is also a bit larger than the others. Is it optimum in all instances...no...neither are the others.

[tooscoops]

acceleration to 60 for most people looking at cars like this means little to nothing... i do agree it sucks, but i don't think it's a dealbreaker for the majority of potential buyers.

and other than that, it seems like the only negative that was posted (that isn't expected from every car in this class) was that the driver didn't like the dials.

i'd say that's a decent offering. my personal thought is still that its priced 1500 too high, but i'm sure that will eventually be taken care of by package discounts and/or incentives.


as for johnm's comment about not seeing why the company exists... are you kidding?... they provide transportation for the masses... who is more important, chrysler who sells almost 12% of all cars sold currently or all of daimler who, yes they build a good car, but only 2% of the population buys? or maybe porsche whom we all love is more important at .6%?

lets face it, they are more "important" than most manufacturers... we just don't like their offerings.