Dodge Dart Forum banner

Great Review of 2014 Limited

8K views 51 replies 17 participants last post by  DartMontreal 
#1 ·
#6 ·
... Ya right, were they driving downhill?
I think you're on to something ... they must have run their 0-60 & fuel economy tests at the top of a steep hill:

Harvey Schwartz of Automotive Addicts.com said:
... Also, the Dart Limited redefines performance with an agile, fun-to-drive experience, delivering highway fuel economy ratings of up to 41 mpg
 
#8 ·
My Dart is very quick out of the hole and 6.9 sounds right. I'm a former drag racer that had 2 dedicated race cars so I know something about acceleration and cars and I can kick the crap out of a lot cars with bigger motors at least to 60. As good as it is I would be very surprised if your 1.4 could keep up from a dead stop because its hard to beat a 58% increase in displacement when launching. You should drive one and see for yourself.
 
#13 ·
Pics or it didn't happen!
Pics of what? I have got better than 40mpg calculated 3 times now and I am not fudging anything. I fill at the same station, same elevation and my overall is 36+ after 5000+ mi. I drive with the bar graph on my screen and work at getting good mpg and get these numbers driving 65 to 70 in the mountains! Check out my reports on the 2.4 mpg thread. On the 6.9 to 60 I have not the radar gun used in these tests but would like to use one and find this time to be realistic. The V6 Camry is 6.2 to 60 and very few I4s put out 184HP.
 
#5 ·
Every time I drive my Dart I think, this car is a high performance luxury compact that can only be matched by high end makers, not
Corollas, Civics and the others in this class. Power, handling, braking, interior, cabin noise are all top notch.
As more tests and reviews with the SXT and Limited equipped with 2.4 motors and Autostick come online I fully expect glowing reports for the Dart. The 1.4 DDCT and GT reports have really hurt the Darts image and they are very different from the SXT and Limited models which is what most drivers by far will want. I'm not bashing the 1.4 or GT so loved by those who own them but they are a niche market that was not for me and I suspect many other drivers as well as the people who test cars. The Dart really is "in a class above its price".
 
#7 ·
I don't know about this review. Unless the Limited is fancier in this respect than the Rallye, they seem not to be able to tell the difference between silver plastic trim and actual aluminum. Is there any actual aluminum trim in the Dart's interior? They say that it has "fuel economy ratings of up to 41mpg", but then they provide the actual EPA rating of 23/35 (it might get 41mpg, but it certainly isn't rated for it). This is definitely a positive review of the Dart, but I wouldn't say it's a great, or even very good review. It doesn't even offer a single criticism, which is rather suspect.
 
#14 · (Edited)
They rated the 2013 Dart Limited last year, and they got a generous 10.2 seconds out of the 0-60 times with the 2.0L. They even complained about the power, so it's not like they're only prone to writing glowing reviews. However I'm not yet willing to put my new Dart 2.4 through a 0-60 test just to see if I can pull the same numbers they did.

EDIT: I also found a review of the 2013 Dart GT/2.4L, and 0-60 was 8.3 seconds. Hmmmmm.....

http://www.automotiveaddicts.com/39648/2013-dodge-dart-gt-review-test-drive
 
#19 ·
They rated the 2013 Dart Limited last year, and they got a generous 10.2 seconds out of the 0-60 times with the 2.0L. They even complained about the power, so it's not like they're only prone to writing glowing reviews. However I'm not yet willing to put my new Dart 2.4 through a 0-60 test just to see if I can pull the same numbers they did.

EDIT: I also found a review of the 2013 Dart GT/2.4L, and 0-60 was 8.3 seconds. Hmmmmm.....

2013 Dodge Dart GT Review & Test Drive
A generous 10.2? That is in the realm of a three cylinder Geo Metro. I had no idea the 2.0 was so slow. I wonder if the drivers know how to come off the line to maximize elapsed times.
 
#16 ·
I'm not floored by it, I've seen other generally positive reviews of the Dart. What I've never seen is a legitimate review of any car that had absolutely zero criticisms. It's cool that this author loves the Dart, and he wrote a similarly gushing review of the 2013 Dart GT, but somebody who should be pretty familiar with every other car in this class should be able to find at least a few things that could be improved upon.
 
#21 ·
If the altitude, temperature, and atmospheric conditions are favorable, you've got good fuel, and you get the timing of your shifts just right I can see managing to squeak out a 6.9 second 0-60 with the 2.4L. I just doubt you can repeat it more than once. The mid 8's are more in line with what the 2.4L Dart can do on command. The 2.0 is a full second slower, not horrible for am econobox but nothing to be proud of either.
 
#23 ·
I'd love to see a 6.9. (Giggedy) but i don't think it's possible for the auto 2.4. Maybe the manual in perfect conditions maybe. After a few mods it should be possible. To me it's like saying i could get under 8 seconds in my 2.0 auto. I can get it under 9 easily. 8 maybe after all mods available.
 
#28 ·
When I was a teenager 0-60 times meant everything to me. My old '75 Nova took 17 seconds to do it with its 262 cu. in. V8. I spent an ungodly sum of money trying to make it go faster, first installing a Holley carb and Edelbrock manifold which improved it to 14 seconds. Then I swapped out the engine for a rebuilt 307 V8, and got the times down to 10.5. Then a new rear differential with 3.07 gears got it down to 9.5 seconds. Finally I sold that car and bought a '67 Mustang, which could do it in 8.5 seconds with its 289 V8 and made me feel like I owned a rocket ship. Now here we are today, with econoboxes that can easily do 8.5 seconds and suddenly my old V8 beaters don't seem that fast anymore.

