By on July 25, 2016

Mazda3-Based Dodge Dart Replacement Render, Front, Image: © 2016 Chris Doane Automotive/Theophilus Chin for The Truth About Cars

Last week, our own Tim Cain broke down exactly why the Dart was destined for the dustbin. Steph asked in April if the Dart would outlast the Obama administration, a question answered last week with a resounding “no” from Auburn Hills. And before that, I asked you what company could build a replacement for the Dart, while offering up my own guesses. One car kept rising to the top of the suggestion list: the Mazda3.

But, what would a Mazda3-based Dodge Dart replacement look like? We wanted to know. And since none of us at TTAC are particularly gifted when it comes to pixel manipulation, we commissioned a pair of renders from the talented Theophilus Chin of Chris Doane Automotive to find out.

Mazda3-Based Dodge Dart Replacement Render, Rear, Image: © 2016 Chris Doane Automotive/Theophilus Chin for The Truth About Cars

Why the Mazda3?
Ever since FCA said it would let the Dodge Dart and Chrysler 200 run their respective courses, the writers at TTAC have discussed which company could contract build a Dodge Dart replacement. We keep coming back to Mazda for three reasons: the Mazda3 is a great product, Mazda needs to sell more Mazda3s, and the Japanese automaker already has a partnership with FCA in the Miata-based 124 Spider.

Unlike Mitsubishi, which could build a vehicle in partnership with FCA but would do so outside the NAFTA region, the Mexican-build, NAFTA-friendly Mazda3 is an engineered product already plodding American roads. For its part, FCA would only need to pay to design some lighting and body panels. That’s a helluva lot easier than engaging an old partner that’s now tied up with the Renault-Nissan Alliance.

Visual Comparison

Mazda3-Based Dodge Dart Replacement Render, Front, Image: © 2016 Chris Doane Automotive/Theophilus Chin for The Truth About Cars2014 Dodge Dart GT, Image: FCA

Our artist dispatched the Mazda3’s happy face in favor of Dodge’s trademark crosshair grille. The large, lower faux airdam is separated from the upper, functional grille in our render, which is bookended by headlights inspired by the Dodge Charger.

Mazda3-Based Dodge Dart Replacement Render, Rear, Image: © 2016 Chris Doane Automotive/Theophilus Chin for The Truth About Cars2016 Dodge Dart, Image: FCA

Surprising, our artist’s changes at the rear are not a distant visual departure from the original Dart. The racetrack taillights are sharper toward the ends, but a short rear deck and Hoffmeister kink in the rear window tie in our Mazda3-based render with its Dart predecessor. It does look like a Mazda3-based replacement could lose a fair amount of rear overhang and trunk space, however.

What do you think? Let us know in the comments.

[Image: © 2016 Theophilus Chin/Chris Doane Automotive for The Truth About Cars]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

90 Comments on “What Would a Mazda3-based Dodge Dart Successor Look Like?...”


  • avatar
    Truckducken

    Should be a winner for both companies. Let’s see if they can find a way to screw up this great idea.

  • avatar
    Flipper35

    Its NOT a HELLCAT, NOONE will BUY it!

    Actually I like it. Brings driving dynamics to a nice looking package.

  • avatar
    05lgt

    it looks like you’ve done FCA’s work for them. Now maybe Mazda can follow suit, and everyone but you can profit.

  • avatar
    bryanska

    Just for god’s sake make it quiet.

  • avatar
    mcarr

    So, replace one car that’s not selling, with another car that’s not selling…

    Brilliant.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      +1

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        Yeah, I don’t see Mazda underpinnings and 90% similar looks to the prior version doing any big sales figures.

        Cause now you’ve got a Dart that’s a bit louder, and more likely to rust.

        #notwinning

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          But, you’d also get the Skyactiv stuff, which is way better in just about every way than FCA’s 4-cylinder offerings.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            That’s a fair addition, but still – barely any people want the 3, and only former Galant customers wanted the Dart!

            This doesn’t solve the question of what happens to the 200, either. Would be much more difficult to mod the Mazda into a 200 shape.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            Personally, I think the best way to handle the 200 is to rebadge the Mazda6 and Pacifica as Dodges, change the company name to JeepFiatAuto, and then dump the Chrysler brand into the ocean.

          • 0 avatar
            heavy handle

            ajla,

            FCA’s got the industry’s best variable valve timing system, which will presumably make its way into their new “Hurricane” 4 cylinder, as well as direct injection.

