Anyone who is familiar with the game of darts knows that the object of the game is to hit the bullseye. As far as compact cars are concerned, for many years during the 1960s and 1970s, the Dodge Dart did just that, achieving great success. However, when reincarnated for the 2013 model year, the Dodge Dart did not hit the bullseye. In fact, it struck far from it.
The 2013-2016 “PF-platform” Dodge Dart, its lack of meaningful success, and its subsequently prompt discontinuation is a rather tragic tale, especially given its overall competitiveness and the high hopes many had for it. The first Dodge vehicle released as a byproduct of the Fiat-Chrysler merger, the Dart was based on the Fiat Compact platform that underpinned the Alfa Romeo Giulietta, though for the North American market, it was widened and modified a bit, thus resulting in it being renamed the PF Platform for North America.
Whether or not it had as much marinara sauce to it as it did Heinz 57, the PF-body Dart was a car that Dodge was quite proud of, and had good reason to be so. After years of the bubbly yet miserable Neon and the positively wretched Caliber, Dodge finally had a competitive compact car it didn’t need to hide out of embarrassment in the back of its dealer showrooms.
With promotion beginning in December 2011 and building up to its summer 2012 introduction, the Dart was launched to considerable hype and excitement — relatively speaking, as even in 2012 compact cars were hardy the cars the auto industry gushed over.
The Dart premiered two brand new versions of the Global Engine Alliance’s World Gasoline Engine, dubbed Tigershark. These inline-4 engines consisted of the base 2.0-liter (160 hp; 148 lb-ft) and the available 2.4-liter (184 hp; 171 lb-ft). A 1.4-liter Fiat FIRE turbo was also available, making 160-horsepower and 184 lb-torque, and providing better fuel economy than the standard 2.0-liter. All transmissions now had six forward gears: 6-speed manuals standard with each engine, the Tigersharks getting optional 6-speed autos, and the FIRE getting an optional 6-speed dual clutch.
Even more appreciated was the Dart’s interior, boasting significant levels of refinement lightyears ahead of its pitiful Caliber predecessor. The Dart’s dashboard featured an appealing organic shape, highlighted by a prominent center stack and upper instrument panel made to look like it was a continuation of the driver gauge cluster, one that could be optioned with a full-color 7-inch configurable instrument display. On higher-trim models, this upper instrument panel’s trim surround included LED ambient lighting for a rather striking effect.
Material quality was also bounds ahead of the Caliber and actually class-competitive with many softer-touch plastics, as well as padded door surfaces in higher-trims. Dodge also highlighted that the Dart offered a total of 14 interior colors, although many of these featured the same primary color with varied accent color. Available features included an 8.4-inch UConnect center touchscreen housing Bluetooth media, Garmin-based navigation, and climate controls, plus heated front seats, leather upholstery, and dual-zone automatic climate control.
The Dart was also available with an impressive host of options that were either rare for its class or entirely class-exclusive. With availability primarily limited to the premier Limited trim, these included blind spot monitoring, rear cross-path alert, front-and-rear parking sensors, rearview camera, rain-sensing wipers, automatic high beam control, and a heated steering wheel.
Yet for all the buzz leading up to it, the first new Dodge Dart in 36 years debuted to relatively low interest from buyers and unimpressive sales figures, and was barely heard about again until January 2016 when it was announced that the Dart and its long-wheelbase Chrysler 200 cousin would be discontinued later that year indefinitely, without direct replacements so Chrysler could focus on more popular and profitable crossovers.
Just why did the new Dodge Dart fail and have its life cut so short then, when its success seemed so promising at the time of its introduction? After all, the Dart at least presented itself as a reasonably competitive compact car. Predictably there were a number of contributing factors, not the least limited to its very name.
The Big Three have been notorious for slapping a new name on one of their vehicles when a redesigned model arrives, usually to distance it from memories of its predecessor. This is especially true so when it comes to compact cars. As for Dodge, in the prior two decades, buyers were presented with the Shadow, then the Neon, then the Caliber, and finally the Dart. It wasn’t that Dart was a bad name at all, but I’m sure it was meant to resonate with drivers who had once owned a Dart back in the ’60s or ’70s. The problem was, most of this aging demographic had moved on, either to larger and more expensive cars or at the very least to compact crossovers. To most compact sedan buyers, “Dart” was just another name.