BTW the slowest car I ever owned was a well-worn 1980 Datsun 310. I tried doing a 0-60 once, and after ~20 seconds when I had only passed 40mph I gave up. That thing was scary to merge onto freeways with.
 
#29 ·
I test drove the 1.4 turbo, then the 2.4 (both manual transmissions). There was really no comparison, the 2.4 had that "giddy-up" that the 1.4 did not seem to have early on. I bought the 2.4 (manual trans) and love it. I have a quick take off and I can 'chirp' going into second with ease.
 
#32 ·
Now were talking! I'll address your view point by point. 4853mi. since the start of record keeping, I used 134.5 gal. for an overall 36.08 mpg. Low 32.5 high just over 41.
The word "tank" is noted with "fill" being the better choice. I "fill" at the same elevation and same station to give myself accurate data as filling at different elevations will bias the results, convenience is the reason, not trying for better results.
"Pics or it didn't happen", you say you are not calling me a liar, I guess your doubting my math abilities? If I had said 41 this "fill" would you have accepted that?
"I beat a Ferrari today" You have taken that out of context for what purpose? I said he wasn't expecting a race and getting the jump on him was pure fun and of course I didn't think anyone would actually think a Dart could beat a supercar. Weak, you can do better.
"Sensitive" I don't presume to know what you think or what motivates you but something about me seems to have rattled your cage and I can do nothing about that, all I can do is respond. I do not expect the average driver to get the mpg I do as I have near ideal conditions for high numbers and most drive in conditions that would make it impossible or nearly so to do it. The 1.4, given the same conditions, should always beat the 2.4 in mpg given its smaller displacement and what my intent in posting mpg is to show what can be achieved with the 2.4.
As far as posting "pics" of the dash board for factual data, why? I guess with diminishing honesty, honor and generally shrinking character in our nation I could have a Notary certify my numbers to satisfy doubters but I don't just care that much. I have read Ecomodder and think all drivers could learn from that site but I don't want to spend my time doing it. I invest my time here to support Chrysler as my father was a Chrysler master mechanic and I'm still a loyal Mopar guy but I'm very glad its there.
On dyno numbers they are a fact and do tell a great deal about a motors power, how much and at what rpms it happens and linear is always desired for normal street use.
Back to the 6.9. From what I see most test drivers do 0 to 60 off idle but if you brake and stall the converter your times will be significantly lower and that is how I would test and it may be the reason for the 6.9. This would also lower 1/4 mi. times and it is what I did to the unsuspecting Ferrari. The only reason I got him to 50mph is he was late to the party and as any old drag racer knows you don't want to be late.
Now as far as my ability to do math accurately (I take you at your word your not calling me a liar), I keep perfect records and have double checked them before this response so anyone reading this "can take it to the bank" that I did the math without error and "on my honor" have not purposely posted false reports of any kind. .
 
#36 ·
Actually you want lower RPM with a turbo engine that has a small turbine. I was commenting that you need to use high RPM to get power from a small 4-cylinder. In the near future I imagine you will not be able to buy a normally-aspirated 4-cylinder as a turbocharger is much more efficient. Still, the 2.4 is a nice engine for a sporty car.
 
#39 · (Edited)
@artyup -

While a "performance monitor" may not be the most accurate method to measure 0-60 mph & ¼ mile times, @DartMontreal was kind enough to post these two pics of a GTECH Pro SS mounted in his 2014 Dodge Dart SXT-RALLYE (with 2.4L Tigershark™ MultiAir II® engine & FPT C635 6-speed Manual transmission):

Electronic device Technology Electronics Gadget Portable electronic game


Electronic device Technology Electronics Gadget Portable electronic game

I'm curious if you are now willing to concede that the "0-60 mph: 6.9 seconds" posted in the spec table of the AutomotiveAddicts.com "2014 Dodge Dart 2.4 Limited Review & Test Drive" article:

Text Font Line Document

... was most likely a typo? ... or do you think @DartMontreal just doesn't know how to properly launch a FWD car?
 
#43 ·
The 2.4L Dart is not a 6.9 second car, as much as I wish it were so. 8.5 still isn't bad though, given the fact it's a 3300-pound econobox. For me to get under 7 seconds 0-60 out of my Dart I'd have to start on a downhill slope with a Category 5 hurricane hitting me in the rear.
 
#44 ·
The awesome thing about the Dart is that while it may only be a 8-8.7 sec car, it feels so much faster inside the cockpit. Feels a lot faster than it really is.
 
#48 ·
To be honest I've never understood how traction control works. To an ignoramus like me added traction can't be anything but good, and I don't see why anyone would want a switch to be able to turn it off. Apparently however turning it off allows the car to do some interesting things, such as launch faster which again I can't figure out. Maybe somebody here will be merciful enough to explain it to me (or direct me to a link).
 
#49 ·
Basicly TCS systems are a secondary function of the Antilock brake system. They work by applying the brakes on any wheels that the sensors indicate to be slipping in order to regain traction.

Or in other words.... It slows the wheels down so they don't slip. This is good for maintaining control especially on slippery surfaces... But bad for racing/showing off lol

Here's a link
What Is a Traction Control System? | eHow
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top