            I do agree that the current Dart’s engines are nothing special. The two bigger motors are antiquated. The turbo is great, but it’s not a performance option in the heavy Dart.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            Do you think the 300 would work as a Dodge, with some sort of split new-Magnum grille on it?

            They’d have to take it downmarket then, and could no longer sell the John Varvatos Prestige Elite AWD.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            “Do you think the 300 would work as a Dodge”

            don’t they already have the Charger?

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            I meant as upscale version! They can’t lose all that 300 volume – those customers do not translate to Charger purchasers.

          • 0 avatar
            sportyaccordy

            This has caveats too. That Skyactiv stuff is a lot pricier than FCA’s crappy ancient 4 bangers, and the Dart was barely selling as is with a huge discount to its competition. Plus as the Fiata shows FCA is all too keen to provide their own engines in partnerships like this.

            Naw, these are two folks who can’t swim coming together for a partnership in drowning. Keep in mind the Dart only sold like 20K less than the 3 last year, and was outpacing it in growth too. I suppose this does make sense for Mazda though… Mazda has strength outside the US and they could use the amortization. But I’m thinking a Mazda based Dart would do no better than the current version.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            “Naw, these are two folks who can’t swim coming together for a partnership in drowning.”

            This made me think about The Amazing Race, when a team enters thinking they have a shot at winning – and neither of them know how to swim.

            There’s gonna be a water challenge, people.

        • 0 avatar
          Ryoku75

          On top of that it looks like a Dodge Avenger, it’d sell well to a rental fleet!

    • 0 avatar
      duffman13

      It actually is if you look at the reasons for not selling.

      The Dart doesn’t sell because it’s an objectively bad car compared to its competition.

      The 3 doesn’t sell because it has an insufficient dealer network combined with high prices due to economies of scale and currency issues (still Japanese made last time I checked).

      This marriage would remedy both sets of issues. The 3 is a good car, remedying the bad car part, and FCA partnership means they can produce in Mexico or canada. This bypasses currency issues and allows for cost and price reduction. Finally, I would bet that Dodge has at least triple the market presence of Mazda, allowing the Dart 2.0 to get that wider distribution.

      This would probably have the further affect (assuming Mazda can now move 3 assembly to FCA facilities) of reducing the 3’s price as well, helping it move more metal to a known price-conscious buyer pool.

      • 0 avatar

        I would argue FCA’s record with small cars hurts more then people actually comparison shopping the dart. The dart is really middle pack in comparison to the other cars in it’s class.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        “The Dart doesn’t sell because it’s an objectively bad car compared to its competition.”

        I seriously doubt that most of those who shopped for Civics, Corollas and Sentras even gave two seconds of their attention to the Dart.

    • 0 avatar
      whynot

      To be fair, Toyota took a Mazda that wasn’t selling (Mazda2), slapped a Scion badge on it, and has currently sold more iA’s YTD than Mazda has every sold Mazda2’s annually expect for in 2012 (lagging by ~3000 sales, Toyota will surpass that in a month or 2 if they haven’t already when July’s numbers come out). And this car is currently branded under a forgotten and soon to be dead brand.

      Yes, the iA is a new gen and a more US friendly sedan, but sometimes having a bigger advertising budget and larger dealer network does wonders on sales, and the compact market is much larger than the subcompact market.

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        “Yes, the iA is a new gen and a more US friendly sedan…”

        Unfortunately these two facts make the rest of your point irrelevant and incorrect.

        • 0 avatar
          whynot

          The sedan part maybe. The new gen really has little effect on sales on such a small player. The 3 gen Mazda3 sales, for example, are right on par with the 2nd gen Mazda3 sales. There was no bump.

          Being a sedan helps, but I don’t think Toyota is selling ~2x as many iA’s as Mazda ever could the Mazda2 just because the latter is a hatchback, especially as hatchbacks are generally more kosher to buyers in the subcompact market compared to other segments. Look at the success, or lack there of, of the Yaris sedan for example…

        • 0 avatar
          Maymar

          Corey, you actively chose to buy a Roger Smith-era Cadillac. Does your opinion on small cars count for much?

