dart revived for 2013
- Thread starter mopar_monkey
- Start date
- Status
If these Fiat based cars are better reliability wise than Chrysler offerings, they should do quite well.
I would actually consider one, something I would never do for a "regular" Chrysler or Dodge.
I would actually consider one, something I would never do for a "regular" Chrysler or Dodge.
Also being discussed here:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2454720#Post2454720
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2454720#Post2454720
Originally Posted By: HyundaiGuy
If these Fiat based cars are better reliability wise than Chrysler offerings, they should do quite well.
I would actually consider one, something I would never do for a "regular" Chrysler or Dodge.
Opinions are like (You know the answer) everyone has one. Also I could just as easily say Hyundai makes horrible vehicles but with no facts to back it up it is pointless even saying.
If these Fiat based cars are better reliability wise than Chrysler offerings, they should do quite well.
I would actually consider one, something I would never do for a "regular" Chrysler or Dodge.
Opinions are like (You know the answer) everyone has one. Also I could just as easily say Hyundai makes horrible vehicles but with no facts to back it up it is pointless even saying.
looks really nice, from what i can tell.
Originally Posted By: postjeeprcr
Originally Posted By: HyundaiGuy
If these Fiat based cars are better reliability wise than Chrysler offerings, they should do quite well.
I would actually consider one, something I would never do for a "regular" Chrysler or Dodge.
Opinions are like (You know the answer) everyone has one. Also I could just as easily say Hyundai makes horrible vehicles but with no facts to back it up it is pointless even saying.
But he said it anyway. +1
Originally Posted By: HyundaiGuy
If these Fiat based cars are better reliability wise than Chrysler offerings, they should do quite well.
I would actually consider one, something I would never do for a "regular" Chrysler or Dodge.
Opinions are like (You know the answer) everyone has one. Also I could just as easily say Hyundai makes horrible vehicles but with no facts to back it up it is pointless even saying.
But he said it anyway. +1
Not signing into MSN to see that.
But the picts I saw don't look like a Dart at all. They are just using the name.
But the picts I saw don't look like a Dart at all. They are just using the name.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
But the picts I saw don't look like a Dart at all. They are just using the name.
Yup. It's an Alfa Romeo car with a Dodge badge, which isn't a bad thing, but why reuse an old name?
But the picts I saw don't look like a Dart at all. They are just using the name.
Yup. It's an Alfa Romeo car with a Dodge badge, which isn't a bad thing, but why reuse an old name?
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: Pablo
But the picts I saw don't look like a Dart at all. They are just using the name.
Yup. It's an Alfa Romeo car with a Dodge badge, which isn't a bad thing, but why reuse an old name?
I think were going to see more of this as time marches on. Their running out of names I guess.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
But the picts I saw don't look like a Dart at all. They are just using the name.
Yup. It's an Alfa Romeo car with a Dodge badge, which isn't a bad thing, but why reuse an old name?
I think were going to see more of this as time marches on. Their running out of names I guess.
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
Originally Posted By: ToddGak1
sumimasen, explain please why name would matter.
The name Dart has some history. A quote from wiki:
Quote:
The project planners proposed the name Dart, only to have executives demand an expensive research program which produced the name Zipp.[3] This was promptly rejected in favor of Dart.[4] The name found favor as the market had been recently introduced to a new military aircraft called the Convair F-106 Delta Dart, commonly known as the "Delta Dart", in a marketing attempt to appeal to the excitement surrounding the Space Race during the early 1960s.
Dodge Dart was in production for 16-17 years. Maybe Fiat is hoping the new car will appeal to the older crowd that once owned a Dart or always wanted one. Alas, it looks like this new Dart has little in common with the old one, so that's why I'm scratching my head why they want to reuse the name. Maybe it saves their lawyers some work because the name is already trademarked...
sumimasen, explain please why name would matter.
The name Dart has some history. A quote from wiki:
Quote:
The project planners proposed the name Dart, only to have executives demand an expensive research program which produced the name Zipp.[3] This was promptly rejected in favor of Dart.[4] The name found favor as the market had been recently introduced to a new military aircraft called the Convair F-106 Delta Dart, commonly known as the "Delta Dart", in a marketing attempt to appeal to the excitement surrounding the Space Race during the early 1960s.
