ccap41

I turned it off because I was going on vacation myself and wanted to stop the misuse of the voting system. I just wanted to have a relaxing vacation. Understandable, So where'd you go for vacation??

It doesn't nip my opinion in the bud, it just casts the weirdest f@#king light on your forum attitude. Your Ford shilling is undeniable, EVERYONE sees it. I don't care if you drive a Dodge Caravan and love it to pieces in real life, what you post online for everyone to see is some of the most egomaniacal trolling I've ever encountered. *Drops Mic*

Much like Olds and other posters, I have nothing against Ford (or FCA for that matter), I generally like their products. You just tend to bring out the worst in everyone, not sure how you still can't see that after repeated bans at MT. Ahhh yes, the ban card is played as a way to ignore my point about hypocrisy. Wings....its not only a ban from MT Forums... You cried to the mods once....they up voted my down votes... You cried to the mods twice...they fixed your downvotes a second time... You cried to the mods thrice...they removed th downvote system... I found this hilarous actually. I went on vacation and came back and I thought my phone just was being a dick. Come to find out that it had to be turned off?!?! That's today's society.. Gotta make everybody happy because one person unhappy...

Well, the tech it had still wasn't selling.. And "excellent ride" is just an opinion which(not factual) the buying public disagrees with. What exactly makes it better than the Corolla? I honestly do not know. But I doubt it is an overall better package than the Corolla just based on magazine comparisons where the Dart just isn't getting very high regards. Didn't the Dart have "EcoBoost" problems with not achieving close to its EPA numbers in testing as well? As for having a lame 1.4T at launch.. well that is what people are getting at here that FCA in general has problems and launching a car(pre FCA, I know) with a lame engine is a major issue and should NEVER happen and now the transmission issues with the brand new Cherokee as well. "Despite MultiAir II valvetrain magic, the 3293-pound Dart ranked last, both with EPA (26 combined) and Real MPG (27)"(2.4L engine at the 2014 Big Test of Compact cars. It did tie for second in the "features/amenities" category. And only one model year after being brand new it took 7th out of 7 in MT's Big Test of Compact cars. If you break down every car in this category there just isn't a really good reason to buy the Dart over anything else in its class in an objective manner. Also, The highest "as tested" price was $25,600. As an example, the Dart they used was $25,125 and it was a GT(GT starts at $21,645 and the base price is $16,495). And none of those are stripper models, pretty much loaded to the gills. The big brother SUVs to all of these start around 20-22k and move up to 35k. I built a Dart Limited and clicked every box including sticker packages and it was $27,895. That's a pretty basic CUV.. The Dar had no problems achieving or even beating it's MPG claims. the problem with the 1.4t was no torque and an uneven powerband. Also, 2 problems with that test, one autowriters drive the piss out of cars and 2, a 9 speed auto only in the heavier 200 with the same exact engine gets considerably OVER it's ratings? Makes no sense....... Wait, GT as different more aggressive gearing than other 2.4 Darts and as such is only rated around 30 on the Highway.......... Those CUVs I mentioned, all come pretty loaded at that price. Well, like I said, They decided to use the 1.4t having no tq and an uneven powerband.. Yes, auto journalists do run the piss out of the cars but they run the piss out of ALL of them, not just the Dart. And for having the most powerful engine it wasn't the quickest in any test either, all while achieving the worst mileage(both rating and their test). Like I said, It's just mid pack in almost every category and it sells like that. Nothing on Dodge's website says anything about the GT's gearing being different from the rest of the Dart lineup. It was rated the lowest of the group(mpg), which is a fail on their part. There shouldn't be any "compact" car in 2015 rated at only 31mpg highway that only makes 184hp. The Focus ST at 252hp/270tq is rated at 32highway/23city. The Golf GTI is 210hp and gets 34hwy/25city. What CUV is "pretty loaded" at less than 28k? And we're talking the stable mates to these which would be CX-5, Escape, CR-V, Tiguan, etc.

My test with the Volt was in winter time and it was fantastic. Just schlepping around town and plugging it in at night I got something like 700mpg since I never used the gas. I have a garage, so plugging it in wasn't an issue... pull in, close the door, pop the plug cover, plug it in, go inside. The great thing (possibly my favorite thing) about the Volt was the ability to turn it on remotely and have it pre-heat itself off of house current even with the garage door closed. Whoa. That's awesome. I really like the idea of te plug-in hybrid design. I like it more than any other hybrid drivetrain out there, as of now at least.

I completely agree. I don't see next year's numbers looking quite as good because almost everybody's numbers are up right now

I fixed that post for you. I fixed that for you too.

Well, the tech it had still wasn't selling.. And "excellent ride" is just an opinion which(not factual) the buying public disagrees with. What exactly makes it better than the Corolla? I honestly do not know. But I doubt it is an overall better package than the Corolla just based on magazine comparisons where the Dart just isn't getting very high regards. Didn't the Dart have "EcoBoost" problems with not achieving close to its EPA numbers in testing as well? As for having a lame 1.4T at launch.. well that is what people are getting at here that FCA in general has problems and launching a car(pre FCA, I know) with a lame engine is a major issue and should NEVER happen and now the transmission issues with the brand new Cherokee as well. "Despite MultiAir II valvetrain magic, the 3293-pound Dart ranked last, both with EPA (26 combined) and Real MPG (27)"(2.4L engine at the 2014 Big Test of Compact cars. It did tie for second in the "features/amenities" category. And only one model year after being brand new it took 7th out of 7 in MT's Big Test of Compact cars. If you break down every car in this category there just isn't a really good reason to buy the Dart over anything else in its class in an objective manner. Also, The highest "as tested" price was $25,600. As an example, the Dart they used was $25,125 and it was a GT(GT starts at $21,645 and the base price is $16,495). And none of those are stripper models, pretty much loaded to the gills. The big brother SUVs to all of these start around 20-22k and move up to 35k. I built a Dart Limited and clicked every box including sticker packages and it was $27,895. That's a pretty basic CUV..

