new dodge dart

Post #353,412 by boxley 1/20/12 6:41:28 PM Reply	new dodge dart http://www.motortren..._2013_dodge_dart/ will look at this in late 2013 after they get the bugs worked out Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #353,413 by Another Scott 1/20/12 7:12:53 PM Reply	Looks interesting, it's too heavy; crap mileage, I'll bet...
Post #353,416 by Steve Lowe 1/20/12 8:12:11 PM Reply	Re: Looks interesting, it's too heavy; crap mileage, I'll be I read elsewhere (can't find it now) that the 1.4l turbo should get ~40mpg. I'd like to drive one, this is a turning-point car which sets the tone for future Chrysler/Fiat collaborative efforts. I dig the configurable dash, too.
Post #353,419 by Another Scott 1/20/12 8:35:16 PM Reply	Maybe. The 2012 Ford Focus SFE can get 40 EPA MPG on the highway. It weighs 2950 pounds. But the city rating is 28 mpg (33 mpg overall). New cars need to go on a diet... :-( E.g. http://autos.aol.com...11/expert-review/ <sigh> I hope the Dart does well, and more of FIAT's small-car DNA gets transferred across the pond quickly. I was hoping for more from the new Chryslers. Cheers, Scott.
Post #353,489 by mmoffitt 1/23/12 8:10:50 AM Reply	Um, not if you live where it snows. My Corolla is a fart in the wind from November through March every single year with even the slightest bit of slickness on the road.
Post #353,491 by Another Scott 1/23/12 8:31:04 AM Reply	Get softer tires. J's 1993 Corolla slid off the road at least once in the winter with the high-mileage (hard) Michelins I put on it. Softer tires made a huge difference. E.g. http://www.tirerack....partnum=96HR4EXAS Cheers, Scott.
Post #353,422 by scoenye 1/20/12 9:34:03 PM Reply	turbo => 91+ octane It'll work with the Fast & Furious crowd the dash is aimed at but someone looking at gas cost savings will think twice before buying a motor that commands a definite 20~30 c/gal premium over the others. I'd be really amazed if the thing reaches 40 mpg if you step on it hard enough to make the turbo worth the while. (I can hear the slurping sound on mine when the tach hits 3.5 k...) Granted, they have not yet released the compression specs for the Tigershark edition of the 2.0 and 2.4 so it is possible they all need 91+, but then they may be shooting themselves in both feet.
Post #353,512 by folkert 1/23/12 2:53:32 PM Reply	Looks like a Mitsubishi Lancer. maybe a bit more curved, but definitely same forms and styling.

Welcome to IWETHEY!