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            Hey, just because I know the -correct- size for cars doesn’t mean I can’t know about the incorrectly sized ones too! :D

          • 0 avatar
            Maymar

            Let’s be honest, you’re secretly disappointed the AMC Pacer (and its big car ride) wasn’t the most influential compact of all time, right? And you’d have probably considered the original Mini rubbish were you alive in the early 60s? There are a few small cars even today that have virtues that would be absolutely lost on you. Admittedly, they’re lost on most of the American buying public as well.

    • 0 avatar

      Well, to be fair they would like to sell more, but if they contract build it they don’t even need the volume they have now. It would give Mazda more volume to lower per unit overhead and give FCA a car in the segment with little overhead and no capacity requirement (the capacity is needed by jeep). So if the car sold in similar numbers now or a little worse it would still be worth doing, from both companies standpoint.

    • 0 avatar
      dwford

      Yes, the logic of replacing one car with a visually identical car on a different chassis escapes me. And Mazda has proven that not many people are excited by its latest designs, so FCA would just be doubling down with another unloved product.

  • avatar
    Nick_515

    Sounds like this would be a great thing. Some people want to buy “American” for a variety of reasons – though I know how tricky that is these days – and I want to see MOAR mazdas on the road.

    Current Dart’s face and backend grafted onto the current Mazda would look surprisingly good. The CHarger’s cartoonish front looks unsurprisingly not good in the rendering.

    Glad you did this.

  • avatar
    ajla

    I like it. Maybe FCA can change the interior around too so it has the integrated uConnect 8.4 screen instead of the “iPad glued on the dashboard” style.

    Really, it’s too bad this can’t be expanded even more. Mazda6 based Avengers, Skyactiv-powered Renegades and Cherokees, uConnect-equipped Mazdas, etc.

  • avatar
    Kenmore

    “contract build a Dodge Dart replacement.”

    Hell, call me! *I* could come up with something nobody wants.

    The amount of attention being lavished on this poor little no-show in a rapidly dwindling segment of low-profit commodity cars already dominated for 30 years by Asians, is puzzling.

  • avatar
    319583076

    A: fantasy
    B: garbage

    Pick both if you like.

  • avatar
    PenguinBoy

    This makes sense to me. FCA gets to maintain market share in the shrinking but still significant C segment while focusing their development effort and production capacity on more profitable and faster growing segments, while Mazda gets to amortize the development costs of the slow selling 3 over a larger number of cars, and better utilize their production capacity.

    As this rendering shows, a Mazda 3 based Dart doesn’t need to look like a rebadge – it can be as differentiated as the old Mazda 3 / Ford Focus / Volvo C30 which were all built on the Ford C1 platform at one time.

    • 0 avatar

      This sums it up nicely.

    • 0 avatar
      sutherland555

      I couldn’t have said it better myself.

      FCA can’t afford to outright abandon the C segment (CAFE, the inevitable rise in gas prices and it would simply look really bad on a major automaker to abandon that part of the market) but they clearly don’t have the will and/or money to invest into the segment.

      Also, since they’re dropping the 200, it would be very interesting to see a Pentastar equipped Mazda6 based 200 successor.

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        “FCA can’t afford to outright abandon the C segment (CAFE, the inevitable rise in gas prices”

        CAFE is actually a big reason why the focus is being moved off this segment. The rules don’t work the way they used to before footprint adjustments were taken into account. Keeping the Dart as is will eventually make it a CAFE liability, and making a small car compliant with the targets of 5+ years from now is very costly when dealing with a small margin car.

        FCA US has a portfolio of vehicles that have the potential for margins that can support the more reasonable investments required to meet their targets. The reality of CAFE is that it’s scarier for makers reliant on small cars. Mazda is worried.

        http://www.autonews.com/article/20160718/OEM05/160719872/mazda-faces-fight-to-maintain-mpg-lead

        “For 2021, we are very confident we will meet the CAFE standards,” Moro said. “2025 is another story because the requirement level is very, very high.”

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          The issue for Mazda is that it doesn’t have hybrids. CAFE will have the effect of encouraging hybrid proliferation in smaller cars, but Mazda doesn’t have the resources to support such an effort.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I don’t disagree but what impact would a high mileage diesel have on the CAFE figures?

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            In order to get CAFE credit, it is necessary to sell the cars, not just build them.

            Given the lack of demand for diesels, diesels won’t do much for CAFE.

            If Mazda could expand upon the supercapacitor approach that it is taking, then perhaps that could provide it with a hybrid-like alternative. But for now, the technology isn’t developed enough to save much fuel.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Thanks.