Both of which they have: case closed you just destroyed your own case...... Hellcat has sold well but is only a drop in a very large bucket. Alfa has a long and challenging road to follow. It will never see 400,000 units by 2018. The 200 is selling well but not at the profits it needs The Dart is my drive this week. With some work it may measure up to a old Cruze. Such wind noise for a new car. that is funny, i have been in a few Darts and all were very quiet................ IMHO, you just hate the company so you want to see them fail. As such you will say anything that downplays them. Dart has one of the best interiors in i's class. Offers features most others in the class do not. It isn't the quickest or best handling, neither of which really matter in this class. While I personally like the Dart's looks the buyer isn't buying them compared to all of the stiff competition. It may be a good car but it isn't class leading in anything and it wasn't when it came out, that was a big mistake. For them to bring a brand new car to the market and not really do anything great in its class made it a flop. The magazines weren't buying it from the first reviews. MotorTrend had it 3rd out of 5 in a comparison, C/D had it lose to the Focus.. Right out of the box as a brand new car it wasn't anything specail, for its class. And it sells like that. It sells 9th out of 15 compact cars. Or 9th out of 13 if you get rid of the Buick Verano and Acura ILX as they are definitely above the rest of the compact crowd when it comes to pricing. Just under 55k sold YTD compared to the leaders at 220k Corola, 189K Civic, 150k Elantra, 149k Cruze, and 134k Focus. You may like it and I may like it. But the general population isn't a huge fan of it.

Wow the base engine is 164hp/151tq.. The optioned engine almost sounds like base engine specs..to me at least. But overall the Tuscon looks really good, actually. The Hyundais and Kias are slowly growing on me and I think this one is a winner in the looks depatrment. The interior looks nice, clean, and simple. Not too busy or too boring, I like that as well.

My dad would have bought one, closer to when they came out, for my mom. The concept is fantastic. He doesn't want full electric and the range issue, my mom lives 3 miles from her job(never even use gas), but they drive to my sister's in Iowa every couple of months(6hrs one way) or visit my brother at school(2+hrs one way). The only thing that kept him from buying one was the price. He's a very practical man and ran the numbers and it didn't logically make sense with the vehicle price so high still and the unknown of the brand new vehicle. They ended up with a '12 Fusion with the 2.5l.Nice car but I wish they would have held off till the '13's came out.

You're not alone. I love that idea. Tweak the heads a little, maybe for a little more top end and less bottom end(for that bragging rights number) and let'r rip. That's a pretty dang economical engine isn't it(as it is)? Definitely keep the active fuel management.. but when it's running in 4cy mode don't those engines do surprisingly well? Okay Just looked it up.. 355hp/385tq. Maybe adjust it a little more like 375hp/375tq. That would be an absolutely GREAT middle engine. They could just skip the 6 and go I4-V8-V8. I think it would sell like hotcakes being priced much more reasonably and giving the consumer a "cheap" V8 option. Love the idea.

^ first, I wouldn't get the ceramic brakes.. Second.. The odds of it hitting a road course would be slim to none. Third, I guarantee all of these cars performance well out does my skill level so I couldn't extract the performance out of them anyway.. Plus the "slowest" in this group is one heck of a car!

I dunno. Maybe put a little Post-it note on the sticker saying "the EPA and General Motors agree about what you should from this car at the pumps like Putin and Obama agree about the Ukraine." That should probably do the trick Hahaha Sounds good to me!

I'm not sure how upfront you're talking about because every window sticker her the "results may vary"... I dig the idea of a plus sized BRZ or Genesis killer. More Genesis as they are more similar in size.

I like it! But a turbo 4 making that much power is asking for EcoBoost numbers whether performance or fuel economy.. Regardless, I love the idea. Now that is one way to get people into the smaller more economical engine vehicles(it'll still get better mileage than a 6.2). What about even just 350hp..? I mean the car is going to weigh less than the current model so adding ~50hp and dropping 100lbs(low estimate) is a good swing in power to weight ratio. Then all of your 1LE suspension bits. Fun car.

Personally, I don't think it is getting its head handed to it.. but it is losing the sales battle. I just don't think it is any kind of ass whoopin'. Until the year is over(or close to) I'm not really concerned with overall sales. Every manufacturer does things different times of the year. Whether it be sales or trying to get rid of previous year's vehicles..

42mpg combined is what the writeup says. At least I took that as City/Highway/Combined - and the 42 was the "combined". I know it's 42 combined. A lot of hybrids, especially dedicated ones like the Prius, are higher than that. Oh I gotcha I gotcha..

42mpg combined is what the writeup says. At least I took that as City/Highway/Combined - and the 42 was the "combined".

Hahaha

53 miles of electric range then 42mpg after.. As long as it's priced right that sounds like one winning hybrid.

Wow, the Tacoma is still chugging along at a surprising rate. More than 17,000 Tacomas sold last month!

If you're on a mobile device, you'll be screwed.

'Bong, If you didn't know yet, larger or bold font means it is the absolute 100% truth. 100% of the time.

I always loved the ZL1. I feel like I never really heard much about it or saw them on the streets like I saw GT500s. I love how it was the big power, magneto shocks(whatever GM's patented name is) Camaro. It is pretty much the "gran tourer" of the segment. 580hp in the pervious gen. Lighter more power this time around(most likely). It'll be a beast, that's for sure. But I hope they don't try and do a hybrid of ZL1 and Z/28. I'd like to see the big power and comfy ride remain without it going too hardcore in the ride department.