|
Throatwarbler posted:I'm not, doesn't it only have like 15 extra hp? I'm waiting for the SRT4. It sounds like they really need the new 2.4l to replace the engine in the 4 cyl Avenger/200 and Journey though. The model I test drove at Chrysler HQ had 260HP and a 6-speed MT iirc. I want to say it was the 2.4L that they had turbocharged but now I can't remember, it was back in November. FAT32 SHAMER fucked around with this message at 02:08 on Mar 13, 2013 |
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 02:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 11:27 |
|
|
We had someone trade in a Dart at our Mazda already, not sure what they ended up getting though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 02:11
|
|
|
It might have been the 1.4 liter. As far as I know, nobody, not even the media, has gotten the chance to drive the 2.4 yet. My guess is that the tigershark won't be especially peppy either, but its power delivery should feel more natural and readily available. What's exciting is that a fairly recent Mopar engine development sheet showed two turbocharged 2.4s with 300hp and 350hp, respectively. There's no reason the SRT Dart should be anything less than awesome, assuming the new product plan didn't kill it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 02:15
|
|
|
Tekne posted:It might have been the 1.4 liter. As far as I know, nobody, not even the media, has gotten the chance to drive the 2.4 yet. My guess is that the tigershark won't be especially peppy either, but its power delivery should feel more natural and readily available. What's exciting is that a fairly recent Mopar engine development sheet showed two turbocharged 2.4s with 300hp and 350hp, respectively. There's no reason the SRT Dart should be anything less than awesome, assuming the new product plan didn't kill it. I was interning for a company that supplied Chrysler at the time  . I'm not sure how I feel about a 350hp FWD production car; I'm sure they'll have computers to control the torque-steer and all, but jeez.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 02:25
|
|
|
Nodoze posted:We had someone trade in a Dart at our Mazda already, not sure what they ended up getting though. My friend bought a Dart 2 months ago and he is trading it in this week for a Focus ST.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 02:56
|
|
|
Tekne posted:It might have been the 1.4 liter. As far as I know, nobody, not even the media, has gotten the chance to drive the 2.4 yet. My guess is that the tigershark won't be especially peppy either, but its power delivery should feel more natural and readily available. What's exciting is that a fairly recent Mopar engine development sheet showed two turbocharged 2.4s with 300hp and 350hp, respectively. There's no reason the SRT Dart should be anything less than awesome, assuming the new product plan didn't kill it. Oh I can think of 300 or 350 reasons why it'll be less than awesome. Dear God, that much to the front is just such a stupid idea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 03:14
|
|
|
Lol, Bloomberg, such sharp auto journalism: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-07/honda-s-33-000-accord-coupe-wails-like-a-ferrari.html Super Aggro Crag posted:My friend bought a Dart 2 months ago and he is trading it in this week for a Focus ST. Why did he buy it if the ST was already out?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 03:16
|
|
|
Apparently the dual-clutch in the Dart is worse than Fords. And that's saying a lot. I've grown used to the one in my Focus, you definitely need to learn it's quirks, but I'm glad I leased this car. Next car I get will be a proper manual or torque converter automatic. That may not be fair to DCTs though, I enjoyed VWs in the past. I do like the handling of the Focus, especially coming from a 15 year old Taurus.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 03:20
|
|
|
SouthLAnd posted:Apparently the dual-clutch in the Dart is worse than Fords. And that's saying a lot. I've grown used to the one in my Focus, you definitely need to learn it's quirks, but I'm glad I leased this car. Next car I get will be a proper manual or torque converter automatic. That may not be fair to DCTs though, I enjoyed VWs in the past. Who is saying this? http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1077355_2013-dodge-dart-rallye-ddct-quick-drive-of-dual-clutch-automatic/page-2 quote:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-dodge-dart-14l-dual-clutch-automatic-first-drive-review quote:The short story is this: slow and smooth. Placed in the manual sport mode and with a foot to the floor, the revs dutifully climb toward the redline—no zinging here. Tugging the shift lever rearward (there are no wheel-mounted paddles) at approximately 6000 rpm executes upshifts with something resembling indifference. Anything past that, and the computer upshifts automatically. During shifts, there is no shock through the chassis or barking or burping from the exhaust. Vehicle and engine speed simply accrue quite linearly, indicating that Chrysler put some real effort into calibrating the ratios. (The box is sourced from Fiat/Alfa but tuned in America for the Dart.) We’re estimating the 1.4 with dual-clutch combo will return 27 mpg in the city and 37 on the highway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 03:32
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:I really hate GM/Buick's naming scheme. It's all pre-bankruptcy thinking - if we keep coming up with new nonsense names every 5 years for the same car then we can trick people into buying garbage! Because people remember this garbage: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 03:43
