Hot Rod Forum banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
"But how do it know?"
Joined
·
2,331 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)

·
Hotrodders.com Moderator
Joined
·
2,854 Posts
I was never a fan of the Dart, kind of thought they were grandpa cars. Same with the Valiant. Chrysler is building some tough looking cars, anything they do would be an improvement on the Neon, IMO the ugliest car built by Chrysler.
 

·
www.generationhighoutput. com
Joined
·
897 Posts
Saw this earlier on a car blog. Looks like a mini charger and based off an alfa romeo platform that's been widened for some of our more "seasoned" wal-mart shoppers.

My thoughts were:

"fwd? no slant 6? I'll pass."

I'm sure it'll put down better numbers than the old darts in every aspect, but I just don't like the name on that car, it rubs me wrong. Just like the new Malibu.
 

·
"But how do it know?"
Joined
·
2,331 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Well I guess the new car does serve the same purpose as what the original did: a low-priced, entry-level car. But this would be a modern interpretation of it, reflecting today's mass consumers' taste, as well as the economic conditions and engineering advancements.


Would it be better to name it some else altogether, and leave the original name dead with the car it came on?


Perhaps bring the Neon name plate back instead?


I must admit that naming this car Dart - provided it comes with the appropriate oomph - doesn't bother me as much as the four-door Charger.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,259 Posts
Charger - should have been a 2 door, ugly as sin, Chrysler would have been better off building the Charger concept car.. It was gorgeous.



Challenger - the right styling but its too tall. Would look a LOT better either 3" wider or the body 2" shorter. Looks boxy and stodgy.



New Dart - based on one of the least reliable European cars ever. A shadow of its former self. Another Neon in the making.



I don't know who is doing Chrysler's styling these days but they sure have their head up their arse big time.

Centerline
HotRodsAndHemis.com

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
 

·
Hotrodders.com Moderator
Joined
·
8,146 Posts
Centerline said:
Charger - should have been a 2 door, ugly as sin, Chrysler would have been better off building the Charger concept car.. It was gorgeous.



Challenger - the right styling but its too tall. Would look a LOT better either 3" wider or the body 2" shorter. Looks boxy and stodgy.



New Dart - based on one of the least reliable European cars ever. A shadow of its former self. Another Neon in the making.



I don't know who is doing Chrysler's styling these days but they sure have their head up their arse big time.

Centerline
HotRodsAndHemis.com

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
They are calling this thing a DART??? Looks like a Citreon had an abortion and that is whats left.That is one ugly car. :p
They made a car called the lancer a year or two ago, that car wasnt bad.
Remember the 1962 dart? it was pretty ugly too, so I guess it is pretty close to a DART. Now a 68 dart in fire engine red, cragars, different story. :D
That Blue Charger on top is real nice. I love that body style.I almost had a red one with a white vinyl top for my first car. It was a 383 4 bbl car too. SWEET.
 

·
"But how do it know?"
Joined
·
2,331 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Centerline said:
Charger - should have been a 2 door, ugly as sin, Chrysler would have been better off building the Charger concept car.. It was gorgeous.
Speaking of two-door concepts, this one isn't too bad... (found here)






Centerline said:
Challenger - the right styling but its too tall. Would look a LOT better either 3" wider or the body 2" shorter. Looks boxy and stodgy.
They look great in pictures. But in person, that's another story. Still, they sound quite nice but could use some help in power department to keep up with the competition.


Centerline said:
New Dart - based on one of the least reliable European cars ever. A shadow of its former self. Another Neon in the making.

...

I don't know who is doing Chrysler's styling these days but they sure have their head up their arse big time.
Apparently they gotta keep Fiat happy. I'm not sure sure how much they are depending on them, but I'm guessinging that is they key to Chrysler's survival at this point.



66GMC said:




What the???
Nah, it couldn't be ... ROFL :D
That's messed up. Why would you insult Lightning McQueen like that LOL! :thumbup:
 

·
www.generationhighoutput. com
Joined
·
897 Posts
I agree that the Charger concept looked much better than what ultimately came to be, but mainly because I hate throw-back or "retro" look cars. Car design should look toward the future and not borrow from the past just to sell in the moment. That's what those original cars that these new designers ape their "style" from did in the first place: Looked forward. Plus the beltlines on these car are waaaayyy too high. Made up for in big, silly, fat-bottomed bumpers and ridiculously tall doors with armored truck slits for windows.

I guess I have to ask myself if this is all Chrysler has? We have the choice of them either grave robbing past names (Neon, Dart, etc) or naming them after an American Gladiator to fit their aggressive brand imaging (Nitro, Caliber, etc)? Are all the good names taken?
 