          • 0 avatar
            JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

            Mazda’s lineup, now without anything rotory or larger than 4 cyls is probably one of the most compliant lineups in the industry.

  • avatar
    Ryoku75

    This wouldn’t work, two rotten egfs wont make an omelette.

    • 0 avatar
      Ryoku75

      My edit option seems to have vanished.

      But this wouldn’t work, Chrysler would inevitably numb up the “sportyness”, Mazda would make it pricey (for no real reason), and people would be turned off by the badge.

      When your companys finest economy car was the Omni, you shouldn’t build economy cars.

      Oh and Mazda rust combined with Fiat internals would make for an awful car in general.

  • avatar

    Step #1 end the Dart production

    Step #2 Put twin turbos on the Pentastar V6 and put it in the 200c AWD

    Step #3 Name the “200” The Dodge Dart SRT

  • avatar
    tjh8402

    I don’t think it’s as good looking as the Mazda 3, but I think it will do fine. This segment isn’t known for its love of stylish cars (see the dominance of the Civic, Corolla, and Sentra). The biggest issue I see is that it looks too much like the unloved Dart. Perhaps a new styling direction would help Dodge here. I was one of the ones saying Mazda would be a good partner and I still believe so. I just hope it gets a hatchback variant and then I’d probably be a buyer. The Dart and the Mazda3 were on my short list before I bought my Abarth. They lost out on price and available warranty (Mazda), and lack of an available hatchback (Dart). This could solve most of those issues.

    • 0 avatar
      sutherland555

      Heh…funny thing about the Mazda warranty. In Canada, Mazda just switched last year to a 3 year/unlimited mileage warranty. I wonder how much of a difference that would make if they offered that in the US.

      • 0 avatar
        tjh8402

        not that I’m your typical buyer but it would’ve made a difference for me. The available unlimited mileage warranty you can buy from FCA is one of the reasons I got the 500. I’m putting over 20k miles a year on the car so I’d run out of miles pretty quickly on most any normal extended warranty

    • 0 avatar
      sportyaccordy

      The Dart’s looks are the least of its problems. Plus maintaining a visual link to the popular Charger will help on that front. Dart was killed by a weird launch, too much curb weight, weird engine choices and bad fuel economy.

      Problem with remedying these things is Mazda’s Skyactiv engines are way more efficient than anything Dodge has in its quiver; so if they go with Mazda’s engines they have to figure out how to sell a 3 for less than Mazda does at a profit, but if they stick with their ancient engines they are kind of back to square one. No Tigershark engine will get something 3 sized up to the magical 40 MPG highway that is important to people in this segment. Sergio is a lunatic but I think he is wise to sit out of this segment

      • 0 avatar
        PenguinBoy

        “they have to figure out how to sell a 3 for less than Mazda does at a profit”

        The Mazda 3 doesn’t sell in large volumes, so the development costs need to be amortized over a small number of units, and production capacity is likely underutilized. Increasing volume would help bring costs down significantly without changing the product itself.

        Also, FCA doesn’t have to make a huge profit in this segment – as long as they can do a little better than break even on C segment cars without diverting their scarce development and production resources from profitable Jeeps, they’ll do just fine.

        While I like what Mazda is doing with Skyactiv, I’m not sure the Mazda engines are an improvement on FCA engines in all cases – the 1.4 MultiAir Turbo in the 124 sounds like an upgrade on the Mazda engine in the MX-5, and as noted elsewhere in this thread a Pentastar powered Mazda 6 derivative sounds like a nice ride. But they would probably be best to stick with Mazda power in a mainstream C segment car…

      • 0 avatar
        tjh8402

        I didn’t mean to say that the Dart’s looks were part of its problem, just that if you’re going to try to get people to forget about it and get excited about the replacement, you don’t want said replacement to look the same.

        On the one hand I think the car will be better off with the Mazda engines for sure. On the other hand, the 3’s lighter chassis should do better with the laggy 1.4t than the heavier Darr if they decided to go that route. As far as how to sell the car below Mazda, a quick and easy way is continuing with long term low to zero interest financing. My experiments last time I went shopping was that Mazdas incentives and especially their in house interest rates were not particularly compelling. You’d never see Mazda with 0% for 72 months. I’d get the Dodge just to take advantage of that. That’s one way Dodge could help their value proposition. As Penguin boy also points out, the economies of scale will help bring costs down for both. CJDR dealers also are more numerous and higher volume which will help keep their overhead down and give them more room to lower prices for consumers.