|
|
|
adorai posted:so what's the word on the new dart? I know they aren't selling as hot as chrysler group expected, but is it because it's a dodge or because it's crap? Curb weight, 3,211 lb
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 03:51
|
|
|
Yeah, bringing back Skylark and Le Sabre is probably the worst idea I've ever heard, even if for different reasons. Skyhawk you might get away with because I doubt very many people even remember that car existed. If you want to bring back old names stick to stuff that doesn't have tons of baggage attached. Something like Invicta or Wildcat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 03:52
|
|
|
angryhampster posted:Because people remember this garbage: The people that remember that garbage won't buy a Buick, period. Or possibly any GM. The people that will set foot in a Buick dealer will appreciate legacy names. Also that claim Throatwarbler quoted that the DDCT won't need major service over its lifetime sounds an awful lot like previous cars' lifetime coolant claims. A guy I work with bought a 1.4 Dart recently, he seems to like it, but his priorities were fuel economy and gizmos, and I think they put a lot of cash on the hood.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 03:57
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Few incentives on them but lots of incentives on the 200/Avenger, to the point where you can get a V6 Avenger for $19k. Yeah, but who the hell wants to drive an Avenger? It's tacky, sluggish and gets terrible fuel economy for a moden compact (or even midsize) sedan.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 04:07
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:Yeah, but who the hell wants to drive an Avenger? It's tacky, sluggish and gets terrible fuel economy for a moden compact (or even midsize) sedan. They aren't very sluggish with the new Pentastar V6. In fact they feel to quick for the platform.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 04:18
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:Yeah, but who the hell wants to drive an Avenger? It's tacky, sluggish and gets terrible fuel economy for a moden compact (or even midsize) sedan. They get pretty good economy with the V6 and the six speed auto. I drove a rental and I was impressed by the drivetrain. I wouldn't mind having one as a family sedan. AfricanBootyShine fucked around with this message at 04:23 on Mar 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 04:21
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:The people that remember that garbage won't buy a Buick, period. Or possibly any GM. The people that will set foot in a Buick dealer will appreciate legacy names. He's talking about a dry clutch, not anything to fo with oil or coolant. On a 160hp car it's not really that implausible. AfricanBootyShine posted:They get pretty good economy with the V6 and the six speed auto. I drove a rental and I was impressed by the drivetrain. I wouldn't mind having one as a family sedan. Fuel economy is somewhat worse than the newest Japanese competitors (Accord/Altima/Camry) which all came out literally this year, and about on par with the Passat, but the V6 versions of those things will easily cost you $10k more out the door. The V6 Avenger and a stripped out V8 Ram are screaming performance bargains.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 04:35
|
|
|
Giblet Plus! posted:Curb weight, 3,211 lb Wow, my Protege is 400 lb less than that. poo poo, my Blazer barely weighs more than that. Man, new compact cars really are getting fat as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 04:39
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:Wow, my Protege is 400 lb less than that. poo poo, my Blazer barely weighs more than that. Man, new compact cars really are getting fat as gently caress. That's the price you pay for not dying horribly when you get in a crash. Given that my favourite car I've ever owned was an old Nissan NX2000 I'm (Unreasonably?) excited about the new Fiesta ST. Has the North American version been driven yet?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 05:06
|
|
|
A lot of that added weight is also NVH dampening, which is why older cars sound noisy as hell now
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 05:11
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:A lot of that added weight is also NVH dampening, which is why older cars sound noisy as hell now Yeah, we are getting to the point where adding solid doesnt do dick for more crash survival, the increases are more to do with fancy poo poo and NVH.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 05:45
|
|
|
NVH has gotten so ridiculous they had to cut a hole in the Mustangs firewall just so you could hear the engine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 05:52
|
|
|
Cat Terrist posted:Oh I can think of 300 or 350 reasons why it'll be less than awesome. Dear God, that much to the front is just such a stupid idea. As for the Dart's weight, it appears that the added bulk served its purpose: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0qiiAj9Xms Some drunk teens launched one off a large landscaping boulder at "ONE HUNDRED MPH" (probably an exaggeration), rolled it multiple times, plowed through a house into two parked cars, and three of them could still run away before the cops arrived. The two kids who couldn't get away were in stable condition. There's some good pictures of the carnage here: http://rochester.patch.com/articles/5-kids-flip-new-car-and-crash-it-through-rochester-hills-home-09cf60a8#photo-10428461
