Dodge Dart Forum banner

Consumer Reports Disses the 2013 Dodge Dart for being Underpowered

20K views 64 replies 45 participants last post by  Mooretep 
#1 ·

The 2013 Dodge Dart and several other offerings from Detroit got a spanking from Consumer Reports in a preview of their reviews that will hit news stands in January. Consumer Reports said the 2013 Dodge Dart "stalls out on its powertrains" and feels underpowered. They went on to say that "ultimately it didn't score high enough to be recommended in a very competitive small sedan class." It appears they are not very fond of the 2.0L or 1.4L and feel "the standard 2.0-liter four-cylinder feels underpowered, while the optional 1.4-liter turbocharged four-cylinder is raspy and has drivability issues when mated with the optional dual-clutch automated manual transmission."

Not all was negative though, they did give the Dart props for a "relatively quiet cabin" and mentioned that "its handling is fairly nimble, and the ride is taut yet compliant." Consumer Reports pulled no punches when it came to the 2013 Cadillac XTS and the 2013 Lincoln MKS. The XTS was dissed for its Cue infotainment system, "which testers found to be convoluted and frustrating," while the MKS was faulted for a "cramped driving position, ungainly handling, uncomposed ride and limited visibility." The MKS was the lowest-rated luxury sedan in its class, according to Consumer Reports, "lagging far behind previously tested standouts like the Audi A6 and Infiniti M37."

Rounding out the snubbing of Detroits offerings the subcompact 2013 Chevrolet Spark was deemed to be too low scoring to be recommended by Consumer Reports. It was faulted in their report for "its sluggish acceleration, stiff and jittery ride and very noisy cabin." Some feel CR has no credibility, while others feel they are pretty fair when it comes to vehicle reviews. Please share your thoughts on their assessment of the 2013 Dodge Dart and if you believe they are a credible publication.

Via: Insideline
 
See less See more
1
#2 ·
And if they did give it lots of power (which they easily could with the same engine lineup) they'd be bitching that they missed the mark on fuel economy numbers. Its hard to have your cake and eat it too sometimes.
 
#6 ·
Unfortunately, some people still rely on Consumer Reports and actually believe them. Why, I don't know?!
 
#10 · (Edited)
When I test drove the 2.0, it had no problems in traffic, or up hills, or in any other situation that covers 97% of driving. When I test drove the 1.4T, it accelerated up a decent hill much faster and with less effort than it would take my Sentra.

What very few people are willing to acknowledge is that the reviewers are biased both by their own conscious preferences and by subconscious processes. If the reviewers had just gotten done reviewing a midsize Mercedes with more pull, then of course the Dart would feel relatively underpowered. The extreme would be taking an F1 driver fresh from winning a race and putting them in a Smart. The brain adjusted to the more powerful and so the ordinary seems underwhelming.

(The best example, here, is James May of TopGear talking about how after his high-speed run in the Bugatti Veyron, his mind readjusted his sense of speed to make 70 mph seem like walking speed.)

Then you factor in that perhaps the reviewers tend to drive faster on their own time, maybe they own sportier cars, etc etc, and it can sour them to what's perfectly fine for most people.

That's just the conscious part of it. The subconscious part even they may not be aware of is everything from a bad experience with a Dodge breaking down, to the class bully driving a classic Dart in high school, to even being partly dehydrated through the testing can put them in a negative frame of mind and make them nitpick.

And that is why you're always supposed to do your own test drive and see for yourself. The only time I'd listen to any sort of car review publication is when all or most are pointing out the same problem.
 
#11 ·
My car is plenty powerful, some jerk in an 80s Diplomat was tailgating me for flashing my highbeams at him for cutting me off and when I moved into the next lane to get away from him and heard his engine revv up, I stomped the gas and left him behind! :p

Not a real winner there as the 318 Diplomat is the very definition of a dog but still. haha

Had to get away from that guy, his shocks were blown and when he hit a bump not only did his car bounce a bunch but it'd go all squirrley when it'd actually hit the bump.
 
#12 ·
My feeling is they're right about the automatic cars with a turbo 1.4... that said, you don't buy a turbo car with an automatic without understanding turbo lag, or you damn well shouldn't anyway.

There's still some lag with the manual, as all manual owners know, but it isn't a problem like it was in the auto. I test drove an auto before a manual was available in my area and it was immediately evident that turbo lag was to blame for the problem of slow take off. You could literally slam the gas to the floor and it felt you had nothing (due to the little engine having no boost) and it seemed painfully slow until you got up to around 2200 RPM's, at which point the car would take off, violently so if you kept the pedal to the floor.

It's just not something most consumers are ready for these days. Not understanding a turbo system, plus a car that hasn't been painstakingly refined to hide the effects of turbo lag is what I'm guessing led CR to make their statements about the turbo cars with an automatic that would feel slow to the average joe.
 