Furthermore, while the Dart may have wowed potential buyers with lots of “fluff” by the way of luxury, tech, and convenience features available at extra cost only on top trim models, it was typically sold and bought devoid of these niceties in far more basic form. Sans the fluff, at its core the Dart was merely an average compact car without any noteworthy qualities.
Styling, while subjective, was inoffensive if not a bit over bulbous. Interior materials and quality were average for the class. Interior volume was also average, though certain dimensions were tight compared to competitors, and its thick D-pillars and high beltline made for a somewhat claustrophobic rear cabin. Pricing could also be described as average, as when the Dart was first introduced, its price structure undercut most competitors by a significant amount. Unfortunately, as time went on, Dart prices quickly rose as levels of standard equipment also decreased.
Moreover, for a car that projected a sporty image, particularly with models such as the GT and SXT’s Rallye package, the Dart’s driving dynamics and performance were nothing special and in fact near universally panned as inferior to those of the Ford Focus and Chevrolet Cruz, largely a result of the portly Dart’s hefty curb weight and aging architecture. While noise levels were generally regarded as average, prominent vibrations could be felt with the slightest road imperfections, with more significant body roll prevalent.
Above all, the 2013-2016 Dodge Dart was simply one of those unfortunate cases of the wrong car at the wrong time. After peddling mediocre compact cars for most of recent memory, Dodge finally had an appealing, competitive, and quite frankly, worldly sophisticated entry in the compact class. If only a car like the Dart had come a few years prior, as even at the time of its 2012 introduction, sedans were rapidly becoming wallflowers. Crossovers were simply all the rage.
In its 5 years on the market, the Dart never topped 84k units in a single year, with its best two years of sales in 2013 and 2014, with just over 83k units sold in each. Compare that to competitors like the Chevy Cruze, Ford Focus, Honda Civic, Hyundai Elantra, and Toyota Corolla, each of which sold at least 200k units per year in 2013 and 2014. Furthermore, the Dart’s mechanically-related CUV cousin, the Jeep Cherokee, sold more than twice as many units in its first full year of 2014 at 178k units. The proof was in the ground clearance.
Despite it being Chrysler’s best compact car effort in recent memory, the Dart simply wasn’t enough. In a 2017 interview, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles President Sergio Marchionne stated that the Dart and 200 were FCA’s least profitable products in the past 8 years. While its discontinuation without replacement may have seemed premature, in hindsight, FCA’s decision to discontinue the Dart and Chrysler 200 was rather forward thinking. Ford and GM have also followed suit in eliminating many of their less profitable sedan models, in many cases also exiting entire segments. As most can attest, not every Dart throw can be a bullseye.
Photographed in Whitman, Massachusetts – June 2019
Related Reading:
Future Curbside Classic: 2015-2017 Chrysler 200
Future Curbside Classic/Driving Impressions: 2015 Chrysler 200
Teenager in the eighties. First car Dodge Dart. Parents had various Valiants and Darts. I knew Dart. Dart was a good friend. This recent car was no Dart. It was a blob like pretender with combined FIAT and Chrysler quality. Who with a good credit score would take a chance on that? With the CUV and SUV taking over this Dart would likely never have had a second generation even if it had been initially successful. People who remember the Dart remember roomy, simple, honest, reliable transportation. This was a mess trying to look like a mini Charger with odd drivetrain combinations that didnt work well. To me it looked 15 years too late. Too soap bar..too mini Intrepid. A body Chryslers were the Corolla of their day. This car? Not so much.
It’s particularly sad because they had exactly the right concept in the Caliber, it’s just the execution that was woefully lacking. Going back to a conventional sedan aimed straight at the most crowded part of the market (there was no Civic hatchback in 2011 and Toyota badly flubbed the styling of the gen 2 Matrix) and abandoning a segment they had a head start, albeit a badly Daimlerized, minned-out one was an unforced error.