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 06:17
|
|
|
Tekne posted:The awesome was from the rumors that the SRT Dart will be AWD, but we can only hope with the constantly changing plans at Chrysler. What the gently caress I live there and I didn't hear about this  After reading where it was, turns out I work 3 blocks from it. Huh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 06:28
|
|
|
Tekne posted:The awesome was from the rumors that the SRT Dart will be AWD, but we can only hope with the constantly changing plans at Chrysler. Ah, now that will work nicely then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 06:49
|
|
|
Q_res posted:NVH has gotten so ridiculous they had to cut a hole in the Mustangs firewall just so you could hear the engine. Some BMWs play prerecorded engine noise through the speakers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 16:22
|
|
|
Cat Terrist posted:I'm jaw dropped they even give anything Cruze based more than a passing faint praise. That chassis is just...... average to say the least. Just.... ugh. gently caress those cars for a joke. This may be a dumb question but I stumbled upon some WTCC racing on Speed a couple weeks ago, and the commentators (who were British, by the way) were stumbling over each other and gushing praise on the Cruze chassis being easily the best out of all the cars in the lineup. Is a WTCC-spec chassis different from what is available for a retail customer? I would expect more race-ready bits on the WTCC car, but the chassis itself would be the same as the car in your corner Chevy dealership, no? If so, where is that disparity coming from?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 16:27
|
|
|
IN other new GM car news, The W body Impala will continue production into MY2014.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 16:28
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:IN other new GM car news, The W body Impala will continue production into MY2014. Hasn't this been Chevy's basic model for the past decade or so? Use the excess parts on popular outgoing models for fleet-only versions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 18:11
|
|
|
The Midniter posted:This may be a dumb question but I stumbled upon some WTCC racing on Speed a couple weeks ago, and the commentators (who were British, by the way) were stumbling over each other and gushing praise on the Cruze chassis being easily the best out of all the cars in the lineup. Is a WTCC-spec chassis different from what is available for a retail customer? I would expect more race-ready bits on the WTCC car, but the chassis itself would be the same as the car in your corner Chevy dealership, no? If so, where is that disparity coming from? I don't know what you can do with the suspension in WTCC, but they probably let you stitch weld the chassis to be super stiff, at which point it's all on the suspension tuning to get the thing to go fast. In general, newer chassis ought to be stiffer and more advanced than older ones. The BMWs in WTCC are at least a few years older, for example. Try asking in these threads: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3526056 http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3490129
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 18:33
|
|
|
kimbo305 posted:I don't know what you can do with the suspension in WTCC, but they probably let you stitch weld the chassis to be super stiff, at which point it's all on the suspension tuning to get the thing to go fast. In general, newer chassis ought to be stiffer and more advanced than older ones. The BMWs in WTCC are at least a few years older, for example. After a modern safety cage has been installed, all the cars are stiff as gently caress and the stiffness of the original non-racing car is meaningless. Shocks and springs also have nothing to do with the stock components. What matters is weight distribution and suspension geometry: how well suited the geometry is to racing, what happens to the geometry when the car is slammed to the ground and what can be done to the geometry within the rules of the series. I don't know about WTCC, but in most touring car series alteration of suspension attachment points on body or the type of suspension is not allowed. A varying level of modifications to the suspension arms and uprights is often allowed. Partially to allow fitment of proper brakes. Most street car suspensions require some geometric modifications to make them work at a racing ride height.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 20:06
|
|
|
Do you guys think that eventually as the horsepower of most pedestrian as well as sports and super cars increases, FWD will be phased out in favor of AWD? I mean, it's safer in bad weather, it's better at putting power to the wheels, it can handle(if done well obviously) ridiculous amounts of horsepower, etc etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:Wow, my Protege is 400 lb less than that. poo poo, my Blazer barely weighs more than that. Man, new compact cars really are getting fat as gently caress. The Dart is a lot bigger than your Protege and has a lot more passenger room than your Blazer. It's pretty big, almost a midsize car.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 20:10
|
|
|