Dodge Dart was in production for 16-17 years. Maybe Fiat is hoping the new car will appeal to the older crowd that once owned a Dart or always wanted one. Alas, it looks like this new Dart has little in common with the old one, so that's why I'm scratching my head why they want to reuse the name. Maybe it saves their lawyers some work because the name is already trademarked...
If they're going to use a retro name they need to make a retro car. Using the dart name for this thing is just stupid IMO.
I was sure at some point they were going to call this the Hornet?
Sure it was an AMC name brand but when Renault bought AMC and then Chrysler purchased the AMC/Eagle it seems to be part of Chrysler heritage now. Not to mention that the Hornet at least had some styling similarities in a vague way, the Dart does not.
Sure it was an AMC name brand but when Renault bought AMC and then Chrysler purchased the AMC/Eagle it seems to be part of Chrysler heritage now. Not to mention that the Hornet at least had some styling similarities in a vague way, the Dart does not.
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: postjeeprcr
Originally Posted By: HyundaiGuy
If these Fiat based cars are better reliability wise than Chrysler offerings, they should do quite well.
I would actually consider one, something I would never do for a "regular" Chrysler or Dodge.
Opinions are like (You know the answer) everyone has one. Also I could just as easily say Hyundai makes horrible vehicles but with no facts to back it up it is pointless even saying.
But he said it anyway. +1
I thought my comment was rather positive. In other words, maybe these new Fiat/Alfa offerings will attract some new buyers, even those who may not have considered (another) one otherwise. What's the issue?
BTW, I come from a "Chrysler family." I have owned a couple myself. Learned to drive on a '75 Dart with a 225 slant 6. All of us have defected (save my brother's widow, who wont part with the 300, my brother's last car.) 85K miles and on its third tranny. Quality stuff.
My point being, the Fiat 500 looks cool (especially the Abarth) and maybe under Fiat leadership, Chrysler is on the right path. A "Dart" based on an Alfa? Sounds interesting. The only other "interesting" offering in the lineup is the Challenger. I know...opinions....
Originally Posted By: postjeeprcr
Originally Posted By: HyundaiGuy
If these Fiat based cars are better reliability wise than Chrysler offerings, they should do quite well.
I would actually consider one, something I would never do for a "regular" Chrysler or Dodge.
Opinions are like (You know the answer) everyone has one. Also I could just as easily say Hyundai makes horrible vehicles but with no facts to back it up it is pointless even saying.
But he said it anyway. +1
I thought my comment was rather positive. In other words, maybe these new Fiat/Alfa offerings will attract some new buyers, even those who may not have considered (another) one otherwise. What's the issue?
BTW, I come from a "Chrysler family." I have owned a couple myself. Learned to drive on a '75 Dart with a 225 slant 6. All of us have defected (save my brother's widow, who wont part with the 300, my brother's last car.) 85K miles and on its third tranny. Quality stuff.
My point being, the Fiat 500 looks cool (especially the Abarth) and maybe under Fiat leadership, Chrysler is on the right path. A "Dart" based on an Alfa? Sounds interesting. The only other "interesting" offering in the lineup is the Challenger. I know...opinions....
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: HyundaiGuy
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: postjeeprcr
Originally Posted By: HyundaiGuy
If these Fiat based cars are better reliability wise than Chrysler offerings, they should do quite well.
I would actually consider one, something I would never do for a "regular" Chrysler or Dodge.
Opinions are like (You know the answer) everyone has one. Also I could just as easily say Hyundai makes horrible vehicles but with no facts to back it up it is pointless even saying.
But he said it anyway. +1
I thought my comment was rather positive. In other words, maybe these new Fiat/Alfa offerings will attract some new buyers, even those who may not have considered (another) one otherwise. What's the issue?
BTW, I come from a "Chrysler family." I have owned a couple myself. Learned to drive on a '75 Dart with a 225 slant 6. All of us have defected (save my brother's widow, who wont part with the 300, my brother's last car.) 85K miles and on its third tranny. Quality stuff.
My point being, the Fiat 500 looks cool (especially the Abarth) and maybe under Fiat leadership, Chrysler is on the right path. A "Dart" based on an Alfa? Sounds interesting. The only other "interesting" offering in the lineup is the Challenger. I know...opinions....
funny, my dakota has 100k mi on it with 100% of the original parts (excluding wear and maint. items) had a cherokee that had 240k mi. before needing a clutch and really didn't need much during that time. my father in-law has an 01 ram that went 375k mi. before needing anything major and my bro in-law has a durango with 160k mi on it and has only needed a window regulator, even got t-boned last year and is still going strong, all depends on how you take care of them, p.s. chrysler teamed up with Hyundai to design the engine that is in many of both of their cars. so many chyslers have the same engine as many current Hyundai's.
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: postjeeprcr
Originally Posted By: HyundaiGuy
If these Fiat based cars are better reliability wise than Chrysler offerings, they should do quite well.
I would actually consider one, something I would never do for a "regular" Chrysler or Dodge.
Opinions are like (You know the answer) everyone has one. Also I could just as easily say Hyundai makes horrible vehicles but with no facts to back it up it is pointless even saying.
But he said it anyway. +1
I thought my comment was rather positive. In other words, maybe these new Fiat/Alfa offerings will attract some new buyers, even those who may not have considered (another) one otherwise. What's the issue?
BTW, I come from a "Chrysler family." I have owned a couple myself. Learned to drive on a '75 Dart with a 225 slant 6. All of us have defected (save my brother's widow, who wont part with the 300, my brother's last car.) 85K miles and on its third tranny. Quality stuff.
My point being, the Fiat 500 looks cool (especially the Abarth) and maybe under Fiat leadership, Chrysler is on the right path. A "Dart" based on an Alfa? Sounds interesting. The only other "interesting" offering in the lineup is the Challenger. I know...opinions....
funny, my dakota has 100k mi on it with 100% of the original parts (excluding wear and maint. items) had a cherokee that had 240k mi. before needing a clutch and really didn't need much during that time. my father in-law has an 01 ram that went 375k mi. before needing anything major and my bro in-law has a durango with 160k mi on it and has only needed a window regulator, even got t-boned last year and is still going strong, all depends on how you take care of them, p.s. chrysler teamed up with Hyundai to design the engine that is in many of both of their cars. so many chyslers have the same engine as many current Hyundai's.
Last edited:
[/quote] p.s. chrysler teamed up with Hyundai to design the engine that is in many of both of their cars. so many chyslers have the same engine as many current Hyundai's. [/quote]
Why, because Chrysler couldn't handle it on their own? It's not like Hyundai was the broke partner in this pairing.
All I was trying to say was that Fiat/Chrysler might actually be good fit for both Fiat and Chrysler. Maybe Fiat can change Chrysler's consumer perception. Regardless of how good the cars are in reality, if the consumer believes the cars are substandard in some way, that affects the brand.
Maybe the sale to Fiat (and the new Fiat based offerings) will generate excitement, something the brand has lacked for years.
I'm looking forward to seeing the new Dart.
Why, because Chrysler couldn't handle it on their own? It's not like Hyundai was the broke partner in this pairing.
All I was trying to say was that Fiat/Chrysler might actually be good fit for both Fiat and Chrysler. Maybe Fiat can change Chrysler's consumer perception. Regardless of how good the cars are in reality, if the consumer believes the cars are substandard in some way, that affects the brand.
Maybe the sale to Fiat (and the new Fiat based offerings) will generate excitement, something the brand has lacked for years.
I'm looking forward to seeing the new Dart.
Last edited:
no it wasn't that Chrysler couldn't handle it, it was of mutual benefit to both, and actually chysler owned the majority of the company that produced the engines as well as chrysler fronted the majority of the money for the project, besides before this pairing hyandai/kia had a habit of using extremely thick oil in their engines showing (in my eyes anyways) very poor tolerances. not saying it has anything to do with this but any modern engine that specs 10w40 or 20w50 throws up a red flag to me.
- Status
