<b>Car Review</b>: A Tale of Two Darts, Part the Second, 2014 Dodge Dart <b>...</b> |
| <b>Car Review</b>: A Tale of Two Darts, Part the Second, 2014 Dodge Dart <b>...</b> Posted: 20 Jun 2014 05:00 AM PDT Four hundred cubic centimeters. That's not a whole lot of volume. A cylinder that's about 3 inches in diameter and 4 inches tall. It's rather amazing what a difference that about a coffee cup's worth of displacement will make in the character of an automobile. In my first look at the Dodge Dart, I felt that the Dart is a nice compact car, but that it was deeply compromised by a powertrain that combined the 2.0 liter four cylinder with a six speed automatic transmission. In a quest for a calibration that yields impressive EPA fuel economy numbers, Chrysler produced a car that's a chore to drive. Now that I've had a chance to drive the Dart with the 2.4 liter MultiAir Tigershark engine, I'm happy to report that those 400 ccs of displacement make a night and day difference, changing "chore to drive" to "fun to drive". While it's not a direct comparison, the 2013 Dart that I reviewed was in Limited trim, pretty much loaded, while the 2014 model that I tested was a Dart GT, with less equipment but with the GT package and the 2.4 liter engine that's now standard in all Darts but the Aero and base SE models. While I wouldn't say that the car is fast, the 184 horsepower four moves it along quickly enough that the GT badge isn't a joke. Actually, the development team in Auburn Hills seems to have taken their design brief seriously at least in terms of the chassis. While not a continental "grand tourer" in the classic sense, the Dart GT is definitely aimed at an enthusiast crowd. If not the direct spiritual heir to the Neon ACR of lore, it's certainly in the same lineage. Most of the differences between the Limited and GT models have to do with the way the cars handle. In my review of the Limited, I said that the Dart wants to handle but that the powertrain's mapping gets in the way of enthusiastic driving. The Dart GT fulfills that promise, and then some. The chassis is most decidedly tuned towards the handling side of the ride quality / handling trade-off. The GT has a more aggressive stance, more aggressive rubber, trick shock absorbers and much stiffer springs. How much stiffer? Though I didn't find the ride as objectionable as some reviewers have, the chassis is stiff enough that once, when I hit the driveway apron as I pulled into a gas station, the tuning knob for the radio was jarred from the Grateful Dead channel to Jimmy Buffet's Margaritaville. While I didn't personally find the stiff suspension objectionable, I did start getting a bit tired of the rear body structure drumming when the back tires hit irregular pavement. With Michigan roads in the sorry state they are in, there was ample opportunity to test the ride quality and it was uniformly firm. Though it's very firm, I didn't find it harsh. I do think that most American consumers would find it too firm and would probably be happier with the less sporting trim lines. All that stiffness results in a car that you can hustle through the corners at a rapid pace. There's a ton of grip and while there's the modern problem of not a huge amount of steering feel, the Dart's steering is weighted nicely at all driving speeds. The steering is very quick, 2.5 turns lock-to-lock or maybe even a bit less than that, with a sharp turn in. The car I tested came with leather seating surfaces, some solid, some perforated with a red tint in the perforations, a bit less fancy than the Limited's full leather. While the Limited came with more "luxury" features, the final sticker price of both cars was pretty much the same ($25,125 for the GT and $25,180 for the Limited, destination charges included, Monroney sheet here) and I didn't miss what the GT didn't have. As long as it has A/C (Chrysler's very good automatic climate controls are usually "set it at 68 and forget it" for me) and a decent sound system I'm good to go, though this car did have the 8.4 inch UConnect infotainment system, which is nice to have. Like I said, everything I'd need or want, without anything superfluous. The 2.4 liter engine was backed by the same 6 speed automatic and while the combination wasn't flawless, it is a solid improvement over the two liter motor with the same gearbox. Unlike with the smaller motor, I didn't feel the need to autostick it because there was sufficient acceleration letting the car shift itself. Some reviewers have said that the gearbox is busy, but I didn't notice it. I did notice that when slowing down, the 5 -> 4 downshift is rather dramatic, perhaps because of a big jump in gear ratios. Fuel economy was improved over the two liter Dart. I averaged 28.2 mpg over a tank's worth of suburban driving, which was better than the ~26 mpg real world