#14 ·
There's still some lag with the manual, as all manual owners know,
I actually appreciated this about the car on my test drive. It being my first manual car, I can be a bit slow to let the clutch out, so it's nice that the car wasn't trying to bite my ankle off with acceleration.
 
#13 ·
The 1.4T with DDCT is definitely gutless from the get-go but to say it has driveability issues is just being picky. That or I've gotten used to it.

They could cure the gutless feeling if they let it revv up more and gave it more aggressive clutch slipping on hard launches. Even floored it slips the clutch around 1200, engages fully, and then lets the engine gets some RPMs behind it when everyone that has driven the 1.4 knows it's got nothing under 2000 much less at 1200 where it launches from.
 
#23 ·
I have no respect for any reviews in any magazines any more. I think it was when they were reviewing the 2012 vehicles that Consumer Reports lost all credibility for me. They had the Dodge Challenger ratings, and it had all of the major mechanical points as "above average" for reliability, the paint and body work was labeled as "poor" reliability, and the overall reliability was rated as "poor" Really?! Consumer Reports? They really labeled a car as "poor" reliability because of paint?! And then they go on to basically say anything that's a Toyota or a Mustang was the best thing to ever grace or sorry rotten presence. Totally paid off.

I read a recent test, from car and driver, comparing the Focus SE with the Dart Rallye. First off, their 40-60 top gear tests are lame, and stupid, especially since the Focus only has 5 gears, and the Dart's 6th gear is super low for higher mpg, not for acceleration. They had the Focus wasting the Dart on that pointless test. The Dart was only .5 sec slower from 0-60, and they said it felt like the Dart used cheaper materials, even though they said that Focus's 'better' materials had fitting problems (I'd rather have a car with barely cheaper materials than a car that's not put together well)... That being the only real places where the Focus won, they still labeled the Focus as being the best option, while in the same sentence saying "The Focus has a relatively tight cockpit instead of the wide-open space of the Dart, but we find the more close-coupled cabin and especially the firm, supportive seats a perfect match to the Ford’s sporty demeanor." So they're saying the Focus is less comfortable, but we like that more because it fits the car better. WTF?

Anyway, those are only a few examples of why I no longer trust any mags. I base cars off of the experiences of those who own them. Not off of biased, paid off reviews.
 
#24 ·
I never understood the logic behind the subscriber polls. I noticed that most Chrysler owners wouldn't touch CR with a ten-foot pole. That alone should tell you how skewed their reviews and ratings are. I'm not going to get a subscription to a magazine that i disagree with. Where is their logic there?
 
#26 ·
After I read cr my heart broke… motor trend and car and driver don’t give the dart good reviews either! I don’t care though I factory ordered my dart anyway because I love the car and I think it is the perfect blend of fuel economy and power! P.S. I ordered the 1.4l turbo with the 6-speed manual.
 
#37 ·
Totally off-topic, but has anyone driven an Abarth to compare the power difference since that car is so much smaller? I haven't, but wonder how much extra pep it has because of the weight reduction.
 
#30 ·
No surprise for me, I'll read the artical just to see how much they dis any Chrysler product. If I wanted power I would of got a hemi challenger oh but they'll probably dis that car also for being too heavy or something else trivial. People are sheeple and the heards flock to where they are led to , but not if you can look outside the box. I don't
see an over abundance of old toyota's or honda's around. This car is an alfa rebadged but to them it carries the chrysler stigma. Not to worry though because they will be looking at us as we drive by because our cars just look better, have lines that flow and are just down right hot! All cars require maintance no matter who built it.
 
#33 ·
For kicks I browsed through a copy of CR while at a Barnes & Noble....and they actually ended the review on a positive note, saying that the model is still too new to solidly recommend but it's one to keep an eye on.
 
#40 ·
It interesting how things change. Marchionne wants Alfa back in the US. That is why the Fiat 500 is in the Fiat studios instead of Chrysler dealerships (they are really .to be Alfa Romeo studios). From what I heard, he wanted the Gulietta to be that Alfa. To do this, he wanted the Dart to be based on the Gulietta platform to make it easier to make the Gulietta in the US. The Dodge engineers said no, it is too small, and they made the larger platform. Now, Alfa is making the new Gulia based on the Dart's platform and will bring THAT to the US instead. So, the Alfa is actually based on a Dodge platform, now. If they are smart, they will put the pentastar V6 in it and bring performance back to Alfa. I know people will say you can't put a Chrysler engine in an Alfa, but they have already put the Pentastar in the Maserati Quatroporte, they just turbocharged it and put Ferrari valve covers on it. If they take the plastic engine cover off, chrome the intakes, and put Alfa Romeo valve covers on it, no one will know.

From being Alfa-based to being the basis of an Alfa in the blink of an eye.
 
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