Some of the ‘sportier’ varieties of these Darts were relatively attractive to my eye. Nothing to get too excited over, but not the most bland-looking compacts on the market, either…IMHO. That being said, my aunt bought a new 2013 Dart right off the showroom floor. In 2015 with about 30K miles on the clock, she parked the car in her driveway after running errands one day. About 1/2 hour later it spontaneously combusted. Burned to the ground, and caused about $50,000 in damage to her house as well. The ultimate cause was never determined, even after FCA got involved. About sums up the modern Dart experience: high hopes, with only ashes to show for it at the end…
I seem to remember there was an issue with availability of automatic transmissions at first launch. As in, they weren’t available at all. When you hype up a big launch, but the car 90% of the buyers want (an automatic transmission) isn’t available, they go shop elsewhere, they don’t wait for the automatics to roll out.
I’m not sure if that’s overblown or not. I do know that the first car each dealer got was a manual Sport in identical candy red, but I’m fairly sure that only added up to one car per dealership.
I recall the all manual launch myself and was waiting for that to show up in the article. Each dealer may have received a red manual as their first Dart but for the first few months all that was available was a manual. IIRC they were also limited in available engine(s) too. The full suite of 3 engines and 2 transmissions not available from the start. Poor way to launch a vehicle.
To my eyes it is a nice design and came in a variety of colors not just black, grey, white and silver. When I was looking for a new car circa 2017 I toyed with a used one but the mpg numbers were not enviable at all.
Indeed this. The 2.4L didn’t arrive until over a year after the cars introduction. Most of the early cars came with the 1.4L engine, which struggled with the cars weight. By the time the larger engine and automatic transmission came along, there seemed to be little interest in the Dart by both the public and FCA themselves.
I seem to remember the plan was for the 1.4T backed by the DCT to be the volume two-pedal variant, but it had been panned in the Fiat 500L so there was probably a last-minute swap to the 2.4NA with a “wet” auto. That left them with too many manual-transmission cars chasing too few buyers who were more inclined towards a Golf or Mazda 3 if they weren’t excited by the Civic.
I think the opening paragraph is a bit harsh on the Neon. It perhaps proved to not be Corolla/Civic reliable, but when they came out, the level of performance or the class was eye opening. 132hp 2.0L as the BASE engine? In a compact car that weighed in at 2400lb, it’s impressive even now to me. Really fun styling and colors, excellent handling, fun to drive. It was in a way everything this bloated Dart was not.
I hated the Caliber for just about everything possible (replaced the Neon, brutally ugly inside and out, built like crap), but yes that design was quite prescient in predicting a looming obsession with crossovers, it just fumbled the execution big-time. The platform-mates Compass/Patriot went on to sell for years quite strongly, especially after the much needed interior refresh thanks to Sergio.
When I read that, I thought of the second gen Neon. The one that looked vaguely like the popular and wave-making first gen but seemed to be par or under otherwise. Kind of like the second gen xB. Lightning didn’t strike twice.
Yeah the 2nd gen Neon is kind of in an odd place: more refined and roomier than predecessor, but definitely lost some of the spunk. They still retained some of the basic good aspects of the 1st gen, but certainly the added weight and wheelbase did not do much for the “fun to drive”
I was referring to the second generation Neon by that. Sorry for the lack of clarification.
I actually was quite positive with my words of the first generation Neon: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1997-plymouth-neon-brightening-up-the-compact-class/
The Neon had presence. It sold because it looked like nothing else. It looked cheerful and was sold as a cheerful friend. The Caliber was an ugly mess. It could have been a great looking car, but the design was compromised with enough black plastic to appear like a rolling accident. At a time when autos needed to appear substantial, the Caliber at first glance met that need, but lost its appeal on closer look.
The Dart had no presence. It looked like dozens of other cars that have been on the road for the past decade. Chrysler Fiat needed to do more than NOT make a mistake – it needed a car that made the right statement – but the Dart was a mute. So, at a time when there were excellent cars with established legacies and presence already owning a part of a dwindling market during the mid-2010s – the Dart was ignored.
Auto history is filled with good cars that don’t succeed. Their failure isn’t a “fault” of the products. While there are many famous auto disasters, more commonly a vehicle simply gets ignored, makes no waves and then sinks into oblivion. Thus is the story of this car.
Agreed on the Neon. The early Neon quickly developed a fan base. It was inexpensive and fun and probably a better car than what the domestic competition was churning out, at least when new.