·
"But how do it know?"
Joined
·
2,331 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Hey Cameron,
Valkyrie5.7 said:
I agree that the Charger concept looked much better than what ultimately came to be, but mainly because I hate throw-back or "retro" look cars. Car design should look toward the future and not borrow from the past just to sell in the moment. That's what those original cars that these new designers ape their "style" from did in the first place: Looked forward. Plus the beltlines on these car are waaaayyy too high. Made up for in big, silly, fat-bottomed bumpers and ridiculously tall doors with armored truck slits for windows.
I hear you on the whole retro thing. While I don't mind the retro looks all that much, I agree that it does take away from forward thinking. In the case of the Camaro fans who don't care for the new look, I think it came down to a "retro Camaro is better than no Camaro at all" mentality (personally, I like it).

Overall, retro seems to be the new marketing strategy for practically everything these days. Every company seems to want to harken back to the good 'ol days of how things were, instead of focusing on how things should be. There is way too much appeal to nostalgia, which of course is proving good for business (for now). Its no wonder there are soooooo many remakes of older TV shows and movies.


Valkyrie5.7 said:
I guess I have to ask myself if this is all Chrysler has? We have the choice of them either grave robbing past names (Neon, Dart, etc) or naming them after an American Gladiator to fit their aggressive brand imaging (Nitro, Caliber, etc)? Are all the good names taken?
I gotta say, coming up with new, appealing names seems to be a challenge for quite a few manufacturers these days, especially for newer products that aren't deemed worthy of older names. The established names are working well for the Japanese auto makers (Camry, Civic, Corolla, Accord). Ford is the only US automaker with mostly newer names, aside from the F-series, Explorer and Mustang. And while their cars seem very good, the names don't seem very appealing to me (Flex, Edge, Fusion). I have the same problem with Chevy's Cruze.


Now that I think about it, I hope that Chrysler isn't calling the new car Dart in order to appeal to nostalgia, as that is a guaranteed fail. Though that is probably the case since the Charger and Challenger are back and the 300 has been around. And of course, most of the young folks aren't gonna get in line to pick one up because the name refers to a classic car they've probably never even seen.
 

·
www.generationhighoutput. com
Joined
·
897 Posts
lt1silverhawk said:
Hey Cameron,

I hear you on the whole retro thing. While I don't mind the retro looks all that much, I agree that it does take away from forward thinking. In the case of the Camaro fans who don't care for the new look, I think it came down to a "retro Camaro is better than no Camaro at all" mentality (personally, I like it).
As much as I don't care for the design I can agree with that. GM was rather short sighted in their elimination of their pony car platform and their true fullsize platform just to build and sell SUVs. I'm sure if the F-body and B-body platform had stuck around, they would be a bit more competitive in the market. I personally can't believe Ford's getting rid of the Panther platform either. I guess body-on-frame is a thing of the past, but you're really opening the full size RWD market up to Chrysler, who ironically enough, abandoned RWD passenger cars well before Ford or GM...

lt1silverhawk said:
I gotta say, coming up with new, appealing names seems to be a challenge for quite a few manufacturers these days, especially for newer products that aren't deemed worthy of older names. The established names are working well for the Japanese auto makers (Camry, Civic, Corolla, Accord). Ford is the only US automaker with mostly newer names, aside from the F-series, Explorer and Mustang. And while their cars seem very good, the names don't seem very appealing to me (Flex, Edge, Fusion). I have the same problem with Chevy's Cruze.
I agree, the new names they have don't sell me one bit. I don't know why the new Fusion couldn't have just been called a Taurus, a name Ford's had coming up on three decades now. A car that's always been a midsize is now a fullsize so they could slot in a name that ultimately falls short. Cruze and Flex are the top of my list of awful car names. I guess what the import companies have been doing right is building a decent car in the first place and then holding on to the good name they made for the car. Even if the import car names are effeminate, beige and weak. I guess a good descriptor of the product. :thumbup:
 

·
"But how do it know?"
Joined
·
2,331 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Valkyrie5.7 said:
I agree, the new names they have don't sell me one bit. I don't know why the new Fusion couldn't have just been called a Taurus, a name Ford's had coming up on three decades now. A car that's always been a midsize is now a fullsize so they could slot in a name that ultimately falls short. Cruze and Flex are the top of my list of awful car names. I guess what the import companies have been doing right is building a decent car in the first place and then holding on to the good name they made for the car. Even if the import car names are effeminate, beige and weak. I guess a good descriptor of the product. :thumbup:
Me thinks you just came up with three very marketable names for cars: Effeminate, Beige and Weak. Lol! :evil:
 

·
www.generationhighoutput. com
Joined
·
897 Posts
lt1silverhawk said:
Me thinks you just came up with three very marketable names for cars: Effeminate, Beige and Weak. Lol! :evil:
I had better get them copyrighted before the big three steal them out from under me to compete with Honda and Toyota :D
 

·
"But how do it know?"
Joined
·
2,331 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Valkyrie5.7 said:
I had better get them copyrighted before the big three steal them out from under me to compete with Honda and Toyota :D
That would be one hell of a boardroom meeting...