        The reality is FCA needs this car otherwise they are gonna be hitting some big CAFE fines before long.

  • avatar
    Corollaman

    The 3 is not selling well with all its positive reputation, how is this gonna fare any better with all its negative history that has accumulated in such a short time?

    • 0 avatar
      George B

      Lower price? Different segment, but one of the huge negatives of the Mazda6 when I was shopping was the relatively high out-the-door price compared to the competition. Lower cost production in North America plus a much larger dealer network should help.

  • avatar
    Irvingklaws

    Make it a hatchback. The Dart should have been one in the first place.

    • 0 avatar
      sportyaccordy

      Yes, Americans love their hatchbacks.

    • 0 avatar
      Trucky McTruckface

      Not happening. The hatchback-only configuration of the Caliber is one of the reasons that vehicle quickly gained a reputation as a car for losers. If it weren’t so ugly, or it weren’t so cynically engineered and bean counted inside and out, or if the hatchback market had been more favorable when it debuted, it might be a different story.

      In the Daimler days, the Caliber and the Magnum were attempts to give the Dodge brand a unique selling proposition as a hatch-only brand while leaving sedans to Chrysler. The Dodge dealers, still retaining their last shreds of pre-bankruptcy independence, rebelled and the Charger sedan quickly appeared – a reincarnation of the 1962 Custom 880 more than its two door namesake.

      Given the rate at which current Chrysler ownership seems to be accelerating the decent of non-Jeep/Ram brands down the drain, I’d expect Dodge to disappear altogether before offering another hatchback.

  • avatar
    Corollaman

    ind of reminds me of the Chevy Prizm which Toyota built for GM and was grossly outsold by the nearly identical Corolla. Perception that the Chevy was inferior to the Toyota, even though they were the same car.

    • 0 avatar
      CoreyDL

      ^Made the Prizm a great used value!

      What happened to all those? You never see em anymore, and they were sold until 02.

      • 0 avatar
        gtemnykh

        Oh they’re still around in quite large numbers, they’re just automotive white noise along with Cavaliers and Saturns and such. I think the top failure mode (aside from a wreck) is infrequent oil changes which first result in the oil passages to gunk up in the pistons, leading to oil burning (quite a bit), which in turn, coupled with infrequent oil changes, leads to oil starvation and ultimately engine failure. The otherwise rugged Saturn S-series fall to the same sort of death by neglect.

        • 0 avatar
          CoreyDL

          I think while I wouldn’t notice a Cavalier, I would notice a Prizm or old Saturn if in decent shape.

          Last Friday I actually saw a gen 1 Saturn Coupe in great shape being driven by an old lady, thinking original owner on that one. White, stock, and no tints.

        • 0 avatar
          George B

          Toyota owners tend to maintain their cars a little better than Chevy owners, but neither the Prizm nor the Corolla are collectible or fun. When something expensive breaks, they’re just scrap metal.

          • 0 avatar
            Ryoku75

            I see far too many rusty, dented, scratched, patchwork accident repair, beat up Camrys to believe Toyota owners maintain their stuff.

            Sure a few do, not the majority.

      • 0 avatar
        Ryoku75

        Neglect, rust, and oil issues largely from belated oil changes. I see more Rollas than Prizms due to the former selling much better, but both are usually pretty ratty.

        I did have the chance to buy a nice one, but I skipped when I heard it was the fairly common 3-speed auto. Why buy an eco car that gets at most 27mpg?

        I still catch old Saturns in surprisingly good nick, no doubt being owned by elders or enthusiasts.

  • avatar
    Corollaman

    They sure did, but when you went to the Chevy dealer and they were selling the similarly sized Cavalier for a quite a bit less money, guess which one people bought? Then at the end of the model year , they had to sell them off at a large discount

  • avatar
    Corollaman

    Not everyone is an educated, well informed car buyer, many only look at the price.

  • avatar
    theoldguard

    If Dodge Dart GT had Alfa Romeo skin and badges, it would get a lot of love. I own a ’13 Ford Focus and test drove a Dart GT. I was reasonably impressed with the Dodge. I rented a 2.0 Mazda 3 for a few days. I didn’t think the handling dynamics of the Mazda were much better, although the Mazda transmission was a whole lot better than the PowerShud-d-d-er. The Focus would have been a great car if it weren’t for that transmission. Is PowerShud-d-d-er the V8-6-4 of transmissions?