mileage I was getting when having to autostick the 2.0L/6AT Dart. The engine does run a bit roughly at startup, but though it's not the most sophisticated four banger in the world, it does have a pleasant growl when you get on it. While the Dart GT seems aimed at enthusiasts, at first it's a bit surprising that there's no sport mode to electronically activate. Perhaps that's because someone in Auburn Hills may think that it's superfluous to give a car with a fair amount of sporting character such a mode. The engine is peppy enough that Car & Driver's reviewer thought the throttle tip-in off of idle is a bit quick (something that didn't bother me), the chassis is competent and the car can handle, and the seats have good side bolsters that hold you in front of the wheel as you're hustling around curves. About the only thing that isn't sporting about the Dart GT is the braking system. The brakes are perfectly adequate around town and on the highway, but I wouldn't take the Dart GT out on a track without some attention to improving how the car stops. Fit and finish was fine and the only quality problem that I noticed was that with a bit more than 5,000 miles on the odometer, the driver's side power window was making a bit of a rattling noise at the upper end of its travel. One problem that I had with the first Dart, almost burning my hand on the prop rod for the hood, which is stored right above the radiator and gets very hot, was apparently remedied with a small rubber insulating grip. I don't know if that grip was added for the 2014 model year or if the first example of the Dart that I drove was simply missing it, but I was glad to see it. My tester came in bright white and with the blacked out grille elements that come with the GT package (and Rallye and Blackout appearance groups too), it looked pretty sharp. While driving both Darts people complimented how they look. While the GT did not have the upgraded sound system that came in the Limited, it sounded perfectly serviceable. Perhaps as a weight saving effort, the Dart GT, unlike the 2013 Limited, doesn't come with a spare tire. Instead, nestled in a expanded polystyrene foam carrier that fits in the spare tire well, is an electric pump with a (hopefully replaceable) canister of tire sealant. My drives of the two Darts sandwiched a ride and drive event for the new 2014 Toyota Corolla. While the Dart, based on Fiat Chrysler's Compact U.S. Wide platform, is a bit larger than the typical compact car sold in America, and heavier by a few hundred pounds, it's priced to play in the Corolla's segment. How does it stack up against the Corolla, which dominates that segment along with the Honda Civic? Combining the two Darts that I drove, I think that a Dart in one of the mid-level trim lines, with the 2.4 L engine and the features most people would want, would make a reasonable alternative for someone not zealous with the Toyonda reliability faith. Is the Corolla more refined than the Dart? Maybe by a little bit, though the Dart handles better, feels quicker, and  is roomier, at least up front. At the very least, if you're shopping for a new compact car, it's worth it to at least cross-shop the Dart and talk to owners about their experiences. In my review of the Dart Limited I mentioned how the Dodge Neon showed promise but that Chrysler let it die on the vine by not giving it continuous upgrades. The fact that Sergio Marchionne and his team acknowledge that they screwed up the initial Dart launch by not getting the powertrain mix correctly and that they've remedied it by putting the bigger motor in most Darts bode well. Unfortunately that botched launch may have permanently harmed the Dart's market chances. The Civic and Corolla both sell 300,000+ units a year. In 2013, Chrysler sold about 83,000 Darts, and halfway through this year they've sold fewer than 31,000 units.  In November of 2014, John and Horace Dodge had this publicity photo taken of them sitting in the first Dodge Brothers automobile in front of John Dodge's mansion on Detroit's Boston Blvd. (the same location as used in my photos of the Dart GT). The Dodges started selling cars under their own brand after a decade of being Henry Ford's primary supplier. As far as enthusiasts are concerned, if you're looking for something that's moderately sporting and can still carry a small family, a Dart GT isn't a bad idea, providing your spouse doesn't object to the stiff ride. Still, considering that the new Chrysler 200 and Jeep Cherokee are also based on the CUSW platform and that those two vehicles are offered with Chrysler's outstanding ~300 hp Pentastar V6, it's easy to guess that a SRT version of the Dart with that engine (and, I was going to say, the bigger brakes from the 200 but I see that it shares the Dart's 12″ front rotors) would be even more fun to drive than the GT.