"Well if Toyota and Honda can dominate the car market by selling effeminate, beige and weak cars, then we should beat them at their own game."

"And how do you propose we do that?"

"We'll call ours cars exactly what the Japanese have building: the chic Effeminate, the full-sized Beige, and the compact Weak! I mean, it worked for the new Dodge Dart, didn't it? Everyone thought it was fast!"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
37 Posts
All new cars trying hard but not.

Bottom line is all the manufacturers have gone stupid. Can't come up with something new on its own. Using old names ,good marketing concept but products offered suck. Charger,Challenger,Gto lol. Camaro Z28, Even the new Vettes look like Toyotas. Now the Dart,looks like another front wheel drive everyday look alike to join the every car looks alike crowd.What really sad is the new so called modern fuel efficent car and trucks get worse gas mileage than cars of the 60s and 70s. More plastic,more gadgets,park themselves and outrageous prices. After reading about the Dart thing its getting worse not better. :(
 

·
Not Considered a Senior Member
Joined
·
10,722 Posts
I hated the originals and for good reason too. In the 80`s my father bought my mother a `67 dodge dart 4 door. It was light hidious baby blue. It had a tire roasting red light intimidating pullin`torque monster under the hood, a slant six. It took it forever to get to 55. We bought the heap from my step grandfather for $400 bucks. While all the other kids parents had nice cars we had a freakin` heap. The exhaust note on the thing sounded absolutely disgusting. Somebody had stuck a ultra cheap glass pack on it. The exhaust note sounded like it ran, as if it were in full time engine lug, it would go "UGGGGGGGGG" upon acceleration. After a year and a half the heap spun a rod bearing. Instead of junking the thing like we should have
we snatched it out and did a rebuild. Once finished it had a new cam, crank, bored .040 over, new pistons. Alot of new stuff. Once we finished with it and set the lash on the rockers we were ready for a test drive. It ran no different. It still didn`t have any power. It still had that lugging sounding exhaust that made a loud "UGGGGGGGGG" exhaust note. We finally sold the heap for the same price we paid for it. Then we got a 1979 Malibu classic 2 door that was in A-1 shape. Wish I still had that `Bu. I miss that car.
My then best friend`s mother had a 1968 Dodge Dart GTS 2 door with a 340 in it. He thought that car was the greatest thing in the world. However the new Dodge darts, even so cars today have no character, looks better than the originals. Anything looked better than the originals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
what????????

yOU ARE CRAZY MAN!!! I mean if you don't like old darts then you don't like them but to go to such legnths to insult them??? I have owned 4 darts, (70, 71, 72, and 72) and I loved them :) obviously your example was complete horse doodooo but the 68 dart with a 340??? gorgeous! I love old darts, challengers, cudas, gto's , demons etc... BUT, ALL OF THE NEW VERSIONS OF THEM SUCK TERRIBLY!!!! THEY BRING SHAME TO THE ORIGINAL FORMER WONDER OF THEIR PREDECESSORS... I DON'T LIKE THE 4 DOOR CHARGER MUCH AT ALL, THE CHALLENGER IS OK BUT COULD HAVE BEEN WAY COOLER, AND THE DART IS COMPLETE HORSE DOOKIE.... HOW COULD THEY EVEN CONSIDER ATTATCHING THE NAME TO THAT THING?? AT LEAST NAME IT DECEPTICON 5,000 OR SOMETHING CUZ IT FLIES IN THE FACE OF THE ORIGINAL AND MY CONCEPTS... SIGH I mean the new camaros are pretty cool, and follow at least some of the old lines... and really that is why the challenger is cool at all is because it sort of looks like the old ones... this "dart" couldn't have been more wrongly designed, unless of course they change the name :) and then it will no longer creep into my thoughts at all....
 

·
"But how do it know?"
Joined
·
2,331 Posts
Discussion Starter #19 (Edited)
This is totally not a technical response, but I thought it was funny. I was watching the news this morning with the closed caption on and it seems the closed captioning system doesn't always get the words right.


Well, one of the stories was about today's debut of the Dodge Dart. The closed captioning read something like this:

... return of an American icon, the Dog Start. ... is brought over by the owner, the Italian Coffee Pot .
What it should've said was:

... return of an American icon, the Dodge Dart. ... is being brought over by the owner, the Italian Fiat.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top