My friend and I are scouting for a circle-track car for a hypothetical 2020 season (very hypothetical). A Neon would be an easy favorite, but it seems the reality on the ground is that many more Cavaliers/Sunfires have made it to this age in running condition. The agrarian Chevy 2.2 OHV is apparently much more accepting of neglect than the much rev-ier and more fun Mopar SOHC/DOHC 2.0Ls. But the J bodies have some truly scary issues with structural rust.
Some friends and my future sister-in-law bought first-generation Neons after they debuted.
Shades of the 1957 Mopars, they initially looked and handled better than the domestic competition. But over the long haul, you were better off buying a duller Ford Escort, just as you were better off buying that slightly stodgy looking Chevrolet in 1957.
I remember reading early reviews that griped about really unpleasant drivetrains. I have forgotten the details, but the engine/transmission combos were downright sore spots with testers. Most people do not buy in that segment for love, but when something is miserable it is easy to go elsewhere to something that is at least bland.
I really thought this was going to fill a huge gap in Chrysler’s offerings. The Caliber had been dreck and this was going to fix it. But, as you note, the market was moving.
I liked the looks of the car inside and out. It was probably never something I would buy, but that fits a lot of cars. As others have said, a Caliber equipped and finished like the Dart would probably have been a hot seller.
As I recall the complaints centered primarily around the 1.4T engine, with the stick shift you really had to race the engine to get it to move an almost mid-size weight car with any authority, and the engine response was less than linear down low. Add to that, the 2.0L Tigershark gave somewhat tepid acceleration (again, given the high curb weight), and the larger 2.4L tigershark resulted in a car that lagged many midsizers in fuel economy while giving noticeably less interior room, and the worked-over 2.4L was also less notably refined than a comparable Honda/Toyota unit.
I was car shopping in 2013, and I remember the same gripes about the engine choices. The 1.4 got competitive fuel economy but lacked the low-end torque American drivers are accustomed to. The 2.0 struggled to motivate the porky Dart. The 2.4 was the only engine with adequate power, but it was rough and got a combined 24 mpg with an automatic. For comparison’s sake, a 2013 fwd Explorer with the Ecoboost 2.0 got 23 mpg combined.
Powertrains are still one of FCA’s many Achilles heels. OK that’s a bad metaphor, because you can’t have more than two heels.
Sure the Pentastar and the Hemi are excellent engines, but FCA still doesn’t have a competitive I4 engine, and they’re way behind on direct injection, turbocharging and a lot of the other technologies competitors are using to meet new emissions and fuel economy goals. One has to assume this is part of the motivation to find a merger partner ASAP.
FCA also made the critical error of placing too much emphasis on the manual transmission versions, which was reflected in the first batch of models shipped to dealers. Americans overwhelmingly prefer automatics, even in their compacts.
It wasn’t an error, the MT was the car they agreed that they would build in the US, the AT version didn’t meet the 40 mpg CAFE requirement. The car was a rush job and because the AT version didn’t fulfill the goal of the CUSW project it wasn’t a priority and just wasn’t fully baked by the time they had to start shipping cars.
It didn’t help that when FCA started advertising the Dart, the only ones on the lot were manual-transmission models. I guess the automatic wasn’t ready yet. Anyway, a lot of people who might have bought right then were turned off because you couldn’t get an automatic.
I think the truth is merely that FCA threw away a lot of customer goodwill on, in particular, the Caliber. No one wanted a small car from Dodge. FCA couldn’t sell the things without steep discounts. It’s the same issue Chevrolet and Ford soon encountered with their competing models, which is why they’ve also been discontinued.
Also, the Charger-esque styling was probably to the Dart’s detriment. The Charger is such a stylized car that copying it made the Dart look like a sawn-off imitator. Driving around in one made it look like you couldn’t afford a Charger.
It was the best cheap rental car I ever drove. That is not the formula for success in the retail marketplace.
In white, it looked so much like a generic fleet car that I was mistaken for a Maui County building inspector when I pulled up to a friend’s apartment.
Enjoyable post. I have to agree on the name – as an old guy that drove Valiants and Darts, I just don’t see that name resonating with younger folks.
Never drove one of these, but did think Chrysler had done a good (not great) job on both the Dart and 200. As has been mentioned, from what I read, the Tigershark was the big let-down; poor acceleration, poor fuel economy, and poor refinement.
The other thing that struck me was the promotional and marketing strategy – for both the Dart and 200 there seemed to be quite a significant initial marketing push, but nothing after that.
FCA also let the Avenger eat Dart sales. If you were in the showroom and saw you could get a bigger avenger with similar features and a cheap powerful v6 option for almost the same pricewhy buy a dart.
For all of his faults, old Mergio was really good at reading the tea leaves.
He tried using the “Fat American” version of the Fiat platform, really tying it to the Alfa roots rather than the Fiat one, and brought a decent car to market. Sadly, wrong market. But, to his credit, he fessed up his error, and killed it off rather than continuing the folly. People don’t want small sedans, and if they do, they want Korean or Japanese ones that hold some resale value post payoff.
Too bad FCA/Renault is not moving forward. Chrysler had a good habit of getting the most out of other people’s platforms, especially older, no longer used ones. Without cars, Chrysler is a moot point, really, as is Dodge. The Challenger and Charger seem to be trying to give the Hindustan Ambassador a run for it’s money in longest use of an old platform, but at some point (probably when CO2 requirements require lower displacement or electrification) they will become obsolete. I don’t see anything not a CUV in the pipeline specific to the NA market, so we may see the current Guilia platform become the Charger/Challenger in 5 years or less.
The Dart would have done well if it had been the 3rd generation Neon, but FCA decided to give us the Cal-ugh-er instead.
The only people who remember Darts are enthusiasts like ourselves, the folks who bought them new and the people who drove them as cheap used cars up to around 1990.
Should MOPAR have called the 1990s Neon the Dart instead?
To be fair, the Caliber was a DaimlerChrysler product, using an engine co-developed by Chrysler, Hyundai and Mitsubishi. It was also on a Mitsubishi platform. The Daimler side was purportedly responsible for how cheap the Caliber felt, initially.
It had nothing to do with Fiat and the current FCA arrangement, other that FCA made them zhuzh up the cabin a bit for 2010 and later.
I got the feeling that someone at FCA marketing got carried away with the retro-naming thing. Back in 1968, Dodge began slapping bumble-bee stripes on the quarter panels of their performance cars, and called the group the ‘Scat Pack’. At first, it was comprised of the Charger R/T, Coronet R/T, and Dart GTS. Two years later, the NASCAR special Charger Daytona and brand-new Challenger R/T were added.
Dodge marketing must have wanted to resurrect the old Scat Pack trio of Charger, Challenger, and Dart. It didn’t work. The FWD Dart just didn’t fit in with the hot RWD Charger and Challenger, nor did the name resonate with anyone. Older people who remembered the original Dart weren’t impressed, nor were younger buyers who must have thought it was a bland, old person’s car.
If FCA wanted to use an old school name for their new small car, they should have called it Valiant or, better yet, given it round headlights and a whimsical face, and called it the new Neon. The bottom was falling out of the small sedan market, anyway, but it still might have had a chance. Someone called it ‘presence’. I think words like character or personality might apply, as well.
Of course, as others have mentioned, there were driveability problems that made the Dart an also-ran when compared with the competition. Corolla, Civic, even the Focus and Cruze were all better driving vehicles (and at better pricing, too). Combined with good (bad?) old FCA reliability, well, the Dart really didn’t have much of a chance. There just wasn’t a lot to recommend buying one. It was a whole lot of ‘meh’ in a crowded small sedan market filled with better choices.
There have been several observations about the Dart/200, some stemming from what seems to be a chronic FCA issue of not expending the effort to get anything really dialed in, and others concerning the chronic FCA issues of substandard reliability and poor dealer experience.
I would ask why they built the Dart at Belvidere while the 200 was built at Sterling Heights. Sterling could have built both, and thus run at a more efficient pace, or, better yet, build both at Toluca and have a lower cost base.
What really sticks in my mind about the Dart is the horrible TV commercials. “Keep your hands off my Dart!” Seriously? Telling people to keep their hands off the car? Well, they did.
imho, the adverts for the Pacifica have been horrible since day one as well, and the ancient Caravan is outselling the Pacifica.
If I recall correctly, the Caravan is considerably cheaper than the Pacifica, which has been positioned as an upscale people-hauler. That undoubtedly is affecting the sales of each model.
Oh yeah, just checked my local dealer webpage (near Toronto), nicely equipped Caravan is $31k and Pacifica is $45k
With that $14k I could buy an older Miata, and an electric guitar, and a motorcycle. That’s all waaaay more fun than I’ll get from having a Pacifica over a Caravan. It’s just a people mover.
I must admit when they started advertising the Dart I was interested to see one, then I saw one…
If I recall correctly, the Caravan is considerably cheaper than the Pacifica, which has been positioned as an upscale people-hauler. That undoubtedly is affecting the sales of each model.
Have you seen the news over the last couple days of a plan being floated to revive the Voyager name for a decontented Pacifica? Looks like FCA may finally be getting around to sticking a fork in the Caravan.
They could not have built the Dart outside of the US as part of the agreement with the US gov’t was that they built the car in the US.
They could not have built the Dart outside of the US as part of the agreement with the US gov’t was that they built the car in the US.
Fine, build both the Dart and 200 at SHAP. For the heck of it, I would have liked to see them add the Ottimo hatchback version to the US production slate, badged as a Fiat, so they have mass market sedan, hatchback and luxury sedan segments all covered.
There was also a raised-and-cladded Ottimo Cross in China which would’ve been particularly welcomed by Chrysler-Dodge dealers that didn’t have a Jeep franchise (a few still exist post-Carpocalypse).
IMO if they had budget for only one bodystyle it should’ve been the hatchback, not the sedan. A “hit ’em where they aren’t” strategy, since at the time there weren’t Civic or Corolla hatchbacks, they’d be going into a slightly less crowded niche rather than the heart of the most competitive segment.
There was also a raised-and-cladded Ottimo Cross
Unfortunately, the Ottimo Cross never got beyond the concept stage before the Fiat brand was withdrawn from China.
I would have liked to see that here, as a Fiat, a larger version to share the “studio” with the 500X, both offering an alternative to the boxy Jeep SUVs.
The Dart was a massive success for FCA and the reason that the FCA we have today exists. Part of the agreement with the US gov’t for them to obtain the final government shares of Chrysler was that they designed and built a car, in the US, that got 40 (CAFE) MPG by a certain date. http://www.fiatspa.com/en-US/media_center/FiatDocuments/2012/January/Fiat_increases_its_interest_in_Chrysler_Group_LLC_to_58,5_per_cent.pdf
I had the opportunity to talk with one of the upper level engineers on the product and they considered it a massive success that they got the car to market in the minimal time and budget that they were given. So yeah cut and pasting the C-evo platform to become the CUSW platform was far from optimized, they just didn’t have the time so the solution was to throw more metal at it, which is why it was overweight.
Yes they launched with the MT for a few reasons, #1 that was what met the criteria to be given more of the company. #2 because the AT didn’t meet the requirements, it wasn’t a top priority. #3 because it wasn’t a top priority the final programming was one of the things that slid and it just wasn’t done in time.
Fascinating and that makes a ton of sense, thanks for that Scoutdude
You are very right on this.
Dodge Dart isn’t just a car, it’s the result from a lot of upper level negotiations on a big scale.
Yup and though it might not have been a sales success it was one of the new company’s biggest successes. Whatever they lost on every car they sold was more than made up for by the value of the stock they received in exchange for pushing it out the door.
And at least they got an extra year to amortize the tooling before the Saudis flooded the oil market to protect their market share in 2014 or so.
One of the best if least feasible ideas I heard in the 2008-10 oil shock era, from a think-tanker of no particular political standing, was a variable gas tax that would prevent the price-per-gallon from ever going below a certain predetermined amount which would preclude a market shift back towards gas guzzlers as actually happened.
My personal idea was a two-tiered CAFE, which would allow a lower standard for grandfathered-in models (changes limited to new colors and decontenting) than new launches.
Imagine how the Dart might have turned out with a more reasonable timeframe and budget.
OTOH, maybe it was all for the best, given how big players like Ford (Focus) and GM (Cruze) are giving up on the slow-selling subcompact sedan market in lieu of hot selling SUV/CUV/Crossovers. FCA spending more time and effort on the Dart might have been money down the drain. In the grand scheme of things, they lucked-out with the Dart.
The optional headlamps were BiXenons (HID) and standard lamps were BiHalogens; LED headlamps were not offered on the Dart.
It’s a pity how Chrysler fumbled this and many other attempted small cars over two decades’ time. I’m tempted to say they should’ve bought some Corollas, Civics, and Matrixes, studied them closely with open minds, then apply what they learned, but that would be presumptuous.
I have no info on how well or poorly the Chinese-market version of this car (Fiat Viaggio) did.
Most new small sedan prospects never considered the Dart. If they were credit worthy, they made a great deal at the Toyota or Honda store and never went anywhere else. If not, they went to Hyundai.
Imagine if the Dart had been built a few years earlier as the 3rd generation of the Neon….then, because that was where the market was going, the Caliber (though hopefully more refined) followed.
Bull’s eye? Or the same double miss?
It is sad as the Dart was a nice car. I also wonder if it came out a bit too early? Looking at a Dart, I can see some styling cues that are similar to ones on my 2018 Elantra. The 2017 Elantra debuted after the Dart got the axe. I wonder if Mopar was a bit hasty in axing the Dart? After all the fact that the roads are thick with 2017-2018 Elantra sedans(the dealer I got mine from says they cannot keep them in stock) shows that a small car not named Civic or Corolla will still sell very well.
I liked the Dart. Even the entry level versions felt well made. The higher up trim levels had a unique hidden compartment under the passenger seat. You pulled the seat cushion up and there was a nice size space to store things you wanted to hide and nobody would know it was there.
The first generation Neon was a very attractive car that still looks good. The 2000-2005 was pure and utter junk.
Excellent review and summary. I rented a Dart in 2015, and generally liked the experience, other than it being underpowered. I thought the exterior and interior were well styled, and the seating was comfortable. Perhaps the most memorable quality of that Dart was the colour. It was bright orange. I was impressed that Hertz would offer such a bold colour. Though it appeared somewhat like a corporate colour. Very close to the orange used by Canada’s Tangerine online bank.
My wife’s had her GT three years now and absolutely loves the car. I find it comfortable, reliable (only problem was the GPS/entertainment system module going bad right after the warranty ended, so FCA good-willed it), and in all a very pleasant car to own.
We’ll be keeping it for quite a few more years, Good Lord and idiot drivers willing.
Never drove one and really have no desire to.
But lets all enjoy a ’69 Swinger 340 (with Mod Top) from happier Dart days
That pic of the ’69 Swinger 340 offers a chance to give a little compact Dart history. People forget that during the days of the sixties’ A-body, Valiant-based Barracuda, Dodge didn’t have a ponycar. Even though they got the Charger as a consulation prize, Dodge dealers were none too happy about the situation.
So, in addition to the Charger, Chrysler tried to turn the Dart into a de facto ponycar with high-performance models like the GTS and Swinger 340 that had an engine line-up comparable to the Barracuda, as well as a convertible when the Valiant convertible was supplanted by the Barracuda ‘vert in 1967. While there was a low-production (less that a hundred total cars) 1968 drag-strip-only Hemi-Cuda, the name (and car) that sticks as a legend is the Hemi-Dart.
On top of all that, unlike the way the Duster 340 cannibalized E- and B-body musclecar sales in 1970, the final performance Dart musclecar, the 1970 Swinger 340, didn’t have a similar impact (probably because it was priced higher but also better equipped than the Duster 340).
And then there was Joe Mannix’ lightly customized Dart convertible. I always thought that was a little weird to use instead of the Barracuda or even a B-body convertible, but I guess Chrysler wanted to keep pushing the Dart as a ‘sporty’ car.
My rule of thumb for determining whether a car is truly bad is if the car would not be considered good if released ten years prior. The Dart would have been good if it had come out in 2002. It was exactly as you say; the wrong car at the wrong time.
When announced, I was happy to hear about the Dart, but a little unsure of the use of the name. By then, the name had been dormant for ~ 35 years and mostly oldsters had any real memory of those cars. IMO, the launch of the car was less than optimal. It was not inexpensive (unlike the 1st gen Neon) and when the better equipped Dart GT was finally available, the Avenger knee-capped it in the showroom. Even in the used market, you can find a better equipped Avenger for less money than a Dart.
If a GT model were to appear on the market, I would take a swipe at it. My only experience with them was a co-workers 2.0, I thought at the time if it had more power it would be a sweet little ride.