Chrysler provided the vehicle, insurance and a tank of gasoline. Ronnie Schreiber edits Cars In Depth, a realistic perspective on cars & car culture and the original 3D car site. If you found this post worthwhile, you can get a parallax view at Cars In Depth. If the 3D thing freaks you out, don’t worry, all the photo and video players in use at the site have mono options. Thanks for reading â€" RJS  |
| <b>Car Review</b>: 2015 Volkswagen Golf | BlackPressUSA Posted: 17 Jun 2014 03:01 PM PDT Car Review: 2015 Volkswagen GolfJune 17, 2014 Business AboutThatCar.com  By Frank S. Washington SAN FRANCISCO – Ready. Set. Golf. That is the new advertising tag line for the most important car in Volkswagen's lineup. We came to the City By The Bay to test drive the 2015 Volkswagen Golf. This car has been around for 40 years, it has sold more than 30 million, it was called the Rabbit for more than a dozen years and it replaced the original Volkswagen Beetle, a true automotive icon. In a phrase, Volkswagen cannot afford, figuratively and rhetorically, a misfire on the 7th generation of the Golf. The early verdict is the German automaker has done a good job of covering all the bases in the realm of compact cars with the new Golf. The design was evolutionary. In other words, the 2015 Volkswagen Golf was easily identifiable as a Golf. But the car was longer, wider and lower than the model it replaced. It even had more storage space but less weight. The lines were crisper and there was an angularity that was uniform. The line of the fuel door opening matched the upward sweep of the line of rear door opening. The grille was narrower, the hood was more sloped, the headlight cluster was sharper, and overall the lines were crisper, sharper, more contemporary. The new Golf was also more slippery with a drag coefficient that was reduced to 0.29 from 0.32 and that improved fuel efficiency. We've always felt that Volkswagen didn't get enough credit for the execution of its interiors. Fit and finish was great in the new Golf, interior space had been increased; there was plenty of room for a pair of men on the test drive. The center stack in the new Golf was tilted toward the driver, the driver's seat was moved back creating more leg room and the white backlit controls gave the car an upscale feel which was Volkswagen's goal. Volkswagen said the interior trim featured soft-touch plastic, chrome, aluminum and piano-black finishes; that was plastic, too. But it all worked well and none of it looked or felt cheap in any of the models we test drove. The new Golf comes in two door or four door models; it can be equipped with either a turbocharged gasoline engine or a turbocharged diesel. Either powerplant can be mated to a six-speed manual or automatic six-speed transmission. Then there is the GTI. Every engine offered in the Golf lineup had or will have more horsepower, more torque and consume less fuel. First we test drove the new GTI. It had a 2.0-liter four-cylinder turbocharged engine that made 210 horsepower and 258 pound-feet of torque at an awfully low 1500 rpm. In the performance model, the engine makes 220 horsepower. The suspension had been stiffened, the dual clutch transmission shifted gears rapidly, body roll was minimized and the car stuck to the narrow twisting two lane roads of East Bay Hills and Tilden Park above Oakland without a tire screech. The car was quiet and mannerly as we went through the residential neighborhoods of Albany and Berkley that were filled with American Craftsman homes. Once we got to the lunch stop, we switched to a regular Golf. Powered by a 1.8-liter four-cylinder turbocharged engine that made 170 horsepower and 200 pound-feet of torque, we noticed that car didn't feel as tight as the GTI and there was more body roll as we were going through the hills of the North Bay area. That's one of the down sides of test driving the more muscular version of a car first. Still, the regular Golf performed well. This was a compact car meant to be driven every day, it had plenty of cargo space, up to 52 cu. ft. with the back seats folded, and it could fit four people nicely. You could imagine the car dirty, inside and out, from mundane usage and the owner coming to think of the Golf as a family member. Which is the feeling shared we think by most owners of late model Golfs. About the only complaint we had was that Volkswagen again has opted not to put a USB jack in the Golf and that probably will hold true of the rest of VW's lineup as it switches to the new electronic architecture. However, at least this time round, the in-house iPhone connection is for the latest generation. We got the chance to take the e-Golf for a short spin. This electric powered e-Golf will go on sale in the fourth quarter of 2014. A 700 lb. lithium-ion battery powered the electric motor. The 199 pound-feet of torque was immediate in this car. Beyond the relative silence, there was only a slight whine of the electric motor, the car had all the driving characteristics of an internal combustion driven Golf. The e-Golf will have a range of 70 to 90 miles and it will have a standard fast charging capability of 80 percent within 30 minutes. And to lessen what Volkswagen called range anxiety, the e-Golf comes with a roadside assistance plan. Prices start at $18,815 for the Volkswagen Golf, $22,815 for the Volkswagen Golf TDI (diesel) and $25,215 for the Volkswagen Golf GTI. Frank S. Washington is editor of AboutThatCar.com.
Like this Article? Share it!About The AuthorRelated PostsYou must be logged in to post a comment. |
| You are subscribed to email updates from car review - Google Blog Search To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
No comments:
Post a Comment