Bob NewSCART posted:Do you guys think that eventually as the horsepower of most pedestrian as well as sports and super cars increases, FWD will be phased out in favor of AWD? I mean, it's safer in bad weather, it's better at putting power to the wheels, it can handle(if done well obviously) ridiculous amounts of horsepower, etc etc. Adds weight, uses extra gas, can reduce interior room and complicate packaging. Safety benefits are rather dependent on a good set of tires. I think you'll see engine size shrink for fuel efficiency / weight while maintaining current or almost-current power levels than you'll see regular cars go a whole lot higher on HP. AWD or not, 300+ hp is too much for most chassis and most drivers. You might see AWD come into favor for mixed chemical / electric propulsion with each system driving a different set of wheels, but most hybrid systems seem to be sticking to both driving the same set right now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
Bob NewSCART posted:Do you guys think that eventually as the horsepower of most pedestrian as well as sports and super cars increases, FWD will be phased out in favor of AWD? I mean, it's safer in bad weather, it's better at putting power to the wheels, it can handle(if done well obviously) ridiculous amounts of horsepower, etc etc. I don't think this is necessarily so, not so long as fuel efficiency is still a thing, since AWD in its current forms almost unavoidably adds significant drivetrain losses on top of increased cost and weight. Maybe once you start seeing more sophisticated hybrid or electronic AWD systems, which would allow for better packaging and efficiency. But even then, I feel like that despite the horsepower wars, most non-performance buyers still care more about things like cost, and a lot of the HP creep is driven as much by increasing car weights as it is number wars (though it's arguably both). Instead, for higher-volume cars, what we might instead see is more "cheating" (not actual cheating but rather just more specialized optimization) on HP ratings along with software programming to cut torque/power under most normal conditions to make things like torquesteer more manageable on pure FWD while still theoretically providing 350 hp on a dyno. Which obviously isn't ideal, but the vast majority of 300 hp Camry buyers will never, ever actually use that power and it's only there for number peen anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 20:22
|
|
|
A lot of the cars at the Geneva motor show were fwd with electrically driven rear wheels, awd in a sense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 20:35
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:I think you'll see engine size shrink for fuel efficiency / weight while maintaining current or almost-current power levels than you'll see regular cars go a whole lot higher on HP. Ford is already going this direction in a big way with the 1.0 three banger in the 2013 Fiesta. I'd be interested in hearing how it drives.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 21:02
|
|
|
Bob NewSCART posted:Do you guys think that eventually as the horsepower of most pedestrian as well as sports and super cars increases, FWD will be phased out in favor of AWD? I mean, it's safer in bad weather, it's better at putting power to the wheels, it can handle(if done well obviously) ridiculous amounts of horsepower, etc etc. Absolutely not. Fuel mileage is too big of a buzzword / selling point for automakers to start slapping it in all of their models, especially since you do need to design the car from the beginning to have it. Even if you offer it as an option, now your FWD base cars have worse legroom in the back because they still have room for the rear driveshaft and differential. More realistically I eventually see the horsepower wars ending and settling out with power levels closer to where they were 10 years ago, just from smaller engines.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 21:02
|
|
|
Tusen Takk posted:I was interning for a company that supplied Chrysler at the time My old SRT-4 was putting down about 250 to the wheels when I last had it dyno'd. That was just a stage 1 ecu and some bolt-ons and it was scary to drive sometimes. I've ridden and driven 400+HP FWD cars and they're ludicrous, just no traction. They're a blast on the freeway. 3rd gear 60 to 90 MPH was a loving riot, but any kind of aggressive acceleration in first or second gear was pointless. IOwnCalculus posted:Absolutely not. Fuel mileage is too big of a buzzword / selling point for automakers to start slapping it in all of their models, especially since you do need to design the car from the beginning to have it. Even if you offer it as an option, now your FWD base cars have worse legroom in the back because they still have room for the rear driveshaft and differential. I agree. I really want to go drive a Taurus with the 2.0 EcoBoost in it. 32MPG Highway out of a full sized sedan is amazing. skipdogg fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Mar 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 21:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 11:27 |
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:Absolutely not. Fuel mileage is too big of a buzzword / selling point for automakers to start slapping it in all of their models, especially since you do need to design the car from the beginning to have it. Even if you offer it as an option, now your FWD base cars have worse legroom in the back because they still have room for the rear driveshaft and differential. I don't think it's reasonable to think that manufacturers will just do a complete 180, and start trimming power rather than adding it. Horsepower has been steadily rising for quite a bit of time, I mean hell you can get a hyundai with over 400 horsepower nowadays.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 21:09
|
|