The tragedy of the Dart/Neue 200 debacle was FCA’s reluctance to wean themselves off of the sweet, sweet Avenger/old 200 profits. It seems like a wasted effort, but maybe they had too many conflicting goals to do anything else.
Those things are all but gone around here. I had such high hopes for it but unsurprisingly Fiat couldn’t pull it off. The reliability ratings aren’t so good either.
I was excited for the Dart, and I had been looking to trade in my 2nd-gen Dodge Stratus when the Dart first hit showrooms. Then I test drove one and was completely underwhelmed. It felt every bit as big and hefty as that Stratus, and I was looking for something more fun to drive. Didn’t help that the entertainment system refused to acknowledge my USB drive when every other car I checked out did. Ended up getting the then-new Focus.
People buying economy cars are looking for that: economy. This includes the likelihood of paying for repairs after the warranty runs out. The Dart immediately got a reputation for unreliability, like everything from FCA.
I didn’t know what the Guilietta that the Dart borrowed a platform from was until I saw one parked on the street back then in Vienna. I thought it was fantastic looking. Instead of investing hundreds of millions to create a mostly new car FCA should have just given the Guilietta a new face and adapted it for the US. It wouldn’t have sold huge numbers but it wouldn’t have cost much and might have found a niche in the market.
Yes, the Neon was not as solid as a MB, but it was fun to drive, quirky in appearance, and cheap to buy.
The sin of the Dart was that it had a split personality. It was a over weight Corolla “want to be” with a hopped up trim package that didn’t appeal to anyone in particular. It never had a true identity.
I really wanted to like these when they first released. I didn’t think these were such a bad concept. Sure, maybe using the name “Dart” and all the weight that carries wasn’t the best idea, but you can’t say it’s not memorable. I also thought Dodge/FCA did an excellent job styling it, maybe y’all don’t see it but I thought it was a very attractive and charasmatic design compared to the 1977-reimagined Civic or the cold, waiting-room sanitary Forte.
I liked them right up until the point when I made a friend that had a base model, first year Dart. No analysis, biased or not, can make me like it. It’s weirdly loud, the ride borders on harsh for something that feels so heavy, which despite being overweight on the compact scale still has tinny reverberations on crusty roads, the 2.0 sounds like it curses the universe for ever having been created, and then punishes the driver by never making quite enough power. The pedals all have the feel of an off-road arcade machine. The steering is quite quick, but without any of the feel to make it seem natural. And lastly, the thing that pisses me off the most, for all it’s rude manners and numb pretensions of sportiness, it acts like it doesn’t want to do aaaaannnnyyyything. This is a goddamn car with the better end of Dodge styling, italian lineage, and a powertrain internationally developed, and I think a goddamn 2007 Civic (which I have also driven) is more soulful than this rolling trade disagreement. It’s just pant-shittingly blatant how little effort FCA put into this car, and frankly if Chrysler is on the bends again after this steroids and diet red bull muscle-car high, they deserve it.
Damn, I didn’t realize how much I hate these cars.
The Dart launching with a manual only was similar to the Fiat 500 electric, they only produced them so the government would be happy that they had a 40 MPG car which was part of the deal with the government, and in a pinch a manual was the easiest way to do it. I’d like to say in hindsight that a striped Dart SRT4 would have been awesome, but it probably would not have helped.
Not one but 2 close friends of mines have 2013 Darts. Both in SXT trim but one friend has the 1.4T and the other has the 2.0. I love the exhaust note of the 1.4T but the 2.0 isn’t bad either. To me, they’re decent cars with a lot of features of the money especially with FCA’s UConnect touch screen radio. I had the chance to drive a 16 Model with the 2.0 once and I found the 2.0 to be adequate enough to where I wasn’t afraid to get on the highway with it but a little more torque wouldn’t have hurt it. As far as reliability goes, the friend with the 1.4 model to my knowledge hasn’t had any issues with it and she was gifted it new as her first car. The friend with the 2.0 model bought it used from Carmax 2 years ago and aside from some suspension noises that required a local dealer to look into it and 2 batteries, it’s been a solid car. As other have echoed, it really should’ve been named Neon as it was more closely related to that than the Dart of the 60’s and 70’s.