  • avatar
    brettc

    Will it come in a hatch configuration, have decent headlights and the 2.5 turbo on the base trim? If so, I’ll take one.

  • avatar
    Oberkanone

    Opportunity exits in Normal Illinois in the form of a vacant automobile manufacturing plant. I used to believe that Mitsubishi needed a compact platform to replace their Lancer and midsize to replace their Galant sized hole in the midsize market but they don’t have the money for full development programs for these segments. FCA needs a midsize/compact truck and someone to build compact and midsize cars.
    So bada bing , bada bang why not form an alliance and build the Triton/L200 pickup, nipped and tucked revised Dart and 200 in the Normal plant for 5 years then re-evaluate the partnership and the market. Mitsu and FCA needed each other.
    Now that Nissan is buying into Mitsubishi they will have access to all the Nissan Renault resources they could dream of. They don’t need FCA or anyone else.
    FCA on the other hand I can’t see anyone wanting to tie up with them now.

  • avatar
    geozinger

    I think this is a dead-end idea. I’m no fan of Sergio, but I don’t think tying FCA to Mazda for more than a specialty model or two is a long term plan.

    One needs to take a look at the Mexican Dodge website to see what may lie ahead. Dodge Mexico has three small cars besides the Dart, one of which is a rebadged Mitsubishi Mirage, and what appears to be two (maybe South American market) rebadged Fiat sedans.

    Of course, NAFTA/EPA/NHTSA may not allow some of those cars here. And the US doesn’t have the same FTAs as Mexico does, which could kill importing South American built cars. But I could still see the Turkish-built Fiat Aegea coming over here to replace the Dart.

    It would almost be wise to have the same relationship with Mitsubishi in the US as they do in Mexico, where FCA distributes Mitsubishis. In addition, they could tap into some of Mitsu’s hybrid and BEV efforts, although the new relationship with Nissan Renault may hinder that.

  • avatar
    Eyeflyistheeye

    BTW, I think Tim Cain’s analysis of the Dart led Hillary to pick him as her running mate.

    Thanks folks, I’ll be here all week. Try the veal!

  • avatar
    Varezhka

    From what I hear, Mazda’s experience with Fiat 124 had been nothing but a nightmare with FCA making big demands and changing requirements every couple months. I doubt this partnership would progress past that single project. Given FCA’s history, they will probably cancel the product after 3 years anyways.

    If FCA actually do plan to stay in the market (and that’s a big *if*), I would think it more likely that they would bring over the much smaller and cheaper Dodge Attitude/Mitsubishi Mirage sedan up north.

  • avatar
    rolando

    I don’t they will make so many changes. Crosshair grille, same lights and body, maybe the racetrack taillights. Thats about it. Big improvement for FCA!

  • avatar
    rpol35

    It looks pretty good, I guess, certainly more like a Dodge. But then I never understand a rebadge, why buy the Dodge wanna-be Mazda 3 when you can just buy the real thing? I would imagine, that to be successful, there would have to be some pretty stark, unique differences between the two for the Dodge to be successful.

  • avatar
    Manta9527

    What they should do is base the Dodge Dart on the same platform that Alfa Romeo is using for the new Giulia sedan and have it powered by a turbo version of the Pentastar V-6 engine.

  • avatar
    tankinbeans

    Would it be at all possible to apply some rouge and a bit of lipstick to a Corolla and sell that? As long as it’s decently thinly veiled Dodge might sell them by the quiverful to the Toyota-automatically-better crowd. Think of all the children.

    I personally don’t see much difference between this and the actual car. Not that tits a bad thing as I like its looks, but it is visually very bulky.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • deanst: Ummm…you may not consider yourself old, but car companies do. Datsun left in 1975, so you are at least...
  • Hummer: Mustang weight starts at about 3,532 lbs, and about $15-20k less Edit: not sure why my comment tagged onto...
  • JimZ: 1980s thinking doesn’t cut it in 2020. The turbo 4 is the new 6 cylinder.
  • Whatnext: Looks a bit heavy in the haunches. Genesis designers have a problem with C pillars and the relation to the...
  • Hummer: They even had it in brown now that you mention it.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Timothy Cain
  • Matthew Guy
  • Ronnie